Penal Responsibility for Occupational Safety Offenses

Extract

[...] Can the penal responsibility of the captain of the ship, the head of the international group and the new subsidiary be engaged for the offense of failure to comply with occupational safety obligations? A. The Captain's Responsibility In order to determine whether the captain's penal responsibility could be engaged, it is necessary to characterize the offense of failure to comply with occupational safety obligations provided for in Article L. 4741-1 of the Labour Code. 1. The Material Element In accordance with Article L. [...]

[...] It seems that Norbert has accepted the delegation, he is the only person to whom it is addressed and in the silence of the statement, it is possible to consider that he has the necessary skills and means to ensure compliance with this obligation. Finally, the delegation must be precise, i.e. not general, necessary, i.e. it must be materially impossible for the delegator to oversee the respect of this obligation himself and finally special. In this case, it is easy to consider that the delegation concerns, in particular, security, that the manager of a parent company such as Mr. [...]

[...] The liability of Mr. Lobby The active corruption of public agents offense under Article 433-1 of the Penal Code could be retained against Mr. Lobby. 1. The preliminary condition In accordance with Article 433-1 of the Penal Code, the advantage must be proposed to a person holding public authority, charged with a public service mission or invested with a public elective mandate. In this case, the advantage is intended for a president of a community of communes. The preliminary condition is verified because it is a public agent. [...]

[...] First, with regard to the conditions relating to the delegator, the jurisprudence classically considers that only the manager can delegate his powers (Crim. 1996), because he is the only custodian of the power of direction. However, the jurisprudence has expanded its concept of delegation and now accepts subdelegation (Crim October 1995, Dr. Penal 1996. 42). In this case, Mr. Lobby is the manager of the parent company. He is therefore authorized to delegate his powers to the person of his choice. [...]

[...] The criminal liability of the subsidiary Superstructures may therefore be incurred for the offense committed before its existence. In accordance with Article 131-38 of the Penal Code, the maximum rate of the fine applicable to legal persons is equal to five times that provided for natural persons by the law that punishes the offense. In this case, the fine provided for by the text of Article L. 4741-1 of the Labour Code is 10,000 euros per worker concerned. Therefore, the subsidiary Superstructures will incur 50,000 euros per worker concerned in the event of a referral to a court of judgment. [...]