French Papers - Epilogue Mk2 - The RYA respond

[Ex-SolentBoy]

With no wish to delve into the legalities of all of this, or the rights and wrongs of previous posters, surely this is missing the point?

We sail for pleasure.
It is not pleasurable to be fined or delayed by foreign officials.
If it is necessary to carry a piece of paper to avoid the fines and delays, then do so.
If they decide they want you to carry a pack of pork sausages then so be it, I'm off to the butchers.
Law or no law, if you don't like their practises go somewhere else.

 

[timbartlett]

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”.

Please look at what the treaty actually says, rather than quoting it and then paraphrasing it to mean something completely different.

UNCLOS is an international treaty: as such it is binding on the states that have signed up to it, not on individuals.
That particular paragraph requires the state to issue documents to vessels entitled to fly its flag.
It does not require vessels to be measured or proof of ownership or any of the other things that are involved in registration. Nor does it require vessels to carry the documents the state provides (or fails to provide).

And you have ignored UNCLOS Art 94-2a which specifically excludes small ships from the need to be registered.

2. In particular every State shall:

(a) maintain a register of ships containing the names and particulars of ships flying its flag, except those which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account of their small size;

 

[Tranona]

And the documents issued by the UK government comply with that definition.

And French law requires a ship to show the document (or Consular letter) WHEN IN ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Problem solved.

Absolutely no point in you (or Toad) trying to create your own "MYTH" (to use Toad's term) when none exists.

Nobody believes you or your myth, and because it doesn't exist except in your minds it can never been shown to exist (or not).

 

[awol]

Please look at what the treaty actually says, rather than quoting it and then paraphrasing it to mean something completely different.

UNCLOS is an international treaty: as such it is binding on the states that have signed up to it, not on individuals.
That particular paragraph requires the state to issue documents to vessels entitled to fly its flag.
It does not require vessels to be measured or proof of ownership or any of the other things that are involved in registration. Nor does it require vessels to carry the documents the state provides (or fails to provide).

And you have ignored UNCLOS Art 94-2a which specifically excludes small ships from the need to be registered.

Tim. I have read Part VII of the Treaty and quoted Article 91-2 verbatim. I did NOT paraphrase. It means what it says.

Your paraphrasing, however, is misleading. The obligation on the signatories is to issue the documents to vessels it has granted the right to fly the flag. No documents = no right to fly the flag, 'cos if the government had granted the right there would be documents - and that applies whether they are carried or not. No right to fly flag = "without nationality" and loss of any right to protection or courtesy another nation might offer a UK flagged vessel. Also leaves you to boarding under Article 110.

As for the small ship get out clause, perhaps you can point me to the "generally accepted international regulations" that excludes ships from registration on account of their small size? I don't believe the UK has any such size exclusion from the SSR.

Do remember this applies to the "high seas" not to UK coastal waters where there is a general right for unregistered UK vessels to wear the red ensign.

 

[al.carpenter]

bit of news

I've just had a lengthy conversation with the very helpful and patient Customs Officer in charge of navigation in Cherbourg and, I am affraid, he could not and was not competent in answering my specific question : does a british flagged yacht have to produce a SSR in french waters?... He knows about this thread and this forum and has advised me and (refered me) to the Ministere in Paris to whom I have to mail the question in writing............................................
He is aware of the problem with the British Isles, Sweden and Italy and was sorry he could not help. It is my interpretation that this "cool" attitude says it all......

 

[DownWest]

Al,
After reading this thread, I am not surprised that any offical would decline to offer an opinion/ statement of the law. Kick it upstairs and avoid the grief.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim. I have read Part VII of the Treaty and quoted Article 91-2 verbatim. I did NOT paraphrase. It means what it says.

Indeed it does mean what it says.

It says that states have to issue documents.
You said that vessels have to carry documents.

Two quite different meanings.
Not the same at all.

And do have a look at the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act sometime, because you will find that the UK does not require registration as a prerequisite of the right to wear a British ensign.

 

[avole]

My feeling is that the French authorities would be well advised to ban or imprison most contributors to this thread.

