PREMESSA
Quella in commento risulta, al momento (febbraio 2010), la prima sentenza di condanna a carico di Enti in conseguenza della commissione - da parte delle persone fisiche ricoprenti, all'interno di essi, funzioni di rappresentanza – dei reati di omicidio colposo e lesioni personali gravi colpose, delitti inseriti (nel “catalogo”, contenuto nel d. lgs. n. 231/2001, dei reati generanti responsabilità “amministrativa” a carico degli Enti) dall'art. 9, comma 1, of Law 123/2007, which entered in that "list" art. 25 f, later replaced by Article article. 300, d. lgs. No 81/2008.
The ruling is of particular interest because, besides containing a precise and accurate "view" - according to what can now be defined as a leitmotif of the judgments on liability "administrative" to be paid by the bodies - of the provisions contained in d. lgs. No 231/2001, spreads over the dogmatic question of the compatibility requirements of the 'interest "and the" advantage "for the body, with the structure (negligence) of the crimes referred to in art. F 25 of the Decree. No 231/2001.
The Court of Trani also emphasizes the functional difference is not always perceived ontologically and received by non-lawyers, including the organizational model that Article. 6 D. lgs. No 231/2001 derives (if prepared in advance with the commission of the offenses were) the exemption from liability "administrative" document of the Authority and the assessment of risks as regulated by Article. 26 and 28 d. lgs. No 81/2008, excluding the presence of the second to "substitute" the absence of the first.
Finally, the decision is of particular interest because it considered the causal efficacy in the production of death and personal injury events, the conduct by omission of the company in his time in charge, by companies subject to the procedure for establishing "administrative" liability, advice on safety at work.
§ 1. THE FACT
The object of each sentence in comment about the charges - carried out by the legal representatives of several companies, linked together by articles of contract and subcontracting relationships - of manslaughter (art. 589 cp) and grievous bodily negligence (Article 590, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 cp), committed against employees of those companies.
The facts can be summarized as follows: The transport company "X" is awarded a contract by "K" (Acquiring company, the company that makes and sells "Z", a quantity of sulfur in the molten state) to transport the material. Then, after carrying out the transportation, the company "X", in agreement with the company "K", decided to convert nine of the "tank container" used to transport the sulfur to the transport of various substances (sulfuric acid). Thus, the company "X" contract to "Y" (which "X" is the most important customer) washing the internal "container" to free from residues of molten sulfur. In turn, "Y" subappalta il lavaggio delle cisterne alla società “W”.
A distanza di poco più di due mesi dal trasporto dello zolfo, un operaio alla dipendenze di “W”, in esecuzione degli ordini impartiti, si introduce con l'uso di una scala, privo dei necessari dispositivi di sicurezza (imbracatura e autorespiratore), all'interno di un “container” e perde la vita per aver inalato le esalazioni di acido solfidrico liberate dallo zolfo fuso.
Analoga sorte subiscono altri operai dipendenti da “W”, nonché il legale rappresentante della stessa, calatisi a “ondate” successive nella cisterna per prestare soccorso al primo operaio e ai successivi che, via via, perdono la vita. Other workers dependent on "W" Finally, show, always in a vain and desperate attempt to help his friends, serious personal injury.
The defendants, legal representatives of company "X" and "Y" (against the legal representative of "W", of course, was subsequently pronounced art. 150 cp declarator of expiry of the offense for the death of the offender) is charged Profile of guilt consists in the violation of the laws, regulations, orders and guidelines on the ways and the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations.
For the profile that are interested in here, the company "X", "Y" and "W" (the latter in view of the fact that, pursuant to art. 8 of legislative decree no. 231/2001, the company's responsibility exists even if the offenses were lapses for a different cause amnesty) is challenged by the administrative offense provided in conjunction with Articles. 5, paragraph 1, letter a) and b) and 25 f the d. lgs. No 231/2001, an official from the commission of these offenses of manslaughter and negligently causing serious injury.
The negligent conduct which have prompted the death and injury have occurred since December of 2007, so after the entry into force of Law No 3 August 2007 123, which included (in art. 25 f) the case criminal negligent homicide and bodily injury in the "catalog" of the crimes contained in d. lgs. No 231/2001, creating administrative responsibility of the entity: the Court was thus able to refer companies to the procedure under d. lgs. No 231/2001 for the establishment of administrative responsibility by the Board descendant of these offenses.
