Some time ago, in the performance of client orders arose in me doubts as to the interpretation of bulk cargo, referred to in Article. 55to ust. 1 Item 5 transport law. On one hand, raised the issue in several Topics na Goldline, the other I decided to ask the competent authorities. In the latter case, however, I met a lot of disappointment.
For what threatens punishment
My doubts were not of theoretical nature. They concerned because very serious issues having considerable practical importance. Under current from 01.01.2012 r. art. 55to ust. 1 Item 5 transport law in the case of timber, Bulk cargo and bulk cargo is unacceptable to relate the amount of transportable mass or volume of the consignment of goods. The intent of the legislature is to prevent zdarzającemu przeładowywaniu vehicle on a regular basis in order to obtain higher wages. The problem concerned the, whether this provision applies to the carriage of liquid cargo in tank trucks. No doubt, such charges do not fall into the category of timber and bulk cargo, but in theory they could be regarded as bulk. On the other hand, in the case of tankers, in practice it is very unlikely the reload, since it is simply a given capacity.
The competent authorities
I decided, doubt that I can help resolve the two bodies. First Minister of Transport, Construction and Maritime, who was the author of a bill introducing Articles. 55and the transport law. Who in the end as the author is not a concept, knows better, what would it mean. Secondly, the Chief Inspector of Road Transport, which will apply this provision and determine the, that it violated the entity. Therefore prepared the appropriate letter indicating the need for clarification – Finally, the concept was used in a very indeterminate.
May the Lord goes to lawyer
After just seven weeks I got a reply from the Ministry of, in which I was told, that Minister Transportu, Construction and Maritime Economy is not entitled to interpret the provisions of current law. My doubts were not allayed, therefore,. Fortunately, the Minister did not remain indifferent to my problems and offered to help. He pointed out to me because, that:
“Entities authorized to provide legal assistance to individuals and businesses, inter alia, by providing legal advice and drafting legal opinions, in particular:
- attorneys pursuant. 4 paragraph. 1 Act of 26 May 1982 r. – Law on the Bar (Dz. You. No. 16, Item. 124 with subsequent. zm.) and
- legal advisers on the basis of Article. 4 paragraph. 1 Act of 6 July 1982 r. on legal advisers”
In the opinion of the Ministry probably would be best, I gave the answer himself, and not bother officials 🙂
Interpretation of the GITD
Reply from GITD (after 13 weeks) was already a more substantive, although it is far from the uniqueness, indeed, it seems, unambiguous wording that deliberately avoided. In the first row reserved, that GITD not give any binding interpretation. It is interesting in this case, GITD why he was not able to spend guidelines for the interpretation of bulk cargo and timber.
In this situation, I was given only for information, that:
“The concept of bulk cargoes, appears frequently in the combined shipping, waterways and railways, and they are there defined as homogeneous cargo, transported in large batches; can distinguish among them dry cargo, smooth and special. Bulk cargoes are usually transported in shipping, rail or inland waterways or in large quantities in transport full truck. They are characterized by a low value per unit. These include such. coal, iron ore, fertilizers, tarcicę, corn, sand, gravel, ziarno itp.
Since the legislature did not define a concept, it seems, should be interpreted broadly as possible, interpreted using linguistic and functional. Undoubtedly ratio legis the article quoted above was, the sender, remover, recipient, transport organizer, or other body movements are not subjected the employer the amount of weight or transportable cargo volume, which may in turn encourage carriers to reload their vehicles in order to increase profits from the carriage. Exceeding the carrying capacity of vehicles causes a serious risk to road safety and will lead to significant degradation of road surfaces, hence the need to limit this practice.
For this purpose, the legislature introduced a non-transportable from the addiction of mass or volume of cargo. For violation of this prohibition sender, remover, transport organizer, or other entity responsible for ordering the carriage according to the provisions of the Act of 6 September 2001 r. Road Transport (Dz. You. of 2007 r. No. 125, Item. 874 with subsequent. zm.)”
The only specific statement contained in this passage is recommendation of a broad interpretation of bulk cargo, while at the same time it is to be consistent with the interpretation of linguistic and functional, which in itself seems contradictory. But in light of further statements on the rationale of authority provision, that term should refer to the cargo tank trucks? I think the answer is clearly not due. Zapoznań happy with the sentence, however, readers.
To minimize the potential risks, however, rational action is probably – since there is no clear evidence for a different sentiment – in any case did not make the transportable to the carriage of liquid cargo in tank trucks or the weight of the cargo volume.
I just wonder, why the state requires a citizen of the strict observance of the law, if you are doing everything, that the citizen did not even know, What specifically should not do? In such cases, the citizen is, unfortunately, just passed on his acumen in interpreting the rules.
Appointment “authentic interpretation” in some circles, however, he did not accept 😉, reason for withholding information you believe a much more prosaic, than a lack of willingness to provide information. I, that they themselves do not know how to teach this issue and until such time as there will be a court judgment in this topic is the subject should not move 🙂
Błażeju, I do not exclude such an option 🙂 What is terrible by the way, because it means, that designing a recipe, the legislature does not even know, to what he was supposed to refer. If I find out about a settlement in this matter, I will know for sure.
Hello , I want to thank you Paul for their help and poradę.Polecam all his professional approach to the problem, certainly in the future (although I hope, that we talked about positively resolve) I will get help only from the Lord Pawła.Pozdrawiam.
A very interesting article. Personally, I do not sit for some time in the transport industry, I dealt with reloading vegetable oils in relation wagon, wagon, car or truck and usually took into account the weight of the load.
Points or ETC considers vegetable oil for bulk cargo 🙂
Unfortunately, the law is very tight and in my opinion it can not be sealed. Legislation would in fact be a very bloated tomiska of dozens submitted no, or several hundred or even several thousand of articles or paragraphs. Otherwise, if the law was in the system 0-1, institutions educating lawyers collapse, because there would be no need for them, or … rozkwitłby legal industry, I drab bread eaters poradziliby not deal with the professional literature more than a thousand times the volume of all the read Harlequin s.
In the extra-judicial sometimes you can make an appointment for a specific definition and apply even if the definitions cited by the CSO or defined in Regulation SOLAS XII/1.4 1974 r. From what the court will use the dispute resolution process know better patrons.
And our laws? By whom we have written, by whom also we adopted, Thus what we have to expect the same laws. I actually pity, that no one has the courage to give the definition of. And can anyone do not care. Concluding my prolixity is worth noting, that in the discussion of one tiny thread, pojawjają words “mass” i “oil”. Me these words are associated not only with the subject of the article and discussion, but also (and in that case, above all) of “dark mass” i “lack of brains”.
I wonder, if anyone can guess who I mean 🙂