[...]
If the ship being discussed was also carrying guns it would also be violating the EU embargo on weapons to Syria and breaking EU law. [...]
The differentiating fact is that there is no EU embargo on transporting oil to Syria, there are however EU sanctions on Syria.
The relevant regulations are: EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 36/2012 - they apply to both weapons and the financial/economic measures taken against named entities. These are sanctions!
You seem to have grasped that weapons (covered by 36/2012) would be legally stopped on such a ship - why then do you not accept that oil to an entity covered in appendix II of the same regulations not be covered?
Again you've failed to provide anything to back up your position here - you've just made up some position that the sanctions re: a particular product (weapons) are legally different to the sanctions covering providing finance or economic resources to particular entities or individuals. On what basis can you make that claim given they come from the same set of regulations?
An embargo is generally a complete blockade of trade, that hasn't happened with regards to Syria, you've just attempted to throw in another hand waving argument with nothing to support it.
What some people are claiming is that Iran broke EU law by violating the EU sanctions on Syria, which would be true if it were an embargo not a sanction, however EU sanctions only apply to member states of the EU of which Iran is not one.
No, no one has claimed that - the claim is that this ship is violating EU sanctions, not Iran. No one has claimed that Iran is subject to EU sanctions/rules, Gibraltar is an EU country and is subject to EU rules, those rules apply to all ships.
This has been explained to you multiple times so I don't know why you're persisting with the "Iran is not an EU member" line.
This means Iran cannot have broken EU law by violating the sanctions as the sanctions do not apply to them, therefore their compliance is not a legal requirement as it would be for an EU member state (this is why Spain had zero interest stopping the ship and the US had to ask us to do it instead).
Spain didn't have any basis to stop the ship as it didn't enter their waters aside form using the right of passage through the Strait. The ship broke EU law, and again no one has argued that EU sanctions apply to Iran.
You;'re nearly there - you just need to get past the unsupported BS you made up in your last post to justify your position that a ship carrying weapons (breaking 36/2012) could be legally stopped but a ship carrying oil to a particular entity (also breaking 36/2012) couldn't be legally stopped.
If your reply isn't factually based but relies on [waffle... but but embargo vs sanctions] then you're frankly full of it and are just wasting time.