Moreover, as we say below, pursuant to art. 3, paragraph 2 of d. lgs. No 231/2001 (which provides, in the event of a succession of several laws in time, the application form that is most favorable to the entity), was imposed the more lenient treatment of penalties provided by the (then in force) art. 300, d. lgs. No 81/2008, which amended Art. 25 f, d. lgs. No 231/2001.
§ 2. THE INCLUSION IN "CATALOG" OF CRIMES-CONDITION OF LIABILITY '"ADMINISTRATION" OF THE BODY, THE CRIME OF ARTICLES. 589 and 590, CP
In the third paragraph gives the government the responsibility for the reform of legislation on safety and health at work, the law 3 August 2007 123 had extended the scope of predicate offenses of administrative liability, governed by d. lgs. No 231/2001.
The legislature chose to immediately operationalize the intervention on d. lgs. No 231/2001, unless embedded in the delegation.
In particolare, l’art. 9 della legge n. 123/2007, introducendo l’art. 25 septies, d. lgs. n. 231/2001, aveva previsto che, in relazione ai delitti di cui agli artt. 589 e 590, comma 3, c.p. (omicidio colposo e lesioni personali colpose gravi e gravissime commessi con violazione delle norme antinfortunistiche e sulla tutela dell’igiene e della salute sul lavoro), si applicasse una sanzione pecuniaria in misura non inferiore a mille quote e che, nel caso di condanna per uno dei due delitti, si applicassero le sanzioni interdittive di cui all’art. 9, comma 2, d. lgs. n. 231/2001.
Già la legge 29 settembre 2000 n. 300, nel fissare i principi generali della responsabilità amministrativa da reato degli enti, had contemplated among the predicate offenses such incriminatici case, but the legislator operated what might be called "minimalist", consisting in excluding from the original version of the catalogs of all predicate offenses intentional torts - including, for ' in fact, those under Articles. 589 and 590 cp - listed in Art. 11 of Law No 300/2000, limiting the liability of legal entities only to the case of arson.
The inclusion in the catalog of these cases represents an event of significant scope, provided that if - prior to that entry - the medium and small size (which in our country are the majority) could not be induced to adopt compliance programs (organizational models), since August 2007, the situation has changed radically.
examining in detail the art. F introduced by Article 25. 9 of Law No 123/2007, we note that with regard to the crime of bodily harm, the standard limit the scope of its application only to cases worsened in the third paragraph of art. 590 cp
In light of the principle of legality, then, the company's responsibility was (and is now, even after the enactment of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008) except whenever a violation of regulations lead to accident prevention only a slight injury.
The predicate offense must be perfect in all its components, both objective and subjective, and must have been committed in the interest or advantage of the body by a person qualified as indicated in Art. 5 d. lgs. 231/2001.
E 'must be proved the link between the causative event (death or injury) and guilty of a violation of the special disciplines referred to in art. 25 cf.
It is not sufficient for the configurability of the crimes in question, the contravention of the rule of precaution, but it is also necessary that the harmful event represents the translation, the realization of a risk that the same rule violated was intended to prevent.
Moreover, it should be noted that according to settled case law, the view of special legislation on safety at work does not exhaust the duties of prevention of the entrepreneur, however, recipient of the general duty of protection enshrined in the workplace. 2087 of the Civil Code, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions (Cass. Sez. IV 04/07/2006). Given the vagueness of the reference made in Art. 25 f to the "rule of prevention" must therefore be stated that the responsibility of the institution even if it constitutes the rebuke the offender, his assumption is based on failure of the general duty of care imposto dall'art. 2087 del codice civile.
Il Tribunale di Trani, nella sentenza in commento, ha accertato, nel caso di specie, proprio la violazione dell'art. 2087 del codice civile, per non avere il legale rappresentante della società “W” ottemperato all'obbligo giuridico di garantire l'incolumità fisica e la salvaguardia della personalità morale dei prestatori di lavoro dipendenti.
