Two of the sixteen engineers who were accused of collapsing the retaining wall at Predojan claim that they are behind the original project, which was later changed, which according to them was not signed.
Engineer Branko Jelisavac, of the Road Institute, who controlled the main project at Kosina 2 on Corridor 10, whose collapse collapsed on August 19, says that the CIP Traffic Institute's main project – which these engineers approved – did not collapse – "but a few others a project that has been executed by a number of other people and that is not on the list of licenses. "
Jelisavac, whose name was mentioned on the list of 16 engineers for which the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure asked the Engineering Chamber to withdraw licenses, said that he considered who would accuse his professional reputation without, as he says, the real cause of the demolition to determine supporting wall.
"Nobody walks away for responsibility, but the ministry can not slaughter people if mistakes can be misleading. Maybe the contractor had a bad brand of concrete, they might have done something bad," says Jelisavac, who claims that the main project is 11 times changed .
And Milan Popovic, an engineer who is one of the designers of the CIP main project for Kosin 2 at Predjana, is of the opinion that the placement of 16 engineers on the license confiscation is an inadequate response from the Ministry of Construction to the CIP statement. -director Milutin Ignjatovic that the demolition of the supporting wall has nothing to do with the basic project.
"Our projects have changed without our permission, I have put my signature on what has collapsed, I have put my signature on something that has not been done," says Popovic, who notes that in 39 years of his work none of the more than 80 executed objects have not collapsed.
The Serbian Chamber of Engineers today confirmed that the Chamber's prosecutor received a complaint from the Ministry of Civil Engineering against the engineers who participated in the construction on Corridor 10, where the wall collapsed and which, after the announcement of the engineers and obtaining evidence, would decide whether an indictment would be filed or the honorary plot. reject the application.
The engineers who reported the ministry were first reported and had not had a procedure before the court before, they said in the Chamber.
Minister Zorana Mihajlovic of the construction has announced last week that she will apply for licenses for all engineers who have signed projects on the slope that turned the wall into corridor 10.
She stated that the project was changed 11 times, that the Ministry gave permission in 2010 and that it was subsequently not consulted or kept informed of the changes in the project.
The minister also stated that the question was who asked for the change of the project, a question for the Serbian corridors that are the investor.
In the Engineering Chamber, the questions indicate that no one in the period prior to the demolition of this wall with Corralor 10 spoke about them.
Because they have no documented data in connection with this project, they also say: "they can not explain themselves and give an opinion on the reasons for the demolition of the wall on Corridor 10".
"After obtaining the complete documentation and field data, one can give an opinion on the reasons for the demolition of the wall and the responsibility of the participants," said the Komori.
To determine if the responsibilities of engineers for the demolition of a wall on ramp 2 in Corridor 10, the prosecutor will first initiate the preparatory procedure, or invite the notified engineers to make statements and obtain evidence.
The public prosecutor then decides whether an indictment should be filed or whether the application should be rejected.
"In the case of filing an indictment, the trial chamber conducts a public hearing where parties are heard and evidence available. If the existence of the responsibility of the registered members of the chamber is established, the Honor may, depending on the seriousness of the work, also impose a measure of confiscation of the license ", said the Chamber of Engineers.
They point out that in this, as in any other case, the presumption of innocence must be respected during the procedure.
The withdrawal of a permit is the strictest measure pronounced by the Honorary Court of the Technical Chamber and can be confiscated for a period of six months to five years.
The Serbian Chamber of Engineers says it can only treat its members with licenses and foreign engineers if they have licenses from the responsible designer, contractor, urban planner or planner.
"The legal entities participating in the realization of projects of great importance shall be issued by the Ministry in accordance with the Rulebook on the manner, procedure and content of data in order to determine whether the conditions for issuing a license for the production of technical documentation and building permits have been met for which the building permit has been issued by the ministry or the autonomous province "said de Komor.
If the responsibility of legal persons is determined, the permit can be seized by the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure.
The application was submitted on Friday, August 24th to designers, as well as the engineers who carried out the technical inspection of the main project for the construction of part of the E75 motorway on the section Grdelica (Gornje polje) – Carina valley.
The application states that in the past two months "the mobility of the site was considerable and culminated in the morning, when the collapse of a part of the construction took place, so that after twenty hours a new rust would occur".
The basis for submitting an application against 16 engineers was that they signed a design project that collapsed, which could endanger the lives and safety of people and resulted in major material damage.
It is claimed that the request from the Ministry of Construction to take the permits from the responsible persons, because without a permit they have changed the route of the highway eleven times.
The original April 2010 solution could not be executed in the field, so the contractor proposed a change.
The new solution has undergone 11 changes and it has been established that, in accordance with the law, no procedure for changing the main project or a new building permit has been obtained.
The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure in the application states that the legal proceedings were not complied with in the subsequent 11 assessments, and it is suspected that all changes to the main project are the consequences of a direct agreement between the investor and the contractor.
HERE See why Croatia is in deep depression.
Source: Tanjug / FoNET / Politika
The response system is managed by Disqas. The views expressed in the comments are not the views of the Pravda portal.