Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC Closing of "loopholes" through ...

Dannecker / Ostermann: Loopholes in the Machinery Directive 2006/42/ECOf relevance to the decision, and hence aquestion also to be clarified, is who caninfluence the safety engineering propertiesduring design and construction of the plantup to its placement on the market orputting into service.In order to avoid discussions and highcosts later, the parties involved in a plantproject are therefore well advised to giveconsideration to the question of the overallIf it is not clear who the plant manufactureris, then it is also not clear who isresponsible for drawing up the riskassessment for the plant so that inpractice this is – legally inadmissibly –frequently not carried out. Added to that isthe fact that safety engineering correctionsdue to a delay in drawing up the riskassessment generally entail high costs.With the right approach, these costs- caused by a wrong engineeringresponsibility at the time of conclusion ofthe contract. A later clarification after thestart of the planning or engineeringinvolves great expense and is furthermorelegally inadmissible (cf. Annex I MachineryDirective: „The machinery must then bedesigned and constructed taking intoaccount the results of the riskassessment").approach - can be avoided.Agreement on the person of the plantmanufacturer in the contracts between theparticipating parties is therefore urgentlyrecommended. Agreement could bereached, for example, on the followingcontract clause in the relationshipbetween main supplier and plant owner:6