In particolare, il Tribunale ha accertato che il legale rappresentante di “W” (la società che aveva ricevuto in subappalto dalla società “Y” il lavaggio delle cisterne):
aveva omesso l'elaborazione del documento contenente la relazione sulla valutazione dei rischi per la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori dipendenti, non solo con riferimento alla generica attività di autolavaggio e rimessaggio ma anche con riferimento all'attività di bonifica successivamente intrapresa;
aveva omesso la preventiva determinazione, nella suddetta valutazione, dell'eventuale presenza di agenti chimici pericolosi sul luogo di lavoro, e in particolare dell'acido solfidrico, circostanza facilmente verificabile attraverso l'utilizzo di misuratori o indicatori reperibili in commercio;aveva omesso la valutazione anche dei rischi per la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori derivanti dalla presenza di tale agente chimico;
aveva omesso di richiedere al committente la consegna della “scheda dati di sicurezza” relativa al prodotto trasportato from the vat to be reclaimed;
had failed to eliminate risks arising from chemical, not providing appropriate equipment for specific jobs, not to minimize the duration and intensity of exposure and not by adopting suitable working procedures, including provisions ensured the safe handling of waste containing hydrogen sulphide;
had failed to provide workers engaged in the remediation and special op car wash, the necessary personal protective equipment, in particular apparatus and equipped with safety belts restraint and recall and not a suitable harness system attached to an outside lift system so as to give l'immediata risalita dell'operaio in caso di emergenza e/o il suo salvataggio dall'esterno da parte di altri operai con funzioni di sorveglianza;
non aveva informato e formato gli altri lavoratori circa i rischi derivanti dalla bonifica di cisterne, né li aveva istruiti in relazione alle misure di emergenza da adottare per il pronto soccorso, in caso di pericolo grave e immediato connesso al lavaggio delle cisterne;
aveva omesso di istruire gli operai all'utilizzo della cintura di sicurezza del tipo sopra citato.
Era emerso, in particolare, che si trattava di operai generici, certamente non addestrati per la pericolosa attività cui erano stati adibiti.
Per quanto riguarda il legale rappresentante di “X” (la contracting company to company "Y" flush tanks), the Court found the omission of Trani, by the latter, the obligations of management and supervision, in particular, had not planned the remediation of the tank or watched over it, though he was exclusively and directly responsible for the organizational unit of the company "X", institution that takes care of the highly specialized transport of chemicals, with decision-making and operational costs for this industry. Returning Article
examination. 25 f in the formulation prior to the entry into force of Legislative lgs. No 81/2008, we note that, with regard to the apparatus sanzionatorio, esso poteva, a ragione, definirsi draconiano.
Invero, il primo comma dell’art. 25 septies prevedeva che l’accertamento della responsabilità dell’ente per i reati di omicidio colposo e di lesioni personali colpose aggravate comportava l’irrogazione di una sanzione pecuniaria “non inferiore a mille quote”, che corrispondeva, poi, al limite massimo previsto dall’art. 10, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 231/2001.
Il conto è presto fatto: nel caso delle lesioni (oltre che dell’omicidio colposo), moltiplicando il minimo del valore attribuibile alla quota in base al terzo comma dell’art. 10 del d. lgs. n. 231/2001 (vale a dire euro 258,00) per 1.000, la sanzione pecuniaria minima ammonta ad euro 258.000,00: il che era veramente eccessivo, in relazione al reato di lesioni colpose sia pure aggravate (reato, si ricorda, per cui è prevista la pena della multa alternativa alla reclusione), soprattutto se si rapporta la situazione ad altre fattispecie di reati-presupposto della responsabilità degli enti, per i quali, a fronte di una previsione edittale di pena ben superiore, è prevista una sanzione pecuniaria sensibilmente inferiore.
