RYA:

[nortada]

A good summary, but it does not answer my question - was it the RYA that "invented" the 180 day rule?

Well somebody did

Could be Lisboa (apparently equally confused)

It only appeared when the RYA got involved; 'til then for years it had been 6-months (183 days - a widely use EU value)?

To get around this fixation on 180/183 days, suggest we use 6 months?

Moving on.

Fundamental to separate checks at sea (safety) & light dues, where no time limits apply & the 6-month issue which is all about a federal (nation wide tax) payable in Portugal since the mid 1970s (seldom imposed in The Algarve & never elsewhere in Portugal).

For completeness, this same tax is employed against Portuguese flagged vessels with no 6-month dispensation but as with many things in Portugal, it is not avoided but evaded (major national sport) - bit like ex-pats with foreign plated cars & the circulation tax - hide boat/car in barn or garage when not in use!

Boaties with cars in the Portugal could shed more light on this

Oh my Gawd it's raining - just like Pin Mill. That's not in the contract

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

If they are shown to discriminate either in principle or in practice against any individual or nationality, or in contravention of any international or EU agreement, then there is a role for the RYA and ultimately the UK government to take action.

Indeed but it would be helpful if the RYA's Legal department stated clearly a) what legislation is being broken and b) whether or not applying that legislation to foreign flagged boats conflicts with any international agreements that Portugal is signed up to.

It should not the the case the Jo public have to learn international maritime law from scratch and then inform the RYA legal department that it's being broken!

It's entirely possible the RYA don't have the resources to properly read up on all the law involved in which case they would save everyone a load of confusion by saying so instead of being vague.

Forgive me please if I have missed something as I only skimmed this thread but, WRT the Portugese situation, are we not a little bit in the same situation as we were concerning the French papers? ie They make the rules for their own territorial waters.

They seem different to me.

In the case of original SSRs in France the French Legislature has never specified any rules for visiting boats on carrying original docs, and when French revenue started fining Italian boats they were told to stop. As far as we can tell what's happened in France is on at least two occasions Customs have convinced yotties to admit to breaking a total of *three* conflicting laws (one of which they haven't specified, two of which don't even apply to yachts or mention carrying original documents!). Neither of these cases went anywhere near a magistrate. (Incidentally a clear statement from the RYA on that would be very welcome.)

ICBW but it looks to me like the Portuguese Legislature concur with the enforcement branch that safety gear is required under Portuguese law. (Having said that as far as I can see nobody has been prosecuted which makes me wonder...)

So in once case it looks like French Customs getting their law mixed up, in the other case it seems possible that Portugal really has imposed rules on foreign flagged yachts.

If you spend the majority of the year in a country ie more than 183 days (contiguous or not) for tax purposes most countries accept that you have migrated fiscally. The Portugese authorities would seem to extend this principle to the boats owned by migrated boaters implying that the boats have been imported and therefore should consequently comply with Portugese norms concerning safety equipment. Whether one agrees with this or not, it does have a certain logic and it's their party...

Nationality of a UK flagged non-part 1 boat is determined by residency of the owner, not by the location of the boat. I assume it is possible for a nation to impose requirements on visiting boats (as Ireland does) but as the RYA say it's totally impractical for vessel to obey the requirements of every nation it visits. International law/convention has avoided this problem for centuries by simply requiring every vessel to obey the rules of its flag state, not the nation it happens to be visiting. Portuguese boats also benefit from comity so I can't see why they'd want to mess with it.


Regarding Innocent passage: All the evidence I've seen is that if a Country regards a foreign flagged boat as not being on innocent passage it is simply required to leave. AFAICT there is no factual basis in the idea that a vessel deemed not to be on innocent passage takes on a subset of the benefits and obligations of a locally flagged boat.

 

[Tranona]

Indeed but it would be helpful if the RYA's Legal department stated clearly a) what legislation is being broken and b) whether or not applying that legislation to foreign flagged boats conflicts with any international agreements that Portugal is signed up to.

It should not the the case the Jo public have to learn international maritime law from scratch and then inform the RYA legal department that it's being broken!

It's entirely possible the RYA don't have the resources to properly read up on all the law involved in which case they would save everyone a load of confusion by saying so instead of being vague.



