What was the amount of the fine in the above case, Bosco? I can’t see a number.
Frans wrote:
Almost all asphalt roads, crossing the border between Germany and Switzerland, are official border crossing points. Customs may not be present at the time you cross, like on many smaller crossing points (or even on the highway), but it is a legal crossing point.
And that‘s the ridiculous and discriminatory part. There is no reason all airfields couldn‘t similarly be designated as legal border crossing points. With modern technology, customs could simply monitor all FPL and show up whenever they want, just like the road border crossings between CH & DE.
Unless I‘m missing something, there also seems to be inconsistent application of the law here too. In the subject case, the judgement states that if the pilot had returned directly to CH there would have been no issue. In the case linked by @boscomantico above, that is exactly what the pilot did and he was still charged.
Yes, you are missing something 
In Bosco’s case, the pilot was charged 7.7% duty (which might be a frightening amount in case of an Ovation), but he got off the hook for the VAT charge.
The latter, because he left without bringing the plane in circulation by puttting it to a use in the EU. In the view of the court, he “only” brought it in without entering via a dedicated customs airport (referencing the much discussed list).
And the coirt case of the original case mentioned that the duty would have been ccharged anyway, but not the 2.5 times higher VAT.
Strong analogy otherwise in that the airfield staff was apparently clueless, given that an assitant reportedly checked in person the customs obligation with them and got bad/wrong information.
Say the Ovation was valued at ~140k€, then at 7.7%, that will have been ~10k€. There are no numbers given in the verdict.
@LeSving (and a few others)
Here’s why flying doesn’t suck in the United States like it does in Germany, France, Norway and all other places where there is no true advocacy.
- and what I mean by suck is: paying random $25,000 dollar fines, paying landing fees, paying for IFR routing, paying 2x as much for AvGas or fulfilling Napoleonic PPR rules.
Shockingly, it all just works, and quite well.
Free night flights to nearly every airport in the United States, barely any towers or ATC at most airports, and an incredible community that is much larger and healthier (not just the wealthy) because of this.
From an email sent from AOPA to demonstrate what aviation could be like for those who defend this $25k absurdity:
With the help of Congress and your support, we halted Customs and Border Protection’s “stop-and-search” tactics against GA planes and pilots that had crossed no borders and broken no laws.
When the FAA tried to enforce a “sleep apnea” proposal that could have grounded thousands of pilots at their next medical, we worked with members of Congress to convince FAA to back off – and go through regular rulemaking procedures before making any sleep apnea policy changes.
Through passage of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act, Congress helped us take a huge step toward modernizing our aging GA fleet and breaking the FAA certification logjam for new aircraft and parts. And we’ve paved the way for more and more non-certified equipment to be installed in certified aircraft – providing increased safety margins at a fraction of the cost.
We’ve kept European-style user fees off the table in federal budget debates.
After a years-long effort, we enacted critically needed medical reforms through the U.S. House and Senate – resulting in more than 52,000 pilots now flying under BasicMed rules – and putting medical decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors where they belong.
Our allies in Congress have helped us launch a full-court press to rein in excessive FBO fees at publicly-owned airports nationwide.
We won a landmark victory when Congress voted down the attempted airline-inspired takeover of ATC last year – a proposal that could have devastated general aviation at small and rural airports across the country.
And likewise, in the 5-year FAA reauthorization enacted last fall, we won huge protections for general aviation including critical funding for our GA airports through 2023.
Now, please tell me, because I don’t get it:
Why should IAOPA or any other advocacy pay for this stupid fine when they could use the money to do what they’re actually supposed to? (please see above if you forgot what they’re actually supposed to do)
ch.ess wrote:
In Bosco’s case, the pilot was charged 7.7% duty (which might be a frightening amount in case of an Ovation), but he got off the hook for the VAT charge
How do they even calculate this anyway?
There’s an easy court case right there… prove how you calculated that value.
They’d have to spend a LOT of money to do that, because every airplane is unique, that one had never been sold in-country (because it was purchased in a foreign country and therefore the value is established outside the sphere of authority of the pursuing country’s Customs).
You could have a hayday in court with that.
Is there really a magic book of values for every configuration of every airplane that they can look these values up with?
It’s a used good, and each aircraft is one-of-a-kind.
Done correctly, this could take months in court, costing the Customs entity far more in legal fees than they would get back in VAT.
Just keep doing this in every case, and something will change.
Why does anyone defend an archaic system of Customs anyway?
Why doesn’t Customs use technology to enable them to do their job? For example, they could easily integrate their requirements into the flight plan system, so that anyone filing an international flight plan into their country (easy enough for EASA to update the standard form) would need to select “GREEN” or “RED” just like the people walking out of an airport.
If they want to randomly check someone, simple enough.
That would make sense, no?
So, why are you so defensive of this dinosaur that keeps eating our ranks?
Make it grow up! We’re in the 21st Century, time these agencies started acting like it.
Please, I really don’t understand where you’re coming from.
That’s a 2-3 year process that nearly every pilot would approve of, that would make Customs much easier to enforce and would result in a more efficient way of policing all of this anyway.
AF wrote:
Why should IAOPA or any other advocacy pay for this stupid fine
Who said anything about IAOPA paying for the fine? The intent is to pay court costs to take a case like this to the highest level (ECJ), on behalf of all GA pilots not just this one. The discussion here shows that every one of us risks this type of result every time we fly.
chflyer wrote:
Who said anything about IAOPA paying for the fine? The intent is to pay court costs to take a case like this to the highest level (ECJ)
Nope, it isn’t. It’s intended to pay the fine, NOT to take legal action! See text below, copied from the link in the first post on this thread (my bold). And that’s exactly what’s wrong here.
AOPA Switzerland asked to announce the fact that a crowdfunding action has started for a very unfortunate Swiss pilot who was fined 25.000 Euro. According to the Swiss he was the victim of arbitrariness of customs authorities. Even though this pilot did his best to fly legally, he is now condemned to pay this steep amount of money. The attached PDF explains it all.Since this pilot is unable to pay this file without filing for insolvency, AOPA Germany and AOPA Switzerland launch a crowdfunding. All donations – regardless the amount – are very important to cover this fine. It is most probably the first time to call for a crowdfunding, but AOPA is more than just an association – it’s also a family. We help members in very difficult situations. One for all and all for one!
So we kindly ask you to support and spread this request to all of your members and to ask for donations. All contributions can be sent to the IAOPA EUR account:
