I know you aren't in favour of international law and would rather the law of the jungle, but even the sanctions you rely on don't prohibit what Iran was doing. Care to comment?
LOL another straw man. The level of conversation previous was "but but EU law doesn't apply to Iran" and it was pointed out to you a dozen times that that is irrelevant, EU law applies to Gibraltar (which is part of the EU) and this was a civilian ship in Gibraltar's waters!
Now you seem to have given up on the "EU law doesn't apply to Iran" line and instead seem believe that after a quick google and a skim read of the relevant document you've spotted something the Judge's (who approved the seizure for 14 days and then extended for a month) and attorney general in Gibraltar have completely missed... seems a bit unlikely no? But then again if you're delusional then perhaps not.
You're getting yourself rather muddled here as you've quoted a section that refers to the export of oil!
If you want more detailed reporting then perhaps read a proper news source instead of Russia Today and Press TV:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-m...o-capacity-with-crude-gibraltar-idUKKCN1U31Z8
Gibraltar’s statement said the vessel’s detention related to the suspected destination of the cargo, Syria’s Banyas refinery, which is owned by the Banyas Oil Refinery Company and subject to EU sanctions.
Legal specialists say the EU sanctions only explicitly prohibit the export of jet fuel to Syria although a sale to any buyer or end user who is designated would be a breach of the regulations.
You can also find detailed press releases from the Gibraltar government itself, including the exact location of the stop, in Gibraltar's waters... rather silly of the crew!
Ordinarily that should be enough but in order to preempt further silly replies lets give some more details.
If you're skeptical of Reuters and the Gibraltar government as sources then look at the regulations you've linked to yourself - in particular look at article 14 (not article 8 that you've quoted):
"No funds
or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex II and IIa."
Note in bold, "economic resources"...
Now you'll note the document you listed is a bit out of date, if you look at Annex II then you'll not see the entity mentioned, that's because you linked to a 2012 document, further entitles (including the relevant on in this case) have been added since then - in this case the entity concerned was added in 2014:
Note this news article (again sorry it has come from Reuters and not a reputable source like RT or Press TV)
https://www.reuters.com/article/syr...-supplying-oil-to-syria-idUSL6N0PY3Y720140723
State-owned Syrian refining companies put on the list were Baniyas Refinery Co and the Homs Refinery Co. The EU accuses them of providing financial support to the government.
Since you perhaps won't trust an unreliable source like Reuters I've done a quick google and found you a more up to date document right from the source:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1521627773811&uri=CELEX:02013D0255-20170927
^^^^ look, there it is, the Baniyas or Banyas oil refinery mentioned... so Reuters and the Judges/attorney general of Gibraltar weren't making it all up after all... who'd have though it???
I think you were clearly clutching at straws with your assumption that there wasn't a legal basis here in spite of the reporting/the fact this went through the Gibraltar courts a couple of times both to get the initial seizure approved and further extension etc.. but hopefully you can see now that there was a legal basis and you'll no longer need to repeat the frankly stupid argument of "but but it was an Iranian ship and EU law doesn't apply".
If you want to get into the details it was a Panamanian flagged vessel owned by an entity in Singapore and it stopped in Gibraltar's waters, Gibraltar is an EU member state and the ship's apparent destination was a refinery that is subject to EU sanctions.
(Note also this doesn't discount any geopolitical considerations it is a reply to the stupid argument that there is no legal basis for the seizure - I would note that the UK is free to adopt the stance of the US and push for sanctions on Iran's oil exports in general but actually hasn't done that and doesn't have an issue with Iranian oil exports in general!)