Ships under attack in the middle east

Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
I've been looking on the Gibraltar Courts Service website for which article of Regulation 36/2012 that they are relying on to justify seizing the Iranian ship, but can't find anything. The judgment doesn't seem to have been made public nor the one yesterday where they further extended the detention for 30 days.

Found this though which says these indeed are the regulations they are relying on. Interesting as I can't see anything in there that could justify it (assuming EU law applies which it doesn't) as the most relevant article, 6, only prohibits the IMPORT of oil to the EU from Syria, not the EXPORT of oil to Syria.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-...s-extension-of-grace-1-detention-5152019-5103

The link below indicates that the Gibraltan Supreme Court met privately. Possibly because there's nothing in the Regulations that justifies it? Surely not! If they were confident in their own actions it would have been a public court.

Speaks volumes they have to do it behind closed doors as they don't have a leg to stand on.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/grace-1-detention-5482019-5136
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
When did oil become "equipment" which is what the Article concerns? Read Annex 1 - the examples it gives are firearms, night vision goggles, explosives etc.

Irrelevant.

OK, whilst I'd argue that it's still applicable under annex 1. In spite of that it's very clear that you cannot deal with the list of entities provided which was updated in 2013 to include:

56.

The Baniyas Refinery Company a.k.a. Banias, Banyas.

Banias Refinery Building, 26 Latkia Main Road, Tartous, P.O. Box 26, Syria.

Subsidiary of the General Corporation for Refining and Distribution of Petroleum Products (GCRDPP), a section of the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources. As such it provides financial support to the Syrian regime.

23.7.2014

The proposed location of the tanker seized...

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1558339936532&uri=CELEX:02013D0255-20190304
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
44,276
Location
Aberdeenshire
Its sad there seems to be more journalism investigation going on in this thread than our TV networks and papers.
Well not really, yes it's only illegal to import oil from Syria, but it's also illegal to:-

2. 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.

The annex contains several oil companies.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
It's more likely to be because the oil would be going to a prohibited entity in Syria in article 14.

Yes, that seems to be the only one remotely relevant. Still, weak considering there's a specific Article dealing with oil yet there's nothing in there prohibiting the export, only import.

But yours and Dis86's points are taken. If EU law applied there might be enough to enforce it on that basis.

But as EU law doesn't apply as Iran is a non-member and the UN doesn't prohibit Iranian oil exports to Syria it's irrelevant anyway.

As an aside that is a particularly nasty piece of legislation. Sanctions against a countries main oil refinery that are broad enough to stop any oil imports? That's economic warfare against the civilian people who will suffer as a result.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Yes, that seems to be the only one remotely relevant. Still, weak considering there's a specific Article dealing with oil yet there's nothing in there prohibiting the export, only import.

But yours and Dis86's points are taken. If EU law applied there might be enough to enforce it on that basis.

But as EU law doesn't apply as Iran is a non-member and the UN doesn't prohibit Iranian oil exports to Syria it's irrelevant anyway.

As an aside that is a particularly nasty piece of legislation. Sanctions against a countries main oil refinery that are broad enough to stop any oil imports? That's economic warfare against the civilian people who will suffer as a result.

Why doesn't EU law apply? As I've pointed out - the vessel sailed through EU territorial waters. If passage had been allowed then it would have made the EU complicit and the member state in breach of its own agreed sanctions.
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
44,276
Location
Aberdeenshire
Yes, that seems to be the only one remotely relevant. Still, weak considering there's a specific Article dealing with oil yet there's nothing in there prohibiting the export, only import.

But yours and Dis86's points are taken. If EU law applied there might be enough to enforce it on that basis.

But as EU law doesn't apply as Iran is a non-member and the UN doesn't prohibit Iranian oil exports to Syria it's irrelevant anyway.

As an aside that is a particularly nasty piece of legislation. Sanctions against a countries main oil refinery that are broad enough to stop any oil imports? That's economic warfare against the civilian people who will suffer as a result.
EU law applies when they start hauling it through EU territory and such is the way with economic sanctions *shrug*.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
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

wL5yJBo.png

^^^^ 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!)
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
Why doesn't EU law apply? As I've pointed out - the vessel sailed through EU territorial waters. If passage had been allowed then it would have made the EU complicit and the member state in breach of its own agreed sanctions.