Per tale motivo, è da salutare con favore l’art. 300, d. lgs. n. 81/2008, che ha sostituito l’art. 25 septies, d. lgs. n. 231/2001, dettando una disciplina articolata, in relazione al tipo di reato presupposto della responsabilità entity:
a) in relation to the crime under Article. Cp 589 (manslaughter), committed in violation of Article. 55, paragraph 2, d. lgs. No 81/2008, the fine is intended for the determined to the extent of "one thousand shares (and not to an extent" not less than one thousand shares') (therefore, the minimum fine would amount to € 258,000.00) and confirmed the applicability of the disqualification penalties from three months to one year;
b) in relation to the crime under Article forever. Cp 589, unreservedly committed in violation of safety rules, the fine is set equal to 250 to 500 shares (therefore, the fine is between € 64,500.00 and € 129,000.00: provision was made effective amount prescribed scissors) and, if convicted for this crime, it is expected the application of the disqualification penalties from three months to one year;
the "watershed" between the two cases is, therefore, traced by the reference to breach of Article. 55, paragraph 2 of legislative decree implementing the powers provided for in Law No 3 August 2007 123 (although the reference to the violation appears inappropriate, because Article 55. Is not under precept, but only on penalties, and therefore could not be violated), which violation, in this case, has not been ascertained by the Court di Trani, che configura alcune ipotesi aggravate delle contravvenzioni previste dal primo comma del medesimo articolo (per i lavoratori e i dirigenti) di omessa valutazione dei rischi e di omessa o incompleta adozione del relativo documento e quella di omessa nomina del responsabile del servizio di prevenzione e protezione. Le aggravanti menzionate, invece, riguardano l’ipotesi che le condotte incriminate nel primo comma siano commesse nell’ambito di alcuni tipi di imprese (per esempio le aziende industriali con più di 200 dipendenti o quelle in cui i lavoratori siano esposti all’amianto). In definitiva, l’art. 25 septies comma 1 d. lgs. n. 231/2001 avrebbe dovuto evocare la violazione del primo comma dell’art. 55 d. lgs. n. 81/2008, ovvero, ancora più correttamente, di quelle che pongono gli obblighi sanzionati da quest’ultimo articolo.
Va sottolineato, in ogni caso, che la violazione della norma di prevenzione rileva solo nella misura in cui la stessa assuma rilievo nella causazione dell’evento proprio del delitto di omicidio colposo.
È il delitto di omicidio colposo e non la contravvenzione antinfortunistica che rappresenta il vero reato-presupposto della responsabilità dell’ente.
In definitiva, per entrambe le fattispecie, il reato presupposto è quello di omicidio colposo aggravato dalla violazione di norme antinfortunistiche e le due ipotesi si differenziano solo perché in quella del primo comma è specificamente determinata la interim rule violated.
This means that the most serious cases only when there is, indeed, in the consummation of the offenses were violation of a specific protective standards referred to in art. 55 d. lgs. No 81/2008, at least assume the role of causal factor, while in all other cases, the offense will be configurable as stipulated in Article. 25 paragraph 2 f d. lgs. No 231/2001;
c) with regard to the crime under Article. Cp 590 (bodily harm), challenged the ruling under review, committed in violation of safety rules, the fine is established in a "not more than 250 shares (the penalty therefore can not exceed € 64,500.00, and the lower edge of the gap amount prescribed must be obtained from the general provision of Article. 10 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, which determines the 100 shares, for which the penalty is equal to € 25,800.00) and, if convicted for this crime, it is expected the application of the disqualification sanctions "for a maximum of six months. "
It is noted that the period of disqualification was finally graduated penalties depending on the seriousness of the predicate offense. The new wording of Article
. 25 f, introduced by Art. 300, d. lgs. No 81/2008, attempts to remedy some of the discrepancies previously reported.
E ', however, necessary to question the legitimacy of legislation in terms of the limits of the authority granted by Law No. 123, 2007. Under that law, in fact, the legislature had already taken steps to regulate the individual subject, taking it away from the formal delegation.
Article. 300, d. lgs. 81/2008 may therefore represent a defect of over-delegation, the more significant because the provision in question affect legislative decisions made with the same enabling act.
