French Papers - Epilogue Mk2 - The RYA respond
- Thread starter Sailfree
- Start date
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I love moments like this!
I'm quoteing them direct from you. You said they came from French Customs here:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2824664&postcount=1
Classic!
And while Sybarite kicks himself, bbg agreed this was the law involved here.
You say that you are quoting DIRECTLY from me. If that were the case then why all of a sudden does explanatory text get included and the numbering of the articles is different?
I repeat, the 60 series articles are irrelevant to the debate on the documents to produce; they only relate to the customs officers rights to board a vessel. I therefore fail to see why you quote them in order to try to justify your position.
<< What? So this on the spot fine didn't exist until a few weeks back when I (and then you) asked the question which prompted this "Instruction Administrative"? You and I have prompted a new French law? So what law have then been using for the last 30 years before we asked? This is hilarious!
>>What is there in the sentence « However you need to note that this document does not change the law; it simply clarifies its application” that you don’t understand?
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
<< For at least 15 year (and I believe considerably more) a vessel qualified as british either by being on the British register or by being owned by a british resident (OK the last is a bit of an oversimplification, but not much).
As you were neither, can you please explain why you believe you were entitled to wear a British ensign (never mind "obliged" to fly)? >>
As I am not French I was specifically excluded AT THE TIME from obtaining an Acte de Francisation and therefore from wearing the French flag.
I was not entitled to an SSR as I was not a British resident and to register my boat under Part 1 was not an acceptable possibility as it would have obliged me to bring my boat to the UK and commit to costs which would have been discriiminatory compared with other French boaters. What would you have done? I was new to boat ownership then but I was advised by the broker. My boat was registered in France as a boat belonging to a foreign national. The dues I paid were identical to those paid by French boat owners. This situation was perfectly logical for me.
As far as the radio licence was concerned "applied" is perhaps the wrong word. I contacted the RYA for advice.
As you were neither, can you please explain why you believe you were entitled to wear a British ensign (never mind "obliged" to fly)? >>
As I am not French I was specifically excluded AT THE TIME from obtaining an Acte de Francisation and therefore from wearing the French flag.
I was not entitled to an SSR as I was not a British resident and to register my boat under Part 1 was not an acceptable possibility as it would have obliged me to bring my boat to the UK and commit to costs which would have been discriiminatory compared with other French boaters. What would you have done? I was new to boat ownership then but I was advised by the broker. My boat was registered in France as a boat belonging to a foreign national. The dues I paid were identical to those paid by French boat owners. This situation was perfectly logical for me.
As far as the radio licence was concerned "applied" is perhaps the wrong word. I contacted the RYA for advice.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
<< Toad...
People do seem to change thier minds a lot don't they! A few weeks back Sybarite, bbg and at least two others were quoting the legislation in Sybarite's mail as gospel. Then someone read it and worked out it didn't mention registration at all (but did mention narcotics!!!) and all of a sudden people looked closely at the text of the e-mail as definitive law instead! >>
What are you smoking these days Toad? You ought to ease off a bit.
People do seem to change thier minds a lot don't they! A few weeks back Sybarite, bbg and at least two others were quoting the legislation in Sybarite's mail as gospel. Then someone read it and worked out it didn't mention registration at all (but did mention narcotics!!!) and all of a sudden people looked closely at the text of the e-mail as definitive law instead! >>
What are you smoking these days Toad? You ought to ease off a bit.
bbg
Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating the existence of any law. All I am saying is that the French customs services CLAIM that they have a right to levy a fine for failure to produce registration documents. And they HAVE provided the specific sections of the Code des Douaniers on which they rely: 60, 62, 63, 44 bis and 410. I take it that you and Tim are of the opinion that these sections do not give them the right to issue fines that they claim they have.
With all due respect, you are not qualified to have an opinion on that subject (any more than I am qualified to have an opinion on that subject). I am not a French lawyer, and I assume you are not either. You might go as far as to say that you question their conclusion as to what they are entitled to demand, but only a French lawyer who is an expert in the relevant area of law is qualified to give an opinion.
As I have said before, I have had first-hand experience of court cases in various jurisdictions around the world. What that has taught me is that different legal systems work in different ways. I suspect you have taken the sections of the code the douaniers have referred to and read them as if they were English legislation. They are not. The French legal system works differently to the English system in many ways. I don't know whether the douaniers are correct about their powers, but I also can't discount the possibility that they are correct.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Ok, so there *is* an original law but for some reason French Customs forgot to mention the original legislation in their "clarification". Odd that they should fail to mention the original legislation, n'est pas? Also odd that you don't mention it either, it although you do know it exists. Also rather than mention the actual law they were clarifying French Customs chose to list a load of laws that you say (and I agree) are completely irrelevant. Seem plausible?
