Red Diesel - UK Government loses.

[chrishscorp]

That, to me, seems like the obvious way out of the whole farce.
I guess the EU has got a rule outlawing it?

Google is a wonderful tool, here is the EU court judgement

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1539818211110&uri=CELEX:62017CJ0503

The above link was incidentally posted in the other thread on red diesel started about a month ago, i presume you didnt read that bit.

Under Article 14(1) of that directive:

‘In addition to the general provisions set out in [Council] Directive 92/12/EEC [of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1)] on exempt uses of taxable products, and without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following from taxation under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse:

...

(c) energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than private pleasure craft, and electricity produced on board a craft.

For the purposes of this Directive “private pleasure craft” shall mean any craft used by its owner or the natural or legal person who enjoys its use either through hire or through any other means, for other than commercial purposes and in particular other than for the carriage of passengers or goods or for the supply of services for consideration or for the purposes of public authorities.’

 

[BelleSerene]

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31995L0060
Article 3

Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that improper use of the marked products is avoided and, in particular, that the mineral oils in question cannot be used for combustion in the engine of a road-going motor vehicle or kept in its fuel tank unless such use is permitted in specific cases determined by the competent authorities of the Member States

Which in plain english means EU countries will nick anyone with 'euromarker' tainted diesel in their tanks.

Perhaps English is not your mother tongue. It means nothing of the sort.

Firstly, it places a requirement on the member state, not on the individual, so any penalty for infringing it is on the member state, not on the citizen. Which is why the EU has taken action against the UK and not against a bunch of sailors.

Secondly, it refers explicitly to the restrictions that member states should impose on the availability of such marked fuels. We are talking about non-member states, which the UK will be after its departure from the Union.

It says nothing about it being a crime in EU countries to hold in your tanks fuel that’s been marked and bought outside the EU.

 

[maby]

...
Firstly, it places a requirement on the member state, not on the individual, so any penalty for infringing it is on the member state, not on the citizen. Which is why the EU has taken action against the UK and not against a bunch of sailors.

Secondly, it refers explicitly to the restrictions that member states should impose on the availability of such marked fuels. We are talking about non-member states, which the UK will be after its departure from the Union.

It says nothing about it being a crime in EU countries to hold in your tanks fuel that’s been marked and bought outside the EU.

You are quite right - and, in all probability, they will treat us much the same as they would treat a US vessel - if you have recently arrived then the assumption will be that any marked fuel in your tanks came quite legally from outside the EU. If you stay a long time, then they may get more interested in where the marked fuel came from. The danger is that, while the EU regulations don't say that it is a crime to be in EU waters with marked fuel in your tanks which was legally bought outside the EU, they equally don't say that it is not a crime. There is plenty of fuzziness in the rules which could be considered to support the bolshie Belgian customs official who impounds your boat because your diesel is red.

 

[GTom]

You are quite right - and, in all probability, they will treat us much the same as they would treat a US vessel - if you have recently arrived then the assumption will be that any marked fuel in your tanks came quite legally from outside the EU. If you stay a long time, then they may get more interested in where the marked fuel came from. The danger is that, while the EU regulations don't say that it is a crime to be in EU waters with marked fuel in your tanks which was legally bought outside the EU, they equally don't say that it is not a crime. There is plenty of fuzziness in the rules which could be considered to support the bolshie Belgian customs official who impounds your boat because your diesel is red.

Germany fines red diesel yachtsmen, Yachting monthly

We had taken a very small amount of fuel in the U.S. prior to our transport to Europe,” said the captain fined in November.
The yacht cruised around the Baltic all summer last year, including Scandinavia and Russia, using about 38,000 litres of fuel, which was tax paid and clear.

EU directives are one thing, national regulations might be stricter - and very unfriendly to non-EU vessels, where marine use of marked fuel may be completely legal.

 

[sailorman]

you dont have to shout mate. We are all allowed our little phobias. Hope you never get your filters blocked.
Be well.

Didnt SHOUT just highlighted lower case
Yes had filter issues 16 yrs ago with our red

 

[BelleSerene]

You are quite right - and, in all probability, they will treat us much the same as they would treat a US vessel - if you have recently arrived then the assumption will be that any marked fuel in your tanks came quite legally from outside the EU. If you stay a long time, then they may get more interested in where the marked fuel came from. The danger is that, while the EU regulations don't say that it is a crime to be in EU waters with marked fuel in your tanks which was legally bought outside the EU, they equally don't say that it is not a crime. There is plenty of fuzziness in the rules which could be considered to support the bolshie Belgian customs official who impounds your boat because your diesel is red.

Well indeed. Britons, with their history of common law, do balk at an entity with such scant regard to what its own rules actually say, so untouched by the principle that the default - in the absence of a specific law - should be the citizen’s freedom to act, not the state’s freedom to tax/ impound/ constrain.

But look, even in, say, Belgium, such behaviour is the exception, not the rule. Some cops in America break their own rules by picking on black people: but people don’t accept that as the way it’s got to be, they complain about it and hold officials to account. Some government officials in (predominantly southern) European countries do deals with taxpayers contrary to their laws: we don’t accept that we all have to accept such primitive officialdom, we surface it, hold them to account and shame them and their hierarchies, and so make such behaviour more exceptional. And so it is with, say, over-zealous Belgian or German customs officials illegally taxing foreign-bought fuel or illegally penalising having foreign-created dye in tanks - neither of which is justified under those countries’ or EU legislation. It happens. It’ll happen. It’s illegal action by the state and an abuse of power by the customs official. It’ll be publicised and shamed; there’ll be diplomatic representations about the illegal actions of those customs offices; it won’t be the norm.

 

[GTom]

Well indeed. Britons, with their history of common law, do balk at an entity with such scant regard to what its own rules actually say, so untouched by the principle that the default - in the absence of a specific law - should be the citizen’s freedom to act, not the state’s freedom to tax/ impound/ constrain.

But look, even in, say, Belgium, such behaviour is the exception, not the rule. Some cops in America break their own rules by picking on black people: but people don’t accept that as the way it’s got to be, they complain about it and hold officials to account. Some government officials in (predominantly southern) European countries do deals with taxpayers contrary to their laws: we don’t accept that we all have to accept such primitive officialdom, we surface it, hold them to account and shame them and their hierarchies, and so make such behaviour more exceptional. And so it is with, say, over-zealous Belgian or German customs officials illegally taxing foreign-bought fuel or illegally penalising having foreign-created dye in tanks - neither of which is justified under those countries’ or EU legislation. It happens. It’ll happen. It’s illegal action by the state and an abuse of power by the customs official. It’ll be publicised and shamed; there’ll be diplomatic representations about the illegal actions of those customs offices; it won’t be the norm.

The German case of 2011 was highly unlikely a "bad day of a pissed officer". The boat had documented all fuel purchase and such a crew is likely to take legal action, which they eventually did, a lot easier than a low-budget sailor on a 5k£ 25' sailboat.

 

[wizard]

Well indeed. Britons, with their history of common law, do balk at an entity with such scant regard to what its own rules actually say, so untouched by the principle that the default - in the absence of a specific law - should be the citizen’s freedom to act, not the state’s freedom to tax/ impound/ constrain.

But look, even in, say, Belgium, such behaviour is the exception, not the rule. Some cops in America break their own rules by picking on black people: but people don’t accept that as the way it’s got to be, they complain about it and hold officials to account. Some government officials in (predominantly southern) European countries do deals with taxpayers contrary to their laws: we don’t accept that we all have to accept such primitive officialdom, we surface it, hold them to account and shame them and their hierarchies, and so make such behaviour more exceptional. And so it is with, say, over-zealous Belgian or German customs officials illegally taxing foreign-bought fuel or illegally penalising having foreign-created dye in tanks - neither of which is justified under those countries’ or EU legislation. It happens. It’ll happen. It’s illegal action by the state and an abuse of power by the customs official. It’ll be publicised and shamed; there’ll be diplomatic representations about the illegal actions of those customs offices; it won’t be the norm.

Not very comforting if you are the one who has been fined.

 

[lw395]

Perhaps English is not your mother tongue. It means nothing of the sort.

Firstly, it places a requirement on the member state, not on the individual, so any penalty for infringing it is on the member state, not on the citizen. Which is why the EU has taken action against the UK and not against a bunch of sailors.

Secondly, it refers explicitly to the restrictions that member states should impose on the availability of such marked fuels. We are talking about non-member states, which the UK will be after its departure from the Union.

It says nothing about it being a crime in EU countries to hold in your tanks fuel that’s been marked and bought outside the EU.

It requires the EU states to police the possession of euro-marked diesel in the tanks of vehicles and leisure craft.
That is the way EU directives work, they require national laws to be made, which in turn regulate the individual.

 

[lw395]

Germany fines red diesel yachtsmen, Yachting monthly


EU directives are one thing, national regulations might be stricter - and very unfriendly to non-EU vessels, where marine use of marked fuel may be completely legal.

"We had taken a very small amount of fuel in the U.S. prior to our transport to Europe,” said the captain fined in November.
The yacht cruised around the Baltic all summer last year, including Scandinavia and Russia, using about 38,000 litres of fuel, which was tax paid and clear."

That was in 2011. Anyone know how it panned out?

"“We had taken a very small amount of fuel in the U.S. prior to our transport to Europe,” said the captain fined in November. The yacht cruised around the Baltic all summer last year, including Scandinavia and Russia, using about 38,000 litres of fuel, which was tax paid and clear.

