French Papers - Epilogue Mk2 - The RYA respond

[Sybarite]

One further aspect which I mentionned a long time ago but which has slipped my mind since is the tax position.

Just for fun I posted the same question on the STW French forum and one person replied :

"On m'avait expliqué, mais j'ai un peu oublié, que c'est une histoire de taxes (qui restent une prérogative nationale). Apparement les autorités françaises (les douanes ?) n'ont pas la même approche lorsqu'il s'agit d'un bateau de propriétaire ou d'un charter. C'est pourquoi un document indiquant qui est le propriétaire du navire est demandé. C'est pourqoi les autorités Britanniques ont mis en place la "registration part 3" qui est une sorte d'attestation de propriété."

In other words charter operations in France are subject to tax in France. If a UK boat comes into French waters and carries out the same activity it is liable to the same taxes. This is a further justification for examining the papers ie to ensure that taxes are not being eluded.

 

[bbg]

... Just as I looked up all the (different) laws that were referenced by the douaniers that Sybarite quoted in the Epilogue Mk1.
...
Not one of them requires a visiting yacht to produce its registration certificate.

Says you. The douaniers say those provisions DO entitle them to issue fines for failing to produce registration documents.
Are you telling us that you have more expertise in the interpretation and application of French law than the douaniers HQ?

 

[jimbaerselman]

It has been very interesting to see the underlying faults of basic philosophy which create the difference of opinion in these threads.

There are three legal regimes being referred to. They are (conceptually) geographically separate.

1. British territorial waters;
2. High seas (which may include vessels on innocent passage;
3. French territorial waters, where the intention is to arrive or depart from a French port (excludes the innocent passage get-out).

The law which applies depends which regime the vessel is in. The regular error of logic being made is to assume that the law affecting one regime necessarily applies in another regime.

For instance, international maritime law is not necessarily relevant to vessels cruising French territorial waters (apart from defining innocent passage). So, no point in talking detail about UNCLOS.

Equally, the permissions (to not carry documents) which apply to British vessels in British waters or on the high seas do not necessarily apply when the vessel is in French waters. So there's no point in rabbiting on about there being no British requirement, therefore . . .

Moral 1: define the patch you are debating first.
Moral 2: if you disagree with another person, search for the missing assumptions
Moral 3: attacking the man, rather than the idea, stops the search for truth

How's that for a condescending bunch of twaddle, eh? Now then girls . . .

 

[Lucky Duck]

For instance, international maritime law is not necessarily relevant to vessels cruising French territorial waters (apart from defining innocent passage). So, no point in talking detail about UNCLOS.

The only reason UNCLOS keeps getting discussed here is that the 'offical' response in the original Epilogue thread relied on UNCLOS as giving authority to require original registraiton documents rather than rely on a specific part of domestic law.

 

[jimbaerselman]

The only reason UNCLOS keeps getting discussed here is that the 'offical' response in the original Epilogue thread relied on UNCLOS as giving authority to require original registraiton documents rather than rely on a specific part of domestic law.

Agreed, it set up the mechanism. But that doesn't affect the right of France to make its own rules. It just facilitates the French requirement by ensuring that registries already exist.

If anyone doubts the right of countries to control their own territorial waters, they should try entering Israel or Lebanon . . . what a rigmarole! And backed up by use of force, not just fines. That Turkish boat . . . just a few killed . . .

 

[timbartlett]

Agreed, it set up the mechanism. But that doesn't affect the right of France to make its own rules. It just facilitates the French requirement by ensuring that registries already exist.

(Let's gloss over the fact that UNCLOS does not "ensure that registries exist": in fact, it specifically excludes "small ships" from the requirement to be registered.)

No one has questioned the right of France to set up its own rules. The burning question is whether France has actually done so, or whether a few misguided/overzealous french officials have made up their own rules. It would not be the first time: there are countless examples in the UK, and the well known example of Belgians extorting illegal penalties from British yachts with red diesel in their tanks. Why should French officials be any different?

And the fact that the douaniers base their entire argument on a misconstruction of an irrelevant provision in UNCLOS does not lend much credibility to their case! The whole document, in fact, reads like something from a senior official who is trying to justify the behaviour of a junior official (or officials) who has/have overstepped the mark, but who does not want to risk being caught out telling a bare-faced lie!

The fact that no-one has been able to point to a single piece of legislation that requires the production of a registration certificate by visiting yachts in France is significant. So is the fact that so many red herrings have been produced.

So is the fact that the communication from the douaniers uses very general terms such as "documents probant" when it refers to what is required, and limits itself to pointing out that a registration certificate is amongst the documents that will satisfy that requirement.

And yes: you are quite right that the vitriolic ad hominem attacks to which I have been subjected on this thread make me disinclined to believe the people who have resorted to them. I expect Toad and Al.Carpenter (amongst others) feel much the same.

 

[awol]

(Let's gloss over the fact that UNCLOS does not "ensure that registries exist": in fact, it specifically excludes "small ships" from the requirement to be registered.)

Oh Tim, Tim, what a tangled web you weave! UNCLOS does NOT specifically exclude "small ships" from any requirements. It excepts "small ships" "which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account of their small size". Neither Part 1 nor Part III UK registration excludes ships for reason of size and I know of no international regulations which do. So as far as the high seas and UNCLOS is concerned if it can be registered, it should be registered. It seems reasonable that foreign ships that have crossed the high seas to reach others' territorial waters should, therefore, have been registered by their home nation.

 

[timbartlett]

Oh Tim, Tim, what a tangled web you weave!

Please do not accuse me of dishonesty. It is unjustified and offensive, and does nothing to enhance the validity of your argument

I know of no international regulations which do.

Your ignorance is your problem. Demonstrating it does not enhance your argument.

 

[Sybarite]

(Let's gloss over the fact that UNCLOS does not "ensure that registries exist": in fact, it specifically excludes "small ships" from the requirement to be registered.)

No one has questioned the right of France to set up its own rules. The burning question is whether France has actually done so, or whether a few misguided/overzealous french officials have made up their own rules. It would not be the first time: there are countless examples in the UK, and the well known example of Belgians extorting illegal penalties from British yachts with red diesel in their tanks. Why should French officials be any different?

And the fact that the douaniers base their entire argument on a misconstruction of an irrelevant provision in UNCLOS does not lend much credibility to their case! The whole document, in fact, reads like something from a senior official who is trying to justify the behaviour of a junior official (or officials) who has/have overstepped the mark, but who does not want to risk being caught out telling a bare-faced lie!

The fact that no-one has been able to point to a single piece of legislation that requires the production of a registration certificate by visiting yachts in France is significant. So is the fact that so many red herrings have been produced.

So is the fact that the communication from the douaniers uses very general terms such as "documents probant" when it refers to what is required, and limits itself to pointing out that a registration certificate is amongst the documents that will satisfy that requirement.

And yes: you are quite right that the vitriolic ad hominem attacks to which I have been subjected on this thread make me disinclined to believe the people who have resorted to them. I expect Toad and Al.Carpenter (amongst others) feel much the same.

Yet again you choose to ignore the question I put to you. Do you accept that an Administrative instruction constitutes part of French Law? Yes or No?

<< the vitriolic ad hominem attacks to which I have been subjected on this thread >>

If ever a pot called a kettle black !

 

[mike_bryon]

So it’s a conspiracy. The motive is to cover up the illegal/harmful actions of overzealous French officers. The conspiring parties include those producing the ‘red herrings’ on this forum and a senior officer of the Douanier. I guess the RYA is also implicated. We should subscribe to this conspiracy because there were once some overzealous Belgium officers….

You might be interested in www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread670039/pg1

"Where are all the north pole center pics!!!!????

Has anyone ever noticed that there is zero ariel images of the north poles center..or on google earth there is no zoom option it just a white blur...and i read that 97 percent of all satellites go from west to east or vise versa and the other 3 percent are government own and restricted from the public.

I challenge anyone to find an ariel hd pic of the center of the north pole and i mean dead center i found this supposed leaked image from 67 kind of weird."

To be clear Tim I do not consider you dishonest nor do I believe that French officials are breaking the law and others covering up their crimes.

 

[Sybarite]

I came upon this little summary on the Jersey harbour authorities site :

Registration of vessels which will be used overseas :

International law requires registration on a national register of any vessel going overseas. A vessel taken overseas must identify its nationality by carrying the flag of the country in which it is registered.

A vessel may be placed on 1 of 2 registers in order to satisfy this requirement:

Small Ships Registry (SSR)
full registration with the British Register of Ships

Small Ships Register (SSR)
An SSR is a way of providing documentary evidence of the yacht's nationality.

The certificate is valid for 5 years. It is unique to the vessel and is not transferable.

Application can be made by individuals (not companies) who are ordinarily resident in Jersey and is limited to ships under 24 metres (79 feet) in length.

You can find out more about SSR, including a downloadable application form, on the States of Jersey website.

Full registration with the British Register of Ships

Full registration provides documentary evidence of title or ownership and nationality of a vessel. A mortgage or other charge may be entered on the register.

A full registration certificate is recognised worldwide.

You can find out more about full registration, including a downloadable application form, on the States of Jersey website.

Travelling to mainland Europe

Certificates and papers

If you’re planning on travelling in your vessel to mainland Europe, you must ensure that you possess a certificate of Small Ships Registry (SSR) and the RYA International Certificate of Competence (ICC). This applies for both Jersey and UK registered vessels. You should also carry copies of all other papers regarding your vessel, including insurance.

French patrols

The French authorities make regular patrols of coastal marinas and waterways and frequently request to board or inspect visiting craft and their paperwork.

It is the responsibility of the vessel’s captain / owner to ensure that the necessary documentation is present and correct. If it isn’t, on the spot fines and / or impounding of a vessel may occur. This is standard practice for the French authorities

 

[awol]

Please do not accuse me of dishonesty. It is unjustified and offensive, and does nothing to enhance the validity of your argument
Your ignorance is your problem. Demonstrating it does not enhance your argument.

If wilful misinterpretation is dishonest then so be it. You have demonstrated a forensic ability to dissect the English (and French) wording of complicated documents but on this subject manage to extract an erroneous interpretation from simple enough words apparently to suit your argument. You have repeated the canard that small ships are excluded from UNCLOS when they clearly are not. UNCLOS refers to exclusion by "internationally recognised regulations" and I was rather hoping that you, with your vast experience and wisdom, would be able to point me in the direction of these regulations to dissuade me from the notion they do not exist. I think this is the 3rd time of asking but instead of admitting your ignorance on the matter, you prefer to attack me.

You appear easily offended but don't seem to show contrition. You previously falsely accused me of wrongly paraphrasing to mislead and support an argument that I was not even trying to make but you didn't apologise. I suggest you read these posts as carefully as you claim to read official documents before you leap onto your high horse.

 

[bbg]

(Let's gloss over the fact that UNCLOS does not "ensure that registries exist": in fact, it specifically excludes "small ships" from the requirement to be registered.)

UNCLOS does not make any such exclusion, and as you have said yourself it applies to states, not individuals or ships.
UNCLOS obliges states to issue registration documents to those vessels entitled to fly its flag. There is no exception or exclusion to this requirement. UNCLOS also obliges states to keep a registry of ships entitled to fly its flag. States to have a right to make an exception to this requirement - namely ships that are small.
In practice, however, I cannot imagine any state issuing documents to a vessel then failing to keep a record of it on a registry.

And the fact that the douaniers base their entire argument on a misconstruction of an irrelevant provision in UNCLOS does not lend much credibility to their case!
...
The fact that no-one has been able to point to a single piece of legislation that requires the production of a registration certificate by visiting yachts in France is significant. So is the fact that so many red herrings have been produced.

They didn't base their "entire argument" on UNCLOS. Their letter made specific reference to particular sections of the Code des Douaniers. As I have pointed out to you several times they HAVE identified the legislation on which they rely. I will agree with you that those sections do not EXPLICTLY refer to production of registration documents, but that does not mean that they could not be used for fining a vessel for failing to produce registration documents. Some of the sections they refer to contain broad and general powers of boarding and inspection.

Who are you to say that those general powers do not include by implication the specific power to issue a fine for failing to produce registration documents? With all due respect, you are simply not qualified to have an opinion on that.

I've made this point several times on two threads, and you have never addressed it. That is revealing.

 

[timbartlett]

<rant>

Look at what I actually wrote:-

... UNCLOS does not "ensure that registries exist": in fact, it specifically excludes "small ships" from the requirement to be registered.

Now look at what you say I wrote:

You have repeated the canard that small ships are excluded from UNCLOS when they clearly are not.

There is a distinct difference. What I wrote is true: what you say I wrote is not. You are using a technique known as the "straw man" argument.

UNCLOS refers to exclusion by "internationally recognised regulations"

No, it doesn't. What it says is

...every State shall 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...

Small ships are not "excluded" from being registered, but states are not required to maintain a register of them.

There are countless international regulations that exclude vessels on account of size: a few that leap to mind are: compulsory carriage of AIS, compulsory compliance with GMDSS, compulsory carriage of IMO-approved radar, ARPA, and ECDIS equipment etc. etc. and almost the whole of SOLAS apart from a few isolated paragraphs in Chapter V

You appear easily offended ...

I am not "easily offended", as you suggest, but my long fuse has almost completely disappeared over the course of three or four long threads in which I have tried to do nothing more than establish the truth of exactly what the french law really says.

 

[timbartlett]

Yet again you choose to ignore the question I put to you. Do you accept that an Administrative instruction constitutes part of French Law? Yes or No?

In much the same way as a "Code of Practice" is part of UK Law, yes. But the Administrative Instruction that you keep referring to says that vessels have to produce documentary proof of their nationality. It does not say that a registration document is the only document that is acceptable documentary proof. Whoever composed it appears to have gone to some considerable effort to avoid making that a simple statement.

<< the vitriolic ad hominem attacks to which I have been subjected on this thread >>If ever a pot called a kettle black !

I can only assume that you do not know what is meant by "ad hominem". I suggest you look it up.

 

[timbartlett]

As I have pointed out to you several times they HAVE identified the legislation on which they rely. I will agree with you that those sections do not EXPLICTLY refer to production of registration documents, but that does not mean that they could not be used for fining a vessel for failing to produce registration documents. Some of the sections they refer to contain broad and general powers of boarding and inspection.

And as I have pointed out many times, the legislation on which they rely has nothing to do with the production of registration documents. A regulation that says it is a criminal offence to smuggle drugs cannot be used to punish someone who is not smuggling drugs. A regulation that says the captain of a visiting warship must allow customs officers to inspect his magazines and shell holds cannot be used against a vessel that is not a visiting warship etc.etc.

I've made this point several times on two threads, and you have never addressed it. That is revealing.

I've responded to this point from so many people so many times on at least three or four threads that I have lost count.

 

[timbartlett]

Could one of those who are arguing so fervently in favour of compulsory legislation please explain why?

I don't understand why you are so desperate that there should be a piece of legislation that will allow the officials a foreign country to charge you money if you lose or mislay a particular piece of paper.

No-one is suggesting that you should not have a registration document if you want one. I don't think anyone is even suggesting that an SSR isn't a cheap and simple way of keeping officials happy.

It might be worth revisiting the very first post in this thread, in which the RYA summary of the opinion of their french lawyer was “Strictly speaking, therefore, a British vessel navigating outside UK territorial waters need not be registered but it must be in a position to produce proof of its nationality. In French territorial waters, the vessel must carry on board original documentation that proves its nationality. For all practical purposes, the simplest and most effective way of proving nationality is by producing the original Certificate of British Registry”

Personally, I am not a lawyer, nor am I french, so I accept that advice.

 

[bbg]

And as I have pointed out many times, the legislation on which they rely has nothing to do with the production of registration documents. A regulation that says it is a criminal offence to smuggle drugs cannot be used to punish someone who is not smuggling drugs. A regulation that says the captain of a visiting warship must allow customs officers to inspect his magazines and shell holds cannot be used against a vessel that is not a visiting warship etc.etc.

Says you. They say otherwise. In any event, you conveniently ignore 44 bis:

Dans une zone contiguë comprise entre douze et vingt-quatre milles marins mesurés à partir des lignes de base de la mer territoriale et sous réserve d'accords de délimitation avec les Etats voisins, le service des douanes peut exercer les contrôles nécessaires en vue de :
a) prévenir les infractions aux lois et règlements que l'administration des douanes est chargée d'appliquer sur le territoire douanier ;
b) poursuivre les infractions à ces mêmes lois et règlements commises sur le territoire douanier.

This is a general power of boarding and inspection. The douaniers rely on this (inter alia) in support of their powers to fine vessels which fail to produce registration documents.

ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU CLAIM THAT YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS PROVISION IS TO BE PREFERRED TO THEIRS?

 

[timbartlett]

Says you. They say otherwise. In any event, you conveniently ignore 44 bis:This is a general power of boarding and inspection. The douaniers rely on this (inter alia) in support of their powers to fine vessels which fail to produce registration documents.

I do not "ignore" 44bis: but it simply says that they have the right to board and inspect -- and that (AFAIK) has never been in dispute. It does not, however, specify which documents they are entitled to demand.

ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU CLAIM THAT YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS PROVISION IS TO BE PREFERRED TO THEIRS?

I do not say that my interpretation is to be preferred to theirs. I am trying to persuade you to read what they actually wrote.

But as both the Douaniers and the french lawyer paid by the RYA to offer an opinion have pointed out, officials have the authority to demand proof of nationality.

A registration certificate is one method of providing that proof. It is the simplest and most convenient. But both the douaniers and the RYA lawyer allow other possibilities.

Why are you (and Sybarite, and Tranona, and others) so desperately keen to rule out alternatives? Why do you insist that your interpretation is correct and that the douaniers and french lawyer are wrong?

 

[bbg]

Tim, what the douaniers "actually wrote" (as you say) is that they are entitled to issue a fine for failing to produce a "certificate of nationality":

Les douanes françaises ont ainsi la possibilité de sanctionner le défaut de présentation d'un acte de nationalité en vertu de l'article 410 du code des douanes.

They said other things as well, but they also said that very clearly. Nothing in the summary contained in the first post in this thread contradicts that.

I know that one clear sentence is very inconvenient for you. Every time I bring it up you talk about other parts of the douaniers' letter, or UNCLOS, or what the RYA have said. You are like a politician who answers the question he is comfortable answering because he doesn't want to answer the question he is asked.

So please resist the temptation to do that and just focus on this one sentence. It is what the HQ of the douaniers "actually wrote". They say they have the right to issue a fine for failing to produce a certificate of nationality. What could this possibly mean other than registration documents?

And you still have not responded to the point I made in 113: that although the sections to which the French douaniers refer do not explicitly refer to registration documents, the powers conferred thereunder might (under French law) be broad enough to include the right to demand registration documents.

I don't discount the possibility that they might be wrong in their interpretation of their powers. Why do you discount the possibility that they might be right?