Round and round it goes. Look, if that's the position you want to take, fine, let's just get rid of the UN and any semblance of international law. According to you any country can just arbitrarily decide that trade between X & Y is unlawful and then enforce such unilateral actions outside of UN processes.

Great, now every other country in the world can do the same thing to us and are doing now as we have just seen. You are all for the law of the jungle and isn't that working out well?

Brilliant!

But we simply must uphold EU law! And it has nothing to do with the US telling us what to do. Of course not.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
But as EU law doesn't apply as Iran is a non-member and the UN doesn't prohibit Iranian oil exports to Syria it's irrelevant anyway.

That again is nonsensical - why do you keep repeating it, what do you even mean by it???

No one has made the claim that EU law applies to Iran.

EU law applies to EU member states, Gibraltar is an EU member state, The vessel concerned is a civilian vessel that (rather foolishly) stopped in Gibraltar's waters, the vessel is Panamanian flagged and owned by an entity registered in Singapore. Ultimately either the vessel or the cargo (or perhaps both) are apparently owned by Iran.

Just repeating "EU law doesn't apply as Iran is a non-member" makes absolutely no sense here - what are you actually arguing - that any non UK or EU civilian ship can just do what it wants in UK or EU waters?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Round and round it goes. Look, if that's the position you want to take, fine, let's just get rid of the UN and any semblance of international law. According to you any country can just arbitrarily decide that trade between X & Y is unlawful and then enforce such unilateral actions outside of UN processes.

Yes, if say Iran wants to block any trade to Israel then they could name various Israeli entities and or products etc.. and (other than international rules on free passage) prevent any ships from stopping in their waters/using their port facilities if their final destination for the good being transported was Israel, in breech of Iranian law.

Why is that so hard to understand? How do you think EU sanctions work???
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Round and round it goes. Look, if that's the position you want to take, fine, let's just get rid of the UN and any semblance of international law. According to you any country can just arbitrarily decide that trade between X & Y is unlawful and then enforce such unilateral actions outside of UN processes.

Well...yeah. Of course that's how it works. Any country can decide that they want to place sanctions on another thus stopping their own country being used as a trade route. How the **** do you not get that?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
Why doesn't EU law apply? As I've pointed out - the vessel sailed through EU territorial waters. If passage had been allowed then it would have made the EU complicit and the member state in breach of its own agreed sanctions.

I think EvilSooty has already decided that the Grace 1 was seized in international waters - despite I don't think we have had confirmation either way as to at which point it was seized and some indicators such as the reaction from Spain that it probably was outside of the strait and in territorial waters when intercepted.

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!

Maybe I'm missing it but the location released by the Gibraltar government that I've seen are where it came to a stop rather than when it was first intercepted.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Maybe I'm missing it but the location released by the Gibraltar government that I've seen are where it came to a stop rather than when it was first intercepted.

Nope they state that is where it was boarded:

8eD7m3W.jpg

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-...-carrying-full-load-of-crude-oil-5222019-5112

The Grace 1 was detained last week in Gibraltar when it freely navigated into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to a point two miles off the Eastside of Gibraltar, having previously exited the international waters of the Straits of Gibraltar, on a pre-arranged call for provisions and spare parts.

The Grace 1's position well inside BGTW when boarded can clearly be seen on the attached screenshot. The ship remains detained in that area.

The detention of the vessel relates to the suspected destination of the cargo, the Banyas refinery in Syria, which is owned by a company, the Banyas Oil Refinery Company. This company is the subject of European Union sanctions under EU Regulation 36/2012, which is directly applicable in Gibraltar.

Basically it was rather silly of them to have stopped there.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
Why doesn't EU law apply?
The EU doesn't impose it's sanctions on non-member states like the USA does and Iran is not a member of the EU, therefore the EU sanctions on Syria do not apply to Iran.

This is why the EU is being so quiet on the subject, because in it's eagerness to please the USA the UK has "done gone messed up" and if the EU did decide to become vocal about the subject then it would have to side with Iran, hence the silence.
 
Back
Top Bottom