“But our fuel still had a very light pink color,” he said. “The chemical tests that customs use are extremely sensitive and will detect unseen quantities of dye."


Read more at https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/germany-fines-red-diesel-yachtsmen-3896#m00xkYk6t3jbfKQL.99

But the tests AIUI will distinguish between 'euromarker' marked red and red from non-EU countries.

 

[GTom]

You suggest they refueled with European red? Unlikely, since they documented all fuel purchase. However, I also find it strange that the dye hasn't cleared from their system during the long cruise.

 

[lw395]

You suggest they refueled with European red? Unlikely, since they documented all fuel purchase. However, I also find it strange that the dye hasn't cleared from their system during the long cruise.

It's very hard to prove a negative, you can document as many fuel purchases as you like, it doesn't prove you didn't buy some red. Or that some retailer didn't charge you for white while filling with red.

AIUI, the whole point of euromarker is that it's easy to test for traces. And the test differentiates euromarker from other dyes used elsewhere in the world.
But it's conceivable the wrong test was done.

 

[GTom]

It's very hard to prove a negative, you can document as many fuel purchases as you like, it doesn't prove you didn't buy some red. Or that some retailer didn't charge you for white while filling with red.

AIUI, the whole point of euromarker is that it's easy to test for traces. And the test differentiates euromarker from other dyes used elsewhere in the world.
But it's conceivable the wrong test was done.

If they topped up frequently, there might have been sufficient red dye left to produce a positive. It's a difficult situation: AFAIK criminalizing fuel already in the tank when entering EU waters is beyond international conventions, effectively forcing boats to clean their fuel systems and bunker white fuel before entering community waters.

I also wonder how the German customs would react to Irish green diesel - which is in the current situation completely illegal (=marked fuel purchased in EU customs area), but not of the obvious pink colored stuff...

 

[awol]

I also wonder how the German customs would react to Irish green diesel - which is in the current situation completely illegal (=marked fuel purchased in EU customs area), but not of the obvious pink colored stuff...

....... and again! The marker is Solvent Yellow 124 - the green or red dye is incidental but indicates that the fuel is likely to be marked.

 

[Daydream believer]

I spoke to a Dutch sailor fillingwith red in St Peter Port & he said that it was fuel bought outside the EU ( Guernsey not being in the EU) so he would tell his customs people that. He said that other Dutch sailors regularly did it & did so on safety grounds. White not being available when they needed to fill up. He was not aware of any fines occurred as a result

 

[Blue Sunray]

AFAIK criminalizing fuel already in the tank when entering EU waters is beyond international conventions, .

Your understanding is incorrect. As has been pointed out many time before it is no more legal than, say, a Parisian bought pepper spray or Netherlands bought personal use cannabis would be if they were on a French or Dutch boat moored in a UK marina.

 

[GTom]

....... and again! The marker is Solvent Yellow 124 - the green or red dye is incidental but indicates that the fuel is likely to be marked.

Thx, you are right of course. Once suspected, then it goes to the lab.

I spoke to a Dutch sailor fillingwith red in St Peter Port & he said that it was fuel bought outside the EU ( Guernsey not being in the EU) so he would tell his customs people that. He said that other Dutch sailors regularly did it & did so on safety grounds. White not being available when they needed to fill up. He was not aware of any fines occurred as a result

I just wonder where the French boats from Normandy do their routine bunkering, especially after Macron's fuel tax hike...

 

[sailorman]

Thx, you are right of course. Once suspected, then it goes to the lab.



I just wonder where the French boats from Normandy do their routine bunkering, especially after Macron's fuel tax hike...

Rather keep asking questions, why not search the forum. This crap goes back over 10 yrs & has been done to death

 

[Daydream believer]

Your understanding is incorrect. As has been pointed out many time before it is no more legal than, say, a Parisian bought pepper spray or Netherlands bought personal use cannabis would be if they were on a French or Dutch boat moored in a UK marina.

Not what the RYA told me.
But I was only observing what the particular Dutch sailors were doing & pointing out that the sailor in question did not know of any others being fined as a consequence .
I was actually not wanting to put an argument either way.
But as said elsewhere, it has been done to death so best left as it does not apply to us

 

[BelleSerene]

Your understanding is incorrect. As has been pointed out many time before it is no more legal than, say, a Parisian bought pepper spray or Netherlands bought personal use cannabis would be if they were on a French or Dutch boat moored in a UK marina.

Saying it many times doesn’t make it true, I’m afraid. Possession of pepper spray in the UK is illegal. Yes, the act of possession. Possession of marked diesel is not illegal in EU countries. Yes, the act of possession. If you think otherwise, rather than restating your mantra would you please point to the regulation that makes it illegal.