§ 3. COMPATIBILITY OF THE 'REQUIREMENTS' "INTEREST" AND "THE ADVANTAGE" WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE CRIME OF NEGLIGENCE IN ART. 25 f DECREE LGS. N. 231/2001
Notes are the considerations on a doctrinal level in relation to those offenses, about the current wording of Article. 5 D. lgs. No 231/2001, laying down, as an alternative, the objective criteria for allocating the responsibility of the Government, namely the 'interest "and the" advantage "(Article 5:" The institution is responsible for the crimes committed in his interest or to its advantage "). Both the concept of "interest" as that of "advantage", in fact, seem to have a stronger line on the charge of intentional abuse of the institution consumed within it, while highly problematic may be the actual ability of these concepts to serve as a liaison between the institution indices and intentional torts (such are the crimes mentioned in Article. f 25 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001).
The ruling under review provides an account of doctrinal disputes about the compatibility of the requirements of the 'interest "and the" advantage "with the structure of criminal negligence introduced by Law No. 123/2007, pointing out that was not properly weighed the fact that these crimes (those under Articles. 589 and 590 cp) are crimes of events resulting from negligent conduct characterized by neglect, carelessness, inexperience (cd guilt generic) or by failure to leggi, regolamenti, ordini o discipline (c.d. colpa specifica).
Orbene, osserva il Tribunale di Trani, se da un lato la morte e le lesioni rappresentano l'evento, dall'altro proprio la condotta costituisce il fatto colposo alla base della produzione dell'evento. Ne discende che, laddove nel realizzare la condotta il soggetto agisca nell'interesse dell'ente, la responsabilità amministrativa di quest’ultimo non potrebbe negarsi; responsabilità che sussisterebbe anche allorquando l'ente abbia comunque tratto vantaggio (ad esempio nella forma di un risparmio dei costi per l'adozione delle misure di prevenzione) dalla condotta colposa.
Pertanto, per il Tribunale, i requisiti dell'”interesse” e del “vantaggio” appear to be fully compatible with the structure of the negligence alleged offenses, having to determine whether the conduct that caused the event death or injury has been dictated by choice or not objectively within the sphere of interest of the institution or whether it has resulted in at least one benefit 'interest in this, with no apparent exclusive interests of others (remember, in this regard that under the second paragraph of art. 5 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, the institution is not liable if the subjects of the authors offenses were acted solely in the interests of third parties).
A different interpretation, the Court concluded, would lead to practical administrative failure to apply the offense against the Body, because it is really impensabile che gli eventi morte o lesioni possano costituire un interesse o generare un vantaggio per l'Ente.
Il Tribunale di Trani, per quanto riguarda i reati commessi dal legale rappresentante di “W”, ha ritenuto che essi siano stati realizzati nell'interesse e a vantaggio di quest'ultima società.
Infatti, il Tribunale ha accertato che l'incarico di eseguire la bonifica della cisterne era stato accettato da “W” allo scopo di aprire “nuovi orizzonti” alla società, con la previsione di profitti prima di allora insperati e di ampi margini di affermazione territoriale in un settore – quello della bonifica delle cisterne – privo di valida concorrenza nell'area operativa regionale della società.
Tale incarico era stato però accettato dalla società nella consapevolezza di non essere in possesso di un piano per la valutazione dei rischi chimici, né era stata sostenuta la spesa per effettuare tale valutazione. E nemmeno le spese per adeguare l'impianto allo smaltimento di rifiuti pericolosi, né quelle per una consulenza chimica e ambientale, per i necessari dispositivi di protezione individuale degli operai, per la loro formazione, per l'acquisto di segnali di pericolo nella zona lavorativa, per gli apparecchi di rilevamento di agenti pericolosi per la salute e così via.
I risparmi di spesa ottenuti da “W”, per il Tribunale, sono stati considerevoli e da ciò deriva che non può essere revoked in doubt, in view of the above noted, the responsibility of the Authority under d. lgs. No 231/2001.
As for the crimes committed by the legal representative of "X", the Court held that the negligent conduct of meanings he had generated economic benefits for society, having been to avoid inconveniences and costs associated with the complex search for an appropriate and having been entrusted, however, the incapacitated company "Y", occupatasi never before had the dangerous and delicate task of cleaning up the tanks involved and the only reason for the continuous contact for the service contract for road and thus is interested in satisfy all claims of "X", anche a causa dell'accertata influenza di quest'ultima società su “Y”, derivante dalla posizione dominante nel rapporto negoziale. Aveva, inoltre, “X”, evitato le spese connesse con lo spostamento della cisterna in altro luogo attrezzato per la bonifica, sicuramente più lontano dalla città in cui aveva sede la società “W”, alla quale “Y” aveva successivamente subappaltato la bonifica.