Regarding Innocent passage: All the evidence I've seen is that if a Country regards a foreign flagged boat as not being on innocent passage it is simply required to leave. AFAICT there is no factual basis in the idea that a vessel deemed not to be on innocent passage takes on a subset of the benefits and obligations of a locally flagged boat.

Think you need to read what the RYA said on the subject. They have always made it clear that other countries can impose their own regulations on foreign flagged boats when in their territorial waters. The "innocent passage" concept is intended to cover vessels that are on passage through another state's territorial waters or entering a port, for example to discharge cargo or take on supplies. However once a vessel starts cruising within territorial waters it is no longer on innocent passage. Most states ignore this for leisure craft. So it does not mean that such a vessel is automatically subject to local regulations - just that it could be.

In the case of most of the boats owned by contributors to this thread they are actually permanently based in the territory, although they may leave it temporarily to avoid other time related charges such as the circulation tax, so are not by any stretch of the imagination on innocent passage.

This issue arose because not only did the port authority in Lagos try to impose the equipment regulation on boats based there, but the Navy was questioning boats on passage - that is in territorial waters but not based there. The RYA was asked to seek clarification from the Portuguese authorities who initially said that there was no policy to impose local regulations but subsequently changed that advice. The 180 days is their rule and presumably they chose this because it is a similar time to the period when the circulation tax comes into force. They also advised that the regulations did not apply to boats that were there for less than 180 days, so those on innocent passage plus those visiting temporarily do not need to comply.

So, on the face of it, no laws have been broken and the Portuguese government is acting within its rights. The only thing that seems unclear is whether the law which imposes the regulations allows the ministry to apply it to non Portuguese boats. One has to assume that it does, but guess it is open to anybody affected to challenge it in the courts.

It is difficult to see how the RYA "intervention" can have made any difference, unless the ministry did not know about the actions of the Lagos authorities and the navy and the enquiry from the RYA prompted them to regularise what had until then been an unofficial "policy". Stranger things have happened!

For those likely to be affected at least there is now clarity (of sorts) and the prudent will either take the necessary action to comply or arrange their affairs so that their boats are not subject to the 180 day rule. Look forward to feedback as to whether the change in policy feeds through into action.

 

[nortada]

Think you need to read what the RYA said on the subject. They have always made it clear that other countries can impose their own regulations on foreign flagged boats when in their territorial waters. The "innocent passage" concept is intended to cover vessels that are on passage through another state's territorial waters or entering a port, for example to discharge cargo or take on supplies. However once a vessel starts cruising within territorial waters it is no longer on innocent passage. Most states ignore this for leisure craft. So it does not mean that such a vessel is automatically subject to local regulations - just that it could be.

In the case of most of the boats owned by contributors to this thread they are actually permanently based in the territory, although they may leave it temporarily to avoid other time related charges such as the circulation tax, so are not by any stretch of the imagination on innocent passage.

This issue arose because not only did the port authority in Lagos try to impose the equipment regulation on boats based there, but the Navy was questioning boats on passage - that is in territorial waters but not based there. The RYA was asked to seek clarification from the Portuguese authorities who initially said that there was no policy to impose local regulations but subsequently changed that advice. The 180 days is their rule and presumably they chose this because it is a similar time to the period when the circulation tax comes into force. They also advised that the regulations did not apply to boats that were there for less than 180 days, so those on innocent passage plus those visiting temporarily do not need to comply.

So, on the face of it, no laws have been broken and the Portuguese government is acting within its rights. The only thing that seems unclear is whether the law which imposes the regulations allows the ministry to apply it to non Portuguese boats. One has to assume that it does, but guess it is open to anybody affected to challenge it in the courts.

It is difficult to see how the RYA "intervention" can have made any difference, unless the ministry did not know about the actions of the Lagos authorities and the navy and the enquiry from the RYA prompted them to regularise what had until then been an unofficial "policy". Stranger things have happened!

For those likely to be affected at least there is now clarity (of sorts) and the prudent will either take the necessary action to comply or arrange their affairs so that their boats are not subject to the 180 day rule. Look forward to feedback as to whether the change in policy feeds through into action.

Great stuff but don't understand your point or most of what you are saying!

Chinita will no doubt translate.

Out of fairness, nothing to do with Lagos which has no maritime patrol vessels & to my knowledge has never stopped anybody.

Must get away from 180/183 days - use 6 months - much easier.

 

[chinita]

No translation from me I am afraid. One final comment and then I shall leave it.

'As a result they made the policy decision that for pleasure craft Portuguese rules should only apply to vessels that stay for longer than a total of 180 days in a 365 day period.'


Means that a visiting yacht can cruise Portuguese waters continuously for 179 days without having to conform to Portuguese rules.

A permanently Portuguese based yacht, afloat in a Marina or ashore in the yard must conform to Portuguese rules even if they only go out in the Bay once a year.

Yes, it is all about safety at sea.

 

[Tranona]

Great stuff but don't understand your point or most of what you are saying!

Chinita will no doubt translate.

Out of fairness, nothing to do with Lagos which has no maritime patrol vessels & to my knowledge has never stopped anybody.

Must get away from 180/183 days - use 6 months - much easier.

Trying to respond to two "criticisms". First that the RYA seeking clarification somehow resulted in a "worse" situation when all they reported was what the Portuguese ministry have decided. Second that the RYA was not explaining the situation with regard to international maritime law, when it had in both its general information and in the specific advice related to this issue (if you are a member it was in the report in the magazine).

There were two sets of reports from UK yachtsmen that triggered the action by the RYA, one was from a number of people who had been stopped by the navy patrols and the other, which you are familiar with concerning the actions of port officials. Both issues have been dealt with in the response. You can find more detail on the threads on Liveaboard.

You are right, it is irrelevant whether it is 180 or 183 days or 6 months, or whether that period is linked to or justified by any other qualifying period for a change in status or a charge to apply. However, presumably they will need some method of identifying the date for each boat, so using the same period as the liability for circulation tax would make sense - although at a guess they have probably not thought that through.

 

[Tranona]

No translation from me I am afraid. One final comment and then I shall leave it.

'As a result they made the policy decision that for pleasure craft Portuguese rules should only apply to vessels that stay for longer than a total of 180 days in a 365 day period.'


Means that a visiting yacht can cruise Portuguese waters continuously for 179 days without having to conform to Portuguese rules.

A permanently Portuguese based yacht, afloat in a Marina or ashore in the yard must conform to Portuguese rules even if they only go out in the Bay once a year.

Yes, it is all about safety at sea.

So, what is the problem with that? Are Portuguese flagged vessels exempt if they only go out into the bay once a year?

Can understand your reluctance to accept compulsion coming from a regime where equipment is discretionary, but seems to me the Portuguese authorities are within their rights. All rules throw up anomalies and some people are affected more than others and if you think you are being unfairly discriminated against, take it up with the people who set the rules.

 

[nortada]

So, what is the problem with that? Are Portuguese flagged vessels exempt if they only go out into the bay once a year?

Can understand your reluctance to accept compulsion coming from a regime where equipment is discretionary, but seems to me the Portuguese authorities are within their rights. All rules throw up anomalies and some people are affected more than others and if you think you are being unfairly discriminated against, take it up with the people who set the rules.

Please re-read my post at Post 87.

You will see there are 2 totally separate issues, one 'safety checks', the other taxation.

The Portuguese Maritime Authorities undertake the 'safety checks' by boarding vessels under-way at sea (bit like UK customs or maritime police intercepting vessels in UK waters). These checks are not subject to any period of grace (certainly not that 6 months!) & could happen the moment any vessel enters Portuguese Waters - for example crossing the River Guadiana boundary between Andalusia & The Algarve. The stop may well be to check for drugs, illegal immigrants or weapons coming in from Africa (always a problem in this area).

These are the checks that are the cause of the RYA involvement.

Like it or not, Portugal has every right to police its waters as it sees fit & insist that vessels comply with its concepts of safety. It has to be said provided the skipper of the boarded vessel (or his wife/crew) do not get stroppy, all is conducted in a friendly courteous manner. Indeed, if short comings are discovered, the skipper is normally permitted to continue on his way on the understanding they will be rectified at the next land-fall. If he gets stroppy the vessel will be ordered to enter the nearest Portuguese port to sort out the problem before returning to sea.

The one non-safety element that may be discovered is that the vessel doesn't have the current 'lights' certificate, which every vessel requires to have whilst in Portuguese Waters. Again the boarding party skipper is normally happy that you visit the captianari & get one on your next land-fall. Should be said if you are again stopped by the same boarding party who realise you have not complied with their previous instructions (as has happened), things can get a bit dodgy. As witnessed by another British flagged vessel (not me), the British skipper of the boarded vessel (which was at anchor at Culatra (in the Ria Formosia), suggested quite volubly that as a British flagged vessel he didn't/wasn't going to comply with Portuguese Law. Surprisingly he was not arrested nor his boat seized - he was just warned that he would be taken through the Portuguese Courts in Lisbon & to expect & hefty fine - never did hear the final outcome.

Now to the second issue & the six months period of grace given to foreign flagged vessels.

As I explained in some detail in Post 87, this is all about taxation & nothing to do with safety at sea. It is never raised during boardings but can be enforced by the onshore tax officials. General taxation officers, these folk have nothing to do with boats in particular.

All vehicles (auto, boat & aero) in Portugal are subject to this (circulation) tax but foreign flagged vessels have a 6-months grace before they become liable. There is also this 'contiguous' tag, which further complicates the issue.

Suspect the RYA became involved at the behest of British yotties who feel the Portuguese have had a go at them (possibly self-induced?).

Suggest the RYA got only half of the story & thus the 180/183 day confusion was born.

Bottom line - Portugal is Portugal & they will impose their safety rules (which are clearly stated in many places - including the Lagos Navigator's Web Site) as they see fit in their Waters & why shouldn't they?

Why do I use The Algarve, rather than Portugal? Well these issues appear to be confined to that region & could be the result of a senior official in Faro (capital of The Algarve) taking a hard line not seen elsewhere.

There has been a suggestion that, for obvious reasons, this official has been 'lent on' by The Algarve Tourist Board & there has been a subsequent change of attitude.

If this is the case, it could also be claimed that the RYA article & intervention at Portuguese Government level helped bring about this meritorious result - if so WELL DONE RYA.

It could equally be claimed the the Portuguese maritime authorities have caused foreign flagged skippers to 'clean up their act' & make for greater safety at sea - if so WELL DONE PORTUGAL.

 

[Tranona]

Don't think we are disagreeing. As I recall though the issue about being stopped at sea was more than just the usual checks - it was being inspected for equipment and being told to comply with Portuguese equipment requirements - although no evidence seemingly of it being enforced.

The second issue of equipment requirements for a "resident" boat - does not seem to be a tax issue as that is already covered by the circulation tax rules. The requirement to meet Portuguese safety regulations did not seem initially to be linked to the tax issue, nor was it universally applied, nor, according to the initial response from the ministry was it government policy.

Presumably if the policy is going to be implemented then it can be avoided in the same way as some avoid the circulation tax. Or do you think that the whole thing will blow over and revert to the previous state of some officials trying to enforce the rules but little concrete happening?

 

[nortada]

Don't think we are disagreeing. As I recall though the issue about being stopped at sea was more than just the usual checks - it was being inspected for equipment and being told to comply with Portuguese equipment requirements - although no evidence seemingly of it being enforced.

The second issue of equipment requirements for a "resident" boat - does not seem to be a tax issue as that is already covered by the circulation tax rules. The requirement to meet Portuguese safety regulations did not seem initially to be linked to the tax issue, nor was it universally applied, nor, according to the initial response from the ministry was it government policy.

Presumably if the policy is going to be implemented then it can be avoided in the same way as some avoid the circulation tax. Or do you think that the whole thing will blow over and revert to the previous state of some officials trying to enforce the rules but little concrete happening?

Agree all you say. To my knowledge, there never was a link between the safety equipment checks & the boat tax. Over recent years, the light dues have become a third issue.

As you know, for a number of years we have discussed this on 4 different threads on the Liveaboard Forum. (the latest, The Truth About Sailing In The Algarve).

It is largely anecdotal hearsay & factual details are hard to find but it appears that when boats are stopped they are not fined & follow-up is rare.

One observation has been that power rather than sail boats have been searched. Leading to the suggestion their real interest is contraband & safety is a bi-product to help justify their existence & jobs?

From my experience of Portugal it will just trundle on as a low key aggravation for the few that are stopped.

Anticipate, once the weather improves, we will transit The Algarve to Ayamonte & River Guadiana & will post any developments on the 'Truth Thread'.

 

[Mark-1]

I am chartering in Levkas at the end of next week and the company just emailed me to say that port officials are asking for ORIGINAL qualifications (read ICC) before they will let me take the yacht out.

Not a problem to me as I have one but it confirms that people are being asked for them in Greece, in spite what some people think.

As always, inconsistency is the enemy...

I just called two Levkas companies to check this and it's absolutely true, ICC or Dayskipper is required now.

My sympathy is with the Levkas firms, it's hard enough to make money in the charter business anyway without the Govt effectively sending a percentage of your customers elsewhere.

 

[Tranona]

I just called two Levkas companies to check this and it's absolutely true, ICC or Dayskipper is required now.

My sympathy is with the Levkas firms, it's hard enough to make money in the charter business anyway without the Govt effectively sending a percentage of your customers elsewhere.

The requirement has always been there - just not consistently enforced. Croatia has had the requirement (and much more rigorously enforced) for a number of years. Would not be surprised to see Turkey following. Only really an issue for Brits as most other European countries have compulsory licencing and those certificates are accepted with or without an ICC.

 

[Mark-1]

The requirement has always been there - just not consistently enforced.

AMCD300 is correct. In my lifetime there has never been a need for ICC or Day Skipper chartering from Levkas. According to two established local firms that has recently changed and ICC or Day Skipper are now required by the local Port Authority.

 

[Tranona]

AMCD300 is correct. In my lifetime there has never been a need for ICC or Day Skipper chartering from Levkas. According to two established local firms that has recently changed and ICC or Day Skipper are required.

I am talking about a Greek legal requirement which is the same across the country - just not consistently applied as the decision on what to accept as evidence of competence is left with the local Port Police who stamp the permit. Even in the same location the "policy" can vary from year to year or even the time of year. For example one year in Corfu I was required to report in person to the main Port Police office with my passport and ICC to get the stamp, but later in the year they were not bothered because it was a Saturday and they have a huge list of others to deal with so just stamped it without looking at anything. Another year when I picked the boat up in Athens the permit was already stamped before I arrived, having emailed my passport number beforehand.

So it is local implementation that has changed, and could just as easily change again in the future.

 

[Mark-1]

I am talking about a Greek legal requirement which is the same across the country

Ok, might be worth editing your post 112 to make that clear.

 

[Tranona]

Ok, might be worth editing your post 112 to make that clear.

Assumed you had read the whole thread as I have already made the point several times. The thread started with a debate about the legality and acceptability of the ICC and the role of the RYA in promoting it. The situation in Greece highlights why it is difficult to be prescriptive about its use, other than to note that it is becoming more common for officials to ask for it in certain circumstances of which chartering a bare boat is the most obvious.

 

[nortada]

This issue arose because not only did the port authority in Lagos try to impose the equipment regulation on boats based there, but the Navy was questioning boats on passage - that is in territorial waters but not based there.

To be fair to Lagos feel I must put the record straight.

To my knowledge over the past 11 years, the port authorities in Lagos have NEVER tried to impose the equipment regulations on boats based there. Indeed the Lagos Navigators (a loose relationship of berth holders) & the marina directors have constantly tried to get to the bottom of the situation - with varying success.

There are no police patrol or Portuguese navy boats based in Lagos, the closest are at Portimao about 10nm across the bay & there have been some cases of these vessels stopping yachts but normally close to Portimao. Most stoppages have been between Albufeira & Faro & so far as can be seen, completed by patrol vessels from that area.

To give the whole picture, about 9 years ago in mid-July there was a concerted effort to try to impose the Circulation Tax on vessels believed to have been continuously in Portuguese Waters for more than 6-month.

This involved a 'raid' one Sunday morning on boats in marinas throughout mainland Portugal & Madeira. As so often in Portugal, after the initial activity, it all died away with no real follow up.

Result - lots of TV coverage - very bad press & a tacit recognition that it should never happen again - & to date it hasn't!

The recent situation will probably follow the same path.

I have now exhausted my knowledge on this topic. " Thank Gawd" I hear you chorus