Red diesel fines in Belgium - names and details in this month's Yachting Monthly

Otter

Otter

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Nov 2004
Messages
10,933
Location
Norfolk
Visit site
Names of two boats and their owners in this month's Yachting Monthly magazine. €500 fine for each yacht, one of the yachts only had a 20 litre diesel tank! The situation is kafkaesque - yachts are being routinely tested for red diesel, 70 UK ones so far this season, but are only fined for having red diesel if there are errors in their ship's papers. Honestly you couldn't make this up. One of the fines was because although the papers were all OK the boat was a 1922 classic and didn't have its name painted on the side.

It's an absolute shambles, Belgium are claiming to be acting within the law but in reality they are being arbitrary and capricious, no fines for the diesel if all your papers are sound but if they find a mistake then they'll do you for the diesel. Banana republics have acted with more legal consistency.
 
Colvic Watson said:
Names of two boats and their owners in this month's Yachting Monthly magazine. €500 fine for each yacht, one of the yachts only had a 20 litre diesel tank! The situation is kafkaesque - yachts are being routinely tested for red diesel, 70 UK ones so far this season, but are only fined for having red diesel if there are errors in their ship's papers. Honestly you couldn't make this up. One of the fines was because although the papers were all OK the boat was a 1922 classic and didn't have its name painted on the side.

It's an absolute shambles, Belgium are claiming to be acting within the law but in reality they are being arbitrary and capricious, no fines for the diesel if all your papers are sound but if they find a mistake then they'll do you for the diesel. Banana republics have acted with more legal consistency.
Click to expand...
My copy of the RYA magazine has just arrived with no reports. only mentioning that they ( the rya) have lobbied Belgian Clubs & marinas to apply pressure on the Belgian Government, British visitor numbers are down & the Clubs & marina`s sought last year to have a relaxing of the rules but failed to ask again in 2015, this causing the uncertainty that now exists once again.
The RYA supports red fuel for recreational boaters
 
Stork_III said:
Belgians, I think, require boat name each side, and home port on transom.
Click to expand...

There is NO legal requirement for seagoing yachts - in Belgium - to have the name of the boat on each side of the boat.
However, there IS a legal requirement to have the boat name AND home port on the transom.
The requirement to have the boat name on either side of the boat ONLY applies when sailing on the canals.
(Reference: http://www.mobilit.belgium.be/nl/scheepvaart/pleziervaart/vaartuig/herkenningstekens/) - put it in Google translate if you are so inclined.

The requirement to have a home port on the transom is an arcane bit of legislation dating back to Napoleonic times.
As yachting is not exactly a big thing in the Belgian political psyche, it never got repealed.
And people have now started to take the piss, listing marinas in the middle of nowhere as home port (as sailorman already pointed out).
Should you wish to follow the letter of this arcane legislation, a Belgian registered boat can only be homeported in Zeebrugge, Antwerp, Ghent, Brussels or Liege.
As I said, Belgian yotties take the piss, but Belgian flagged merchant vessels (not fishing vessels) will still be homeported on one of those 5 ports.
 
Last edited:
I'm entitled to have my boat labelled in conformance with UK laws, even when abroad. I'm only part II registered, so nothing matters so long as I have my SSR number displayed. To hell with the Dutch and Belgians. Luckily, the beer is still OK.
 
It was very noticeable how few brits we saw in Holland a couple of weeks back.
One we did have a chat with, came from the Solent and decided to go from Ramsgate to Breskens specifically to avoid his usual stops at Oostende or Blankenberge.
He also pointed out that a couple of his friends decided to head for France even though at the start of the season they were going to head for Amsterdam.
On that basis it struck me that this issue is hitting Dutch visitors as well.

We avoided Belgium this year on our way back because with the current migrant issue I figured a boarding was going to be far more likely and although I should be ok (except for home port on stern) I didn't want to temp providence.
 
Javelin said:
It was very noticeable how few brits we saw in Holland a couple of weeks back.
One we did have a chat with, came from the Solent and decided to go from Ramsgate to Breskens specifically to avoid his usual stops at Oostende or Blankenberge.
He also pointed out that a couple of his friends decided to head for France even though at the start of the season they were going to head for Amsterdam.
On that basis it struck me that this issue is hitting Dutch visitors as well.

We avoided Belgium this year on our way back because with the current migrant issue I figured a boarding was going to be far more likely and although I should be ok (except for home port on stern) I didn't want to temp providence.
Click to expand...

1/ They still transited through Belgian waters, so could have still been boarded
2/ arrests in Ijmuiden a couple of weeks ago, yacht filled to the gunnels with would be immigrants
 
JumbleDuck said:
I believe that UK rules alone apply only when you are on passage through another country's territorial waters. If you want to go into a port there, you have to play by their rules.
Click to expand...
I don't know the law but this subject cropped up some years ago when there were rumours of the French officials requiring British yachts to comply with some of their regulations, such as those relating to safety equipment.
 
Out to 12 nautical miles, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.Innocent passage is a concept in law of the sea which allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state subject to certain restrictions. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines innocent passage as:

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top