| Abstract | Tema rada je udar m/b STI POPLAR-a u operativnu obalu u luci Ploče, obrazlaže se pravni status morskih luka i lučke infrastrukture te način zaštite istih. Ukazuje se na razlike u pravnoj terminologiji između pojmova udara i sudara brodova, te su prikazani najpoznatiji slučajevi udara brodova.
Agencija za istraživanje nesreća u zračnom, pomorskom i željezničkom prometu u svom izvješću detaljno je opisala događaj, dok su vještačenjem utvrđeni uzroci zbog kojih je došlo do udara broda u operativnu obalu. Opisan je tijek sudskog postupka te određivanje mjerodavnog prava i nadležnog suda. Uz navedeno, rad se bavi spornim pitanjima među strankama, tj. mogućnosti izricanja privremenih mjera zaustavljanja brodova i iznosom fonda ograničenja odgovornosti.
Morske luke spadaju pod pomorsko odnosno opće dobro, te je opisan pravni status morskih luka i način njihove zaštite. Posebna pozornost je pridana luci Ploče u kojoj je došlo do udara m/b STI POPLAR-a u operativnu obalu. Operativna obala potpada pod lučku infrastrukturu, te se detaljno opisuju dijelovi lučke infrastrukture, za čije oštećenje je propisana stroga objektivna odgovornost vlasnika broda odnosno brodara jer je potrebna pojačana zaštita luka i lučke infrastrukture zbog njihove javne namjene i gospodarskog značenja. Rad je obradio elemente štete koji su bitni za navedeni udar broda u obalu odnosno izvanugovornu i objektivnu odgovornost.
Nadalje, u radu je problematiziran članak 811. Pomorskog zakonika o oštećenju stvari koji ne navodi da je potrebno nadoknaditi izmaklu korist. Navedena odredba se uspoređuje s odredbama o sudaru brodova i udaru broda u unutarnjoj plovidbi, gdje je potrebno uz materijalnu štetu nadoknaditi i izmaklu korist. Zbog nerazlikovanja objekta štete od objekta štetne radnje, tumačenja članka 811. Pomorskog zakonika, nisu jedinstvena.
Sudska praksa je obrađena kroz tri odabrana domaća i strana primjera. Primjeri iz domaće sudske prakse opisuju tri sudske odluke u kojima se prikazuje nedosljednost sudova kod odlučivanja o izmakloj koristi u slučajevima udara broda u obalu i prikazan je način zaštite lučke infrastrukture od strane sudova. Kod strane sudske prakse rad se bavi načinom zaštite obale i lučke infrastrukture u izabranim primjerima drugih država. U svim navedenim primjerima krivnja se smatra jednom od pretpostavki za odgovornost brodara, što se razlikuje od hrvatskog prava gdje se odgovara samim činom nastanka štete odnosno propisana je objektivna odgovornost. |
| Abstract (english) | The topic of the paper is the impact of the vessel STI POPLAR on the operational shore in the port of Ploče. It explains the legal status of seaports and port infrastructure, as well as the ways to protect them. It highlights the legal terminology differences between ship impact and ship collision, and presents the most famous cases of ship impacts.
The Accident Investigation Agency in air, maritime, and railway traffic has provided a detailed description of the event in its report, while the causes of the ship's impact on the operational shore were determined through expert examination. The course of the legal proceedings and the determination of the applicable law and competent court are described. In addition, the paper addresses the disputed issues among the parties, namely the possibility of imposing temporary measures to stop the ships and the amount of the limitation of liability fund.
Seaports fall under maritime or public goods, and the legal status of seaports and their protection methods are described. Special attention is given to the port of Ploče, where the vessel STI POPLAR impacted the operational shore. The operational shore falls under port infrastructure, and the parts of port infrastructure are described in detail. Strict objective liability of the ship owner or ship operator is prescribed for the damage to port infrastructure, as increased protection of ports and port infrastructure is necessary due to their public purpose and economic significance. The paper examines the elements of damage that are crucial for the mentioned ship impact on the shore, i.e. non-contractual and objective liability.
Furthermore, the paper problematizes Article 811 of the Maritime Code regarding damage to property, which does not specify the obligation to compensate for lost profit. This provision is compared to provisions on ship collision and ship impact in inland navigation, where compensation for lost profit is required in addition to material damage. Due to the lack of distinction between the object of damage and the object of harmful action, interpretations of Article 811 of the Maritime Code are not uniform.
Case law is discussed through three selected domestic and foreign examples. Examples from domestic case law describe three court decisions that illustrate the inconsistency among courts in deciding on lost profit in cases of ship impact on the shore and demonstrate the courts' approach to protecting port infrastructure. In foreign case law, the paper addresses the methods of protecting the coast and port infrastructure in selected examples from other countries. In all mentioned examples, fault is considered one of the assumptions for the liability of the ship operator, which differs from Croatian law where liability is based solely on the occurrence of damage, i.e. objective liability is prescribed. |