Well I've followed up enough wild goose chases now so I'll leave this one to the RYA to investigate. E-Mail the RYA. Tell them all about the legislation they can't find. They will check and if they're right they'll let their members know and I'm sure word will get eventually back to YBW. The RYA and their members will be in your debt forever and everyone will be happy.
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Did the RYA? Did the French Lawyer they paid? Sybarite also says those laws are irrelevant.
We'd guessed!
(Indeed French Customs didn't sound very sure either. They mentioned no relevant law, got international law wrong and then used the word 'possibility'.) Even if they are right about their powers there's still no sign of an "on the spot" alternative fine which is a key feature of this myth.No, clearly it's impossible to discount the possibility a law exists. You'd have to read every word of every French Law to be sure.
In contrast, it's very easy to prove beyond doubt that a law with an on the spot fine option does exist. Why did the RYA and a French Lawyer fail to do so? One reason might be they failed to understand French Law. Another might be it's complete fiction.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Would you expect the RAC to rescue you at the side of the road if you hadnt paid your subs? Same with the RYA - if you want their advice, pay their fee
Given how concerned you are on the subject, and your obvious belief that anyone telling you that boats have been fined is wrong, you owe it to your public to toddle over to France in your boat without SSR and declare this to the French authorities. You will then be able to report back how right you are - or not as the case may be.
Meantime, anyone with common sense will avoid any riosk of legal bickering in France by spending the trivial sum on an SSR and taking it with them. I doubt very much that saying ( in schoolboy French) that "Toad told me I didnt need an SSR" will be as effective.
al.carpenter
Well-Known Member
Don Quixote
Tim and Toad you have all my sympathy... but I think there are a few "irreductibles" you will never convince whoever tell them that they are wrong. Their brains are not interpreting words the same way as yours are but I am pretty sure the vast majority of readers have a clear idea of who is right. I am out of this thread... for good. Fair winds.
Tim and Toad you have all my sympathy... but I think there are a few "irreductibles" you will never convince whoever tell them that they are wrong. Their brains are not interpreting words the same way as yours are but I am pretty sure the vast majority of readers have a clear idea of who is right. I am out of this thread... for good. Fair winds.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
See post 22.
EDIT: However, you've missed the point I was making. My point is: Either the RYA have told us all important information, or there's some important information missing. If there's important information missing then it calls the OP into serious question. If there's not it's hard to see why the RYA would not make the lot available because they've already told us everything useful. Obviously for emotional thinkers who don't base their opinion on facts that's an irrelevance, but for data based reasoners it would be handy to hear.
See post 84 in this thread: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225996
Last edited:
alant
Well-Known Member
"1. What is the information that the RYA only wish to show paying members? If it's not important then what's the harm in posting the detail for all to see? If it is important then clearly we need to to find out what it is."
So, is this the 'royal we' who wants this priviledged RYA information, or should other non-members also be entitled to it, because Toad says so?
Pay your dues & you won't have to beg!
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
That is not: "demanding that the RYA oblige you by giving free advice paid for by others.".
HTH.
...also see post 22.
alant
Well-Known Member
That is not: "demanding that the RYA oblige you by giving free advice paid for by others.".
HTH.
...also see post 22.
Seems like scrounging to me!
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Seems like scrounging to me!
I think that signals the right time to drop out of this thread.
I'll leave the last word to the RYA:
"a British vessel navigating outside UK territorial waters need not be registered"
If anyone knows some information that would be likely to change the RYAs view, by all means post it here, but most importantly tell the RYA legal guys they will be genuinely grateful.
awol
Well-Known Member
The Montego Bay Convention of 1982 in Article 91-2 (for vessels on the high seas i.e. outside territorial waters) requires that, “Every State shall issue to ships to which it has granted the right to fly its flag documents to that effect”. The documents issued by the UK State that meet this requirement are registration documents.
I await the RYA's undying gratitude!
Tranona
Well-Known Member
If you are so concerned - why don't YOU tell them? Is it perhaps because you don't want to look the idiot that you look at the moment?
Its amazing that somebody can construct such a fantasy in his own head and expect people to believe him - but there we are it provides amusement for others.
bbg
Well-Known Member
Yes they did. 60, 62, 63, 44 bis and 410. 410 contains the provisions for the fine.
bbg
Well-Known Member
Toad, you need to read my posts. I am saying that the French authorities claim to have the right to issue a fine for failure to produce registration documents, and rely on these sections of their code in support of their right.
I am not saying they are correct. I don't know.
Some people seem to think the only definitive answer can come from the RYA but they are wrong. The only definitive answer can come from the French legal system. There is evidence from there that suggests that the douaniers do have a right to issue a fine for non-production of registration documents: (1) the authorities themselves claim they have the right; (2) both they and the RYA say that fines HAVE been issued; (3) no-one has identified any successful challenge to a fine.
Some people have pointed out that people have failed to produce registration documents and haven't received a fine, therefore there is no right to fine. This is confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
If you want to rely on the RYA, by all means join and follow up. I am not a member and have no intention of becoming one, and frankly I don't really care what they say. I have seen enough legal opinions to know that unless I have an opportunity to draft the questions that are to be put to the lawyers providing the opinion, and follow up when they (frequently) fail to answer the questions asked, I won't get much out of the legal opinion.
I will repeat what I have said many, many times. I am not advocating the existence of any law. I am not saying the douaniers are correct in their interpretation of their powers. I am merely saying that they claim to have those powers. You can talk to the RYA all you like but the only way to determine whether they are right is to challenge their position in the French courts.
What I find amusing is that you, al and Tim are absolutely adamant that they do NOT have the powers they claim to have, but not one of you is prepared to put your money where your mouth is and sail over there without registration and provoke / invite an inspection. All you are prepared to do is provide your opinion (which apparently has no foundation on any French legal training or background) that they do not have the right to issue a fine, thereby possibly encouraging some other poor mug to do what the three of you don't have the courage to do yourselves.
I am not saying they are correct. I don't know.
Some people seem to think the only definitive answer can come from the RYA but they are wrong. The only definitive answer can come from the French legal system. There is evidence from there that suggests that the douaniers do have a right to issue a fine for non-production of registration documents: (1) the authorities themselves claim they have the right; (2) both they and the RYA say that fines HAVE been issued; (3) no-one has identified any successful challenge to a fine.
Some people have pointed out that people have failed to produce registration documents and haven't received a fine, therefore there is no right to fine. This is confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
If you want to rely on the RYA, by all means join and follow up. I am not a member and have no intention of becoming one, and frankly I don't really care what they say. I have seen enough legal opinions to know that unless I have an opportunity to draft the questions that are to be put to the lawyers providing the opinion, and follow up when they (frequently) fail to answer the questions asked, I won't get much out of the legal opinion.
I will repeat what I have said many, many times. I am not advocating the existence of any law. I am not saying the douaniers are correct in their interpretation of their powers. I am merely saying that they claim to have those powers. You can talk to the RYA all you like but the only way to determine whether they are right is to challenge their position in the French courts.
What I find amusing is that you, al and Tim are absolutely adamant that they do NOT have the powers they claim to have, but not one of you is prepared to put your money where your mouth is and sail over there without registration and provoke / invite an inspection. All you are prepared to do is provide your opinion (which apparently has no foundation on any French legal training or background) that they do not have the right to issue a fine, thereby possibly encouraging some other poor mug to do what the three of you don't have the courage to do yourselves.
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
That's British law. You neglected to mention (and international law accepts) that vessels not on innocent passage (ie, those going to and from a state, and within that state's territorial waters) will be subject to that state's laws.
Laws comprise formal documents passed by legislators, and published in gazettes. They are amplified by rules of procedure and administrative instructions issued by delegated authorities. These instructions are the law, unless challenged and rescinded.
Within these threads, all the relevant laws and rules of procedure applying to the French case have been published. They clearly prove that French law requires that leisure vessels over a certain size carry original documents, issued by the state where the boat claims to be registered, proving that the boat is registered with that state.
Published French procedures then permit fines to be levied if such documents are not produced (along similar provisions to those which allow motorists to be fined on the spot for alleged infractions of the law).
The French do not define which documents will suffice - that's down to the registering state. French practice makes it clear that they accept MCA issued documents, and may be prepared to consider consulate evidence if that is lacking.
You are free, if you so wish, to choose not to pay any fines, and to challenge either the law, or the procedures applied to levy the fine.
You may also argue, as you have, that your one selected sentence proves your case (outside UK, English law applies, even in France?). I think the chances of succeeding in either case are negligible.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Thank you. This is the situation with one tiny proviso :
If you wish to challenge the situation in court you must first pay the fine. Otherwise the boat risks being impounded.
Last edited: