Always the same problem, always the same terminology 
These “based” regulations are unenforceable other than by FUD. IIRC, the famous Danish aviation VAT lawyer got busted and fined for this.
The proposals by France 2004 and the UK 2005 were clearer: more than 90 days out of 365, and you committed a crime. But still no definition of the physical location criteria.
chflyer wrote:
I suspect that there is another translation than “permanently used”
The Swedish word is “stadigvarande”. Perhaps “persistent” or “lasting” is a better translation than “permanent.”
The Norwegian law really only say that all aviation in Norway shall be done with Norwegian registered aircraft. Then there are various rather vague exemptions from this, widely open for interpretation, but interpreted hard by the CAA
Maybe some development on this now. On the 09 June list of “infringement decisions”, EU is asking Denmark to stop requiring registration of foreign aircraft being based in Denmark. It is a long scroll down on the page but a screen shot of the relevant text is here.
I expect the “CAA” to defend its position and nothing much to happen officially, but it should hopefully not be easy for them to prosecute owners or pilots for this from now. But I wonder about other EU countries – I did not think Denmark was the only one with this kind of national (over-)regulation.
I see why Sweden will not be getting such a letter.
Commercial operators who provide “services” are free to register anywhere they want and base in Sweden. The ban only applies to private owners who do not require a permit for their operations.
Dimme wrote:
I see why Sweden will not be getting such a letter.
Another reason may be that the Swedish Aviation Act begins with: “Aviation within Swedish territory may only be carried out in accordance with this act or other ordinance, unless otherwise prescribed by EU regulations.”
Which IMO is a cheap way to avoid conflict with EU law.
The Danish Aviation Act has exactly the same, in §1 ! (just replace “Swedish”)
That has never stopped the “CAA” from maintaining special positions, in conflict with EU regs, in a number of cases, some ongoing.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Swedish law states that aircraft which are permanently used in Sweden and not used for operations requiring a permit shall be registered in Sweden.
I know I have seen it before, but when looking for this FS recently, I could not find it anymore. Do you have a reference?
Luftfartslagen(2010:500) 1 kap 6 paragrafen
The last IAOPA newsletter