§4. LA NON “SURROGABILITA'” DEL MODELLO ORGANIZZATIVO EX D. LGS. N. 231/2001 CON IL DOCUMENTO VALUTAZIONE RISCHI EX D. LGS. N. 81/2008
Il Tribunale passa, poi, all'esame degli articoli 6 e 7 del d. lgs. n. 231/2001.
Come noto, tale articolo, the first paragraph, letter a) provides that - where the management bodies of the have taken, before the commission of the offenses were of the administrative liability of a model of organization and management appropriate to prevent crimes one occurred, the Authority is not held accountable and it can not, therefore, be subject to the penalties provided for in d. lgs. No 231/2001.
models of organization, management and control have been called "the core" d. lgs. No 231/2001. In fact, their adoption and effective implementation has a double meaning: If prepared in advance, determining exemption from liability of the body; if implemented after the commission of the crime (if prior to the opening statement of the trial of first instance: art. 12 d. lgs. No 231/2001), involving the reduction of the sanction of inapplicability prohibitive sanctions, and also possibility, in the executive to demand conversion of the penalty fine in disqualification.
models, the d. lgs. No 231/2001 treated in articles. 6 and 7: the first in relation to crimes committed by cc.dd. "Top" (people who are representatives, directors or management body) and the second in reference to offenses employed by the persons under the direction or supervision of the "top" (Employees, project workers, consultants, employees, agents, distributors, dealers selling).
The Court found that the company "Y" that the company "W" were not provided, or prior to the occurrence of events or death and injuries later, before the opening of the hearing of an organizational model: with the result dell'inapplicabilità outcome of which art. 6 D. lgs. No 231/2001 and even the reduction of the fine art. 12 d. lgs. No 231/2001.
The Court considered the responsibility of the company "Y" when, in response to the request of the company "X" (client di primo piano della società “Y”) di procedere alla bonifica della cisterna, si era attivata per soddisfare tale richiesta avventurandosi in un campo mai da essa curato prima (quello della bonifica delle cisterne), reperendo una società, “W”, priva delle capacità professionali necessarie.
Sotto il profilo dell'art. 5 d. lgs. n. 231/2001 era interesse di “Y” non scontentare “X”, perseguendo così un interesse di impresa onde evitare che una lacuna operativa potesse essere colmata da terzi in grado poi di sostituirsi ad essa nelle relazioni contrattuali con “X”.
Individuando con scriteriate modalità “W”, “Y” aveva ottenuto an economic benefit, represented by the consideration for the transport of the tanks of "X" from the railway station to the plant of "W", and for the return trip: the voices of the bill of "Y", in fact, held the distinct cost of travel and reimbursement of remediation.
society also "W", as described above, lacked the organizational model.
The defense of The "W" had attempted to argue the equivalence between these models and documents, and therefore the perfect "surrogabilità" model of organizations lack the risk assessment document, also written in the period following the tragic events.
The ruling on this point is of particular interest because it contains a detailed examination of the functional difference is often not perceived ontologically, between the organizational model that Article. 6 D. lgs. No 231/2001 derives (if prepared in advance with the commission of the offenses were) the exemption from administrative liability of the document and the evaluation of risks as regulated by Article. 26 and 28 d. lgs. No 81/2008.
's attempt to defend society "W" has been "rejected" by the Court, on the basis of their different functions and purposes covered by the two documents. Although some overlaps between them are possible, the model Organizational d. lgs. No 231/2001 is characterized - in contrast to the former risk assessment document d. lgs. No 81/2008 - also from the surveillance system on the effective observance of the model, with disciplinary powers to the same expectations of Supervisory Board, for violations of the measures envisaged by the model.
Another important difference is that in the organizational model must be given the forecasts of how to manage financial resources in order to prevent the commission of crimes.
The Court then noted that while the risk assessment document is addressed to workers, informing them of the dangers that characterize certain situations within the production process, the organizational model is designed not so much to these workers, as subjects ("top" or "subject" within the organizational entity) at risk of committing crimes in this case those of murder and bodily harm , urging them to adopt standards of operation and decision-making.
The risk assessment document can not substitute for an organizational and management model, which is geared for different purposes, although indirectly, also in favor of workers, and resulting regulatory structure by implementing primary branches, marked and versatile.
As for the company "X", the Court has confirmed the presence an organizational model adopted by resolution dated February 28, 2007, long before the occurrence of the negligent conduct of the serious offenses originating in question and, in any event before the entry into force of several times that law 3 August 2007 123. Therefore, this model could not cover the crimes provided by art. F the 25 d. lgs. No 231/2001.
Company "X", later during the discussion process, the decision under review, adopted an organizational model, only to mitigate the effects of its administrative responsibility and a reduction of the fine irroganda.
The Court had, therefore, focus on applicability to the case, art. 12, second paragraph, letter b) of d. lgs. No 231/2001, which foresees a reduction of the penalty (by a third to half) if prior to the opening statement of the trial of first instance, the Board adopts or makes a model operating organization capable of preventing the kind of crimes that occurred.
On the basis of careful examination of the form drawn up (belatedly) from "X", the Court has found what it called a "very serious gap," relating to its risk situations such as occurred in this case.
The model, in fact, did not take into account the risks arising from the contacts that the company "X" might have with third parties in relation to possible events at the expense of employees of the latter.
The Court found that the risk control could not end within the organizational structure and business of the company "X", but was necessary to extend the same standards compliance by individuals who - directly or indirectly - could get into contact with the chemicals present in the transport company "X".
In other words, the model of "X" should contain specific procedures to ensure the passage of information on risks arising from handling of hazardous substances in relationships with other companies to operate services to the calls of "X".
Nor was prepared and activated a procedure for making such a precise definition of legal entities from elsewhere, which ensure, in terms of negotiations, business and legal services in all types of specialized area of \u200b\u200bchemistry, in order to avoid damage to Public employees of third parties in the workplace are not directly controlled by "X".
The Court therefore concluded that the inability of the model of "X" to prevent the commission of crimes similar to what occurred.
§ 5. Determining penalties
As for the actual determination penalties paid by the bodies involved, the Court noted the switch - as stated above, in the sense most favorable to the Government - Article. F the 25 d. lgs. No 231/2001 by art. 300, d. lgs. No 81/2008, had to apply the rules more favorable, under Article. 3, second paragraph (even if the sentence is wrongly declared the third paragraph: ed) of d. lgs. No 231/2001, which provides that "if the law of the time when the offense was committed and the following are different, that applies the provisions of which are more favorable (...)".
not having been found to infringe Article. 55, paragraph two of the d. lgs. n. 81/2008, il Tribunale, per quanto riguarda l'omicidio colposo plurimo, ha applicato la sanzione pecuniaria di cui al secondo comma dell'art. 25 septies del d. lgs. n. 231/2001, che prevede l'applicazione di una sanzione pecuniaria in misura non inferiore a 250 quote e non superiore a 500 quote.
Per quanto riguarda le lesioni colpose gravi (art. 590, commi 1, 2, 3 e 5 c.p.), ha applicato la sanzione di cui all'art. 25 septies comma terzo del d. lgs. n. 231/2001, che prevede l'applicazione di una sanzione pecuniaria non superiore a 250 quote.
Il Tribunale, premesso che si trattava di plurimi reati commessi nello svolgimento di una medesima attività, con conseguente applicazione (ai sensi dell'art. 21 del d. lgs. n. 231/2001), per gli omicidi e le lesioni, della sanzione pecuniaria prevista per l'illecito più grave (l'omicidio), aumentata fino al triplo, ha proceduto come segue alla determinazione delle sanzioni, in applicazione dell'inedita (per l'ordinamento italiano) disciplina “a struttura bifasica”, contenuta nel d. lgs. n. 231/2001 (che rimette al giudice una duplice determinazione: la prima riguardante il numero delle quote, basata sui tradizionali indici di gravità dell'illecito e la seconda avente per oggetto il valore monetario della singola quota, secondo il parametro delle condizioni economico-patrimoniali dell'Ente).
Per quanto concerne la determinazione del numero delle quote, in applicazione dei criteri indicati dall'art. 11, d. Decree No 231/2001 (ie: the seriousness of the act, the degree of responsibility of the Authority and the work done to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of the incident and to prevent the commission of further offenses) and the amount attributable to each share (which, under the combined provisions of Articles. 10, third paragraph and 11 second paragraph of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, ranging from a minimum to a maximum of € 258.00 € 1549.00 and must be determined on the basis of economic conditions and property of the Authority, to ensure the effectiveness of the sanction), the Court held the following considerations, including for the purpose of mitigating the exclusion under Article. 12 d. lgs. No 231/2001:
a) i reati sono stati commessi nell'interesse o per il vantaggio (nelle accezioni sopra specificate) degli Enti, non essendo stati accertati fini strettamente personali delle persone fisiche imputate;
b) i danni arrecati sono stati gravissimi, avuto riguardo all'elevato numero di soggetti deceduti e gravemente lesi;
c)non sono stati adottati modelli organizzativi e gestionali;
d) non sono stati offerti risarcimenti alle famiglie delle vittime;
e) la “W” (la società che aveva ricevuto in subappalto dalla società “Y” il lavaggio delle cisterne) è una società di modeste dimensioni e con contenuta capacità patrimoniale;
f) la “Y” è una società with a turnover of relief even if it is found to operate under the "pressure" dominant company "X";
g) the company "X" to which the Court attaches liability for the negligent conduct of two of his players, has a very strong financial and economic condition.
Based on the foregoing, the Court ordered the company "X" to pay the fine of € 1,400,000.00 (applied as a sanction "base" that resulting from the multiplication of 400 shares to the value of € 1,500, 00 and reaching that amount as a result of the increase pursuant to art. 21 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001) and the company "Y" and "W" to pay the fine of € 400,000.00 (as applicable penalty "base" that resulting from the multiplication of 400 shares to the value of € 500.00 and reaching that amount to effect of the Article. 21 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001).
The Court has decided not to apply the disqualification sanctions in Article. 9, paragraph two of the d. lgs. No 231/2001 since it was established that the bodies had been taken from the crime of high magnitude and a profit as it lacked the condition represented by the recurrence of abuse (which occurs when the body, already convicted in a final at least one time for a mistake by former d. lgs. No 231/2001, or engage in another five years after the final sentence).
§ 6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR 'THE COMPANY' ADVISORY
The ruling is of particular interest is the extent to which recognize an administrative liability "J", which was responsible, prior to the tragic events, the company "W" of the security consulting.
The Court has sent copies of the documents to the Prosecutor's Office ensure that, inter alia, for the offense and "administrative", and are charged to the legal representative of the "J" and the latter Ente.
Le omissioni di seguito descritte, ad avviso del Tribunale, ascrivibili alla società di consulenza e al legale rappresentante di essa, si sono inserite senza dubbio nella sequela causale delle condotte colpose che hanno determinato gli eventi morte e lesioni.
In particolare, il Giudice ha ritenuto che, essendo palese la presenza, all'interno di “W”, di strumenti per la pulizia interna delle cisterne, “J” avrebbe dovuto segnalare, tra i generali pericoli da evitare, quello di un accesso non protetto degli operai confinati in tali spazi.
Avrebbe dovuto, inoltre, imporre alla società “W” una preventiva verifica del carico precedentemente contenuto nella cisterna e della eventuale presenza di residui pericolosi: viceversa, il Tribunale ha accertato che “J” - peraltro molto affermata nel settore della sicurezza – si era limitata a un superficiale e parziale sopralluogo aziendale, trascurando di impartire prescrizioni cautelari di prudenza, anche banali e di segnalare i rischi, anche generici, connessi con il lavaggio interno delle cisterne.
Il Tribunale, in relazione alla società di consulenza, correttamente, precisa che “non si deve mai dimenticare ciò che non può essere mai dato per scontato: gli adempimenti dei consulenti in materia di sicurezza sul lavoro non sono attività di routine, ma servono a proteggere le persone dai pericoli presenti nell'ambiente lavorativo”.
Mr. Antonio Salvatore
0 comments:
Post a Comment