1. Some members have enquired whether they are caught by the EU sanction if all the particulars of their vessel, flag ownership and management is not affected by the EU sanction.
The sanction prohibits financially benefiting certain entities and individuals in Syria. The scope of this prohibition is wide and any commercial contact with these entities will breach the sanction. The list of entities and individuals on this black list is detailed at HM Treasury’s website. （http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/sanctionsconlist.htm）
On 2 September the EU extended the sanction to prohibit：
- Importing into EU countries crude oil and its products from Syria.
- Purchasing crude oil and its products which originated from Syria.
- Transporting crude oil and its products if they originate from Syria.
Quite clearly the sanction is all encompassing and no person or company which the EU has authority over, is able to deal at all in any way with crude oil and its products which originate from Syria, even though the oil may not be even loaded or exported from Syria.
2. Several shipowners have asked if the EU does not have jurisdiction over the laws where the vessel is registered, flagged nor the domicile of the owner or manager, and further has no jurisdiction over the laws of the country of discharge, whether the vessel could lawfully trade and carry oil which originate from Syria or is loaded from Syria.
In principle a vessel, its owners, manager who is not affected by EU law can lawfully trade and carry oil originating from Syria. The only problem which the shipowner would face is that /the vessel would no longer be able to enjoy any benefit of insurance cover for that voyage /as inevitably all established insurance markets and P&I Clubs who inevitably have their reinsurances placed in the London and European markets would be in breach of the EU sanction.
Confirmation of the situation has been made with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills of HM Treasury who interprets that Article 17 of the Regulation would prohibit an insurer taking part in an activity prohibited by Article 3a. Article 3a is an activity based prohibition and the domicile of the owner is irrelevant.
3. The query then arises if the vessel still proceeds to carry out this unlawful activity and a claim occurs which has no causation with the trading to Syria or the loading of oil originating from Syria, would the insurers still be able to pay this claim. Such an example is the crew being injured or ill during the voyage which clearly is not related to the commercial activity of the vessel or the vessel trading to Syria or loading oil originating from Syria.
We consider that the insurers would not be able to insure any claims whatsoever which occurs during or arises from the unlawful voyage even though there is no causation between the voyage and the claim for the reason prohibition of insurers is activity based and the legal concepts of causation of claim is irrelevant.
4. A further query then arises whether the vessel’s insurances would be reinstated after completion of the unlawful voyage or whether the vessel would no longer in the future be able to enjoy the benefit of insurance cover subsequently on account of a ban or black list.
The answer should be in the affirmative as The EU Regulations do not provide for any black list on companies who perform these unlawful voyages subject to and as long as the insurers and reinsurers over whom they have jurisdiction over do not provide insurance to benefit or assist in the performance of such unlawful voyages.
The terms of all Hull insurers and P&I insurers include a Sanction Limitation and Exclusion clause which provides they shall not be liable to pay for any claim or provide any benefit to the extent that the provision of such cover, payment of claim or provision of such benefit would expose the insurer to any sanction, prohibition or restriction under United Nations resolutions or the trade an economic sanctions, laws or regulations of the European Union, United Kingdom or United States of America.
In summary
If a vessel trades or performs on a voyage to a country which is subject to s sanction, there will be no insurance cover whatsoever for any claims occurring during that voyage even if the claim is not causally connected to the country.
The websites of the US Treasury and the UK’s Foreign Commission Office could be referred to obtain the latest list of sanctioned countries.
See attached file : West of England – Notice to Members No. 21 2011-2012.pdf ;ALCO20110039Recent enquiries have related to trading to Syria.pdf
有关叙利亚制裁对保单效力的影响的若干问题
近期，很多客户问到有关叙利亚贸易的问题，我司就一些焦点问题整理如下，希望对大家有所帮助。
1. 如果船舶、船籍和船舶管理方面与欧盟制裁无关，是否会受到叙利亚制裁的影响？
对叙利亚的制裁是为了禁止叙利亚的某些实体和个人在经济上受益。所涉及的禁止范围广泛，与这些实体的任何商业上的联系都将违反制裁规定。”黑名单”可在英国财政部(HM Treasury)网站上找到。（http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/sanctionsconlist.htm）
2011年9月2日，欧盟扩大制裁范围，禁止：
- 向欧盟国家进口来自于叙利亚的原油及原油产品
- 购买原产于叙利亚的原油及原油产品
- 运输原产于叙利亚的原油及原油产品
（具体禁止范围可参阅附件协会通函）
显然，该制裁覆盖了所有原产于叙利亚的原油和石油产品，任何受欧盟管辖的个人或公司都不能以任何方式从事与此有关的商业活动，即使这些石油并非从叙利亚装运或者出口。
2. 如果欧盟对船舶登记国、船旗国、船东或管理人注册地以及卸货港所在的国家都没有管辖权，那么船舶从叙利亚装运石油或运输原产于叙利亚的石油是否属于合法？
原则上，上述船舶、船东、管理人