What a dreadful example of English/British cussedness and stupidity. Arrogance, ethnocentrism, pointless arguments, obfuscation, this thread has got it all.

Small wonder people don't like us any more.

 

[Plomong]

the Bloc Marine is no more a definitive guide to French law that Reeds is to British law.

But that begs the question -- did you look up and study the referenced law ??? Would be quite informative, and maybe help you stop responding with drivel -- Bloc Marine is not a guide to French Law -- it just states the relevant law for a given infraction. Look it up !!!

indeed it is. And I am sure most of them would not wish their officials to break their law any more than we appreciate "overzealous" officials breaking ours.

But if you break THAT law, 1500 Euros please, and take this receipt, thank you !!!

Plomong

 

[Sailfree]

I've just had a lengthy conversation with the very helpful and patient Customs Officer in charge of navigation in Cherbourg and, He knows about this thread and this forum and has advised me and (refered me) to the Ministere in Paris to whom I have to mail the question in writing............................................
......

Interesting quote "he knows about this thread"

I posted the RYA advice hoping it would end all the x opinions - it has not.

I suspect the French may settle it once and for all by applying their law , in their waters, as they see fit.

As another has said by our own attitude we bring it on ourselves!!

Hopefully those that are polite and have the documents recommended by the RYA will be welcomed. Others .................we will see!!

To Al. -I appreciate you have a contary opinion to the RYA but I understand that you have done your best to try and clarify/help. Hopefully we will see you at the Cherbourg scuttlebutt meet and share a drink if we are not all in a French prison!!

 

[awol]

Indeed it does mean what it says.

It says that states have to issue documents.
You said that vessels have to carry documents.

Two quite different meanings.
Not the same at all.

And do have a look at the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act sometime, because you will find that the UK does not require registration as a prerequisite of the right to wear a British ensign.

I am feeling confused. If you are referring to my post #75 - Oh, no I didn't! No reference to "carry" that I can see - and, no, I haven't edited it. If you are referring to something else, I give up.

I believe that the UK acceded to UNCLOS on 25 July 1997, a couple of years after the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act, and I can't see how local laws can over-rule agreed international obligations, but obviously you can.

Now, how about the internationally agreed small boat loophole?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

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.

No I havent missed the point you were making such as it is. The RYA havent published all the opinion they bought, just the broad conclusion. If you want the full Monty, pay for it by joining the RYA - there are no free lunches in this life. Not even for ( roll of drums) a "data based reasoner" .

See post 84 in this thread: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225996

So you have had the suggestion before. Why havent you taken it up? Could it be that you just like arguing for the sake of it - a sort of civil service friendly version of Tim?

 

[timbartlett]

I am feeling confused. If you are referring to my post #75 - Oh, no I didn't! No reference to "carry" that I can see - and, no, I haven't edited it. If you are referring to something else, I give up.

I am not suggesting that you did edit it. But you are using that particular article in UNCLOS to support your argument that vessels are required to carry registration documents, when clearly it does not.

I can't see how local laws can over-rule agreed international obligations, but obviously you can.

Actually, they can, until the treaty undertakings have been incorporated into local law. It happens quite often -- otherwise we would be in the Catch 22 situation in which no nation could sign up to an international treaty unless it had already altered its domestic legislation to conform to an international treaty that it had not yet signed up to!

But your principle is right -- fifteen years after UNCLOS came into being, it seems perverse to argue that the French -- who signed up to it at about the same time -- should be ignoring what it says, and allowing individual civil servants to concoct their own regulations that conflict with the provisions of UNCLOS.

 

[timbartlett]

But that begs the question -- did you look up and study the referenced law ??? Would be quite informative, and maybe help you stop responding with drivel -- Bloc Marine is not a guide to French Law -- it just states the relevant law for a given infraction. Look it up !!!

Yes. I did look it up. Just as I looked up all the (different) laws that were referenced by the douaniers that Sybarite quoted in the Epilogue Mk1. If I hadn't looked them up, how could I possibly know that they are irrelevant??

Some of them relate specifically and only to French boats. Some of them relate to drug smuggling. Some of them relate to vessels carrying forged documents, and some to customs officers inspecting the weapon systems and magazines of visiting warships.

Not one of them requires a visiting yacht to produce its registration certificate. I wonder why we have been sent on so many wild goose chases when -- if this mysterious law really did exist -- it would be so easy to say "it's paragraph X, article Y and here's a link to it ..."

 

[awol]

But you are using that particular article in UNCLOS to support your argument that vessels are required to carry registration documents, when clearly it does not.

Ah, you misunderstand me. My argument is that UNCLOS requires nations to register ships permitted to fly their flag on the high seas and provide documents. This was in response to "a British vessel navigating outside UK territorial waters need not be registered" From UNCLOS I infer that an unregistered vessel on the high sees is "without nationality".
I have no argument that there is no explicit requirement to carry such documents but as they are not much use when trying to convince a man with a gun if they are not on board, there is, for me, an implicit requirement.

 

[al.carpenter]

Interesting quote "he knows about this thread"

I posted the RYA advice hoping it would end all the x opinions - it has not.

I suspect the French may settle it once and for all by applying their law , in their waters, as they see fit.

As another has said by our own attitude we bring it on ourselves!!

Hopefully those that are polite and have the documents recommended by the RYA will be welcomed. Others .................we will see!!

To Al. -I appreciate you have a contary opinion to the RYA but I understand that you have done your best to try and clarify/help. Hopefully we will see you at the Cherbourg scuttlebutt meet and share a drink if we are not all in a French prison!!

This is amazing... I do not have a contrary opinion to the RYA!!!!! on the contrary, it is all there..... uk flagged yachts under 24m do not have to be registered and the HEAD OF CHERBOURG CUSTOMS who is dealing mainly with the british yachts does not know if by coming to France they have to be registered........ Does not that surprise you that an officer in charge of applying a Law does not know if you have or don't have to show a SSR??????
This is obvious, this is a problem between governments (and a headhache for the men on the ground because there have been a lot of "negociations" between local authorities and there have been instructions given to "be cool" notably with BI's yachts (from the mouth of an officer involved in this umbroglio and whom I invite to join in the conversation if his position allows, his english being very good...and knowing he is following this thread)
I am not advocating not to register your yacht before crossing... just saying that a fine for not producing a SSR is not legal (I am repeating, a SSR doc). I am working on a letter to the highest authorities with the hope that they will come back with the answer one of their agent could not give me. They are in a tricky position if I understand as we put the finger on a hole in the legislation. (Swede and Italy are in the same position)

 

[Tranona]

This is amazing... I do not have a contrary opinion to the RYA!!!!! on the contrary, it is all there..... uk flagged yachts under 24m do not have to be registered and the HEAD OF CHERBOURG CUSTOMS who is dealing mainly with the british yachts does not know if by coming to France they have to be registered........ Does not that surprise you that an officer in charge of applying a Law does not know if you have or don't have to show a SSR??????

All your previous references to your conversations with officials state that it is the Brigade Maritime which as I have pointed out have no responsibility or powers for inspecting visiting ships. This lies solely with the Douaniers.

Is your HEAD OF CUSTOMS a Douaniers? If so he needs to check with his superriors as his account seems to be at odds with that obtained by Sybarite.

 

[al.carpenter]

All your previous references to your conversations with officials state that it is the Brigade Maritime which as I have pointed out have no responsibility or powers for inspecting visiting ships. This lies solely with the Douaniers.

Is your HEAD OF CUSTOMS a Douaniers? If so he needs to check with his superriors as his account seems to be at odds with that obtained by Sybarite.

yes, the officer in charge of Cherbourg DOUANES... telling me in his own voice that to get an answer to my question about SSR, I had to ask the bosses in Paris at the Direction Generale and that he could not answer himself. Apparently this is a conflictual situation, not only with UK and BI but with Sweden and Italy as well.....
This said without prejudice to this pleasant officer who knows about this thread and did not ask our conversation to be kept secret and can intervene anytime he wishes if his position allows him to do so. Al.
ps: Call them yourself if you want Douanes in Cherbourg. The officer in charge of navigation speaks fluent english as he read through the thread in a loud voice and it sounded very good.

 

[Tranona]

Good, then you experience lends weight to Sybarite's account of his response from Head office.

I think you have to accept the prevailing wisdom of the last 30 years or so. Your government requires a visiting yacht to produce evidence of its state of registration in the same way that a French registered boat is required. It was able to convince the UK government that it was serious enough for the UK government to change the law to create the necessary document, presumably because UK was the major source of visiting yachts.

It may well be that the French law is insufficiently precise in its definition of what document is required, but the intention is absolutely clear and the legislation states a penalty for non -compliance. The vast majority of people comply because the requirement is widely and consistently publicised, although inevitably some transgress either through ignorance or carelessness and suffer the penalty.

Then along comes a strange amphibious being (Toad) who tries to create a "Myth" that this document is not required and that the French authorities have no right to impose penalties - despite the many years that it has been the practice. There is no foundation for this myth because the reality is clear for all to see. However he is then joined by an amateur sleuth (Tim) who starts from the premise that all officials are crooks and here is another example of their unpunished crookedness. Absolutely no evidence that this is the case - but hey! when you are creating a "Myth" truth is irrelevant. Myths only exist if people believe them and in this case vast numbers of people disagreed or did not believe the myth. The more information that emerged the less the myth became believable.

Toad and Tim then adopted a strategy of ascribing the opposite meaning to the new information, partly through their poor command of the English language but mainly by trying to create their own meanings in English or French terms and phrases. Clearly not a successful strategy as it is ridiculed by people with far better command of French and the end result is they are the only two beings that believe their myth. Unsurprising because it is entirely their own creation.

I am not sure what the moral is - but probably along the lines of don't believe anything from people who use bold type and underlining to try to persuade you that what they say is true!

 

[Sybarite]

Yes. I did look it up. Just as I looked up all the (different) laws that were referenced by the douaniers that Sybarite quoted in the Epilogue Mk1. If I hadn't looked them up, how could I possibly know that they are irrelevant??

Some of them relate specifically and only to French boats. Some of them relate to drug smuggling. Some of them relate to vessels carrying forged documents, and some to customs officers inspecting the weapon systems and magazines of visiting warships.

Not one of them requires a visiting yacht to produce its registration certificate. I wonder why we have been sent on so many wild goose chases when -- if this mysterious law really did exist -- it would be so easy to say "it's paragraph X, article Y and here's a link to it ..."

" My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with facts " eh Tim?


Do you accept that an Administrative Instruction constitutes part, an essential part of the French law making process?

If "No" then no further discussion is possible.
If "Yes" then what do you not understand in the phrases below ie

- Presentation of etc etc by the ship's owner and/or user, (How do you present them if you don't have them on board?);

- ...each vessel... needs to have on board a title of nationality;

... possibility to sanction the absence of presentation (note: absence of presentation, not absence of papers - as is the case if you haven't got your driving licence with you during a road check) of the act of nationality....

(My translation of the original e-mail):

Issue No. 110181 of 25 January 2011 (extracts - but full texts of the extracts chosen)

Presentation of various ship’s documents and/or titles of nationality by the owner and/or by the user of the vessel must enable the service to confirm the nationality of the foreign flag.

Moreover, with respect to international maritime law, each vessel which takes to sea needs to have on board a title of nationality issued by the relevant authorities of its own country (Article 91-2 of the Convention of Montego Bay)

The French Customs have therefore the possibility to sanction the absence of the presentation of the act of nationality in conformity with Article 410 of the “code des douanes.

Generally speaking, the owner and/or user of the vessel is obliged, irrespective of the foreign flag under which he is sailing, to supply proof-bearing papers enabling the nationality of his flag to be confirmed. Even if the authorities of the country do not habitually issue registration documents, he always has the possibility to contact his Consular Services to obtain written proof.

In the present case concerning the use of the British flag, the owner and/or user of the vessel may obtain from the British authorities, a registration document which will enable him to travel in French territorial waters and hence to justify the nationality of his flag."


Please note that the e-mail stipulates both an issue number and the equivalent mention "for application". This IS French law. If you feel that this is not compatible with UNCLOS well you can argue that with the custom's officer as you receive your fine.