ERA-GUI-100.pdf - Europa

ERA-GUI-100.pdf - Europa ERA-GUI-100.pdf - Europa

05.07.2015 Views

Guide for the application of the Art 14 (a) of the Safety Directive and Commission Regulation (EU) No 445/2011 on a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons – VERSION 1.0 necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. In particular, the EU has adopted two regulations, one dealing with the law applicable to contractual obligations and the other one dealing with the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (See respectively Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)). These two regulations establish a set of binding rules of private international law which determine which (national) law is applicable. So EU Regulations applicable to ECM are “Without prejudice to civil liability in accordance with the legal requirements of the Member States” (See Article 4(3) of the Safety Directive) or “without prejudice to existing national and international liability rules” (See Article 7(4) of the Safety Directive). An ECM is liable to its contract partners (RU, IM, keepers, etc.) for breaches of contract (as provided in the contract and in the law governing the contract) whereas it is liable for damages caused to others than its contract partners (or to its contract partners but outside the scope of the contract) under the national laws governing the damage and the resulting liability. Court jurisdiction Article 6(3) of the ECM Regulation provides that “Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that decisions taken by the certification bodies are subject to judicial review”. Article 7(5) of the same Regulation provides that “The certification body shall set out in detail the reasons on which each of its decisions is based. The certification body shall notify its decision and the reasons to the entity in charge of maintenance, together with an indication of the process, time limit for appeal and the contact details of the appeal body”. The “appeal body” referred to in the ECM Regulation is not a new body to be established by the Member States but rather an existing judicial (or administrative) body within the Member State where the certification body is established competent to hear appeal cases by applicants ECM against decisions of such certification body. 9.8 When a new authorisation for placing into service is necessary? New authorisation for placing in service of vehicle is not required when substituted parts are compliant with references or specifications in the technical file. For instance, in the case of the substitution of a wheel by another one complying with the specification of the technical file, it would not be necessary to proceed to a new authorisation for placing in service neither a communication to the NSA. It should only be necessary to have this substitution recorded in the configuration file of the vehicle. This information is, of course, available to NSAs upon request. If the specification of the new parts impairs the design operating state, it is considered as a major change of the technical design and possibly leads to a new authorisation for placing in service according to the Interoperability Directive. Page | 64

Guide for the application of the Art 14 (a) of the Safety Directive and Commission Regulation (EU) No 445/2011 on a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons – VERSION 1.0 In case of such major change, the ECM could be the applicant for this new authorisation. In any case, the ECM should manage it through contractual arrangements with the RU/keeper and taking in consideration: The existing authorisation for placing in service; The guarantee of the vehicle by the manufacturer. Other different question is if the fact, that the specification of the new parts impairs the design operating state, could be considered as a significant change affecting safety. In this case it is necessary to evaluate by the proposer (ECM) of the change if the change is relevant and, if it is the case, to apply the Common safety Method on Risk Assessment and Evaluation[4]. Page | 65

Guide for the application of the Art 14 (a) of the Safety Directive and Commission Regulation (EU) No 445/2011<br />

on a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons – VERSION 1.0<br />

necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. In particular, the EU has adopted<br />

two regulations, one dealing with the law applicable to contractual obligations and the other one<br />

dealing with the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (See respectively Regulation (EC) No<br />

593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to<br />

contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and<br />

of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)).<br />

These two regulations establish a set of binding rules of private international law which determine<br />

which (national) law is applicable.<br />

So EU Regulations applicable to ECM are “Without prejudice to civil liability in accordance with the<br />

legal requirements of the Member States” (See Article 4(3) of the Safety Directive) or “without<br />

prejudice to existing national and international liability rules” (See Article 7(4) of the Safety<br />

Directive).<br />

An ECM is liable to its contract partners (RU, IM, keepers, etc.) for breaches of contract (as<br />

provided in the contract and in the law governing the contract) whereas it is liable for damages<br />

caused to others than its contract partners (or to its contract partners but outside the scope of the<br />

contract) under the national laws governing the damage and the resulting liability.<br />

Court jurisdiction<br />

Article 6(3) of the ECM Regulation provides that “Member States shall take the measures<br />

necessary to ensure that decisions taken by the certification bodies are subject to judicial review”.<br />

Article 7(5) of the same Regulation provides that “The certification body shall set out in detail the<br />

reasons on which each of its decisions is based. The certification body shall notify its decision and<br />

the reasons to the entity in charge of maintenance, together with an indication of the process, time<br />

limit for appeal and the contact details of the appeal body”.<br />

The “appeal body” referred to in the ECM Regulation is not a new body to be established by the<br />

Member States but rather an existing judicial (or administrative) body within the Member State<br />

where the certification body is established competent to hear appeal cases by applicants ECM<br />

against decisions of such certification body.<br />

9.8 When a new authorisation for placing into service is necessary?<br />

New authorisation for placing in service of vehicle is not required when substituted parts are<br />

compliant with references or specifications in the technical file.<br />

For instance, in the case of the substitution of a wheel by another one complying with the<br />

specification of the technical file, it would not be necessary to proceed to a new authorisation for<br />

placing in service neither a communication to the NSA. It should only be necessary to have this<br />

substitution recorded in the configuration file of the vehicle. This information is, of course, available<br />

to NSAs upon request.<br />

If the specification of the new parts impairs the design operating state, it is considered as a major<br />

change of the technical design and possibly leads to a new authorisation for placing in service<br />

according to the Interoperability Directive.<br />

Page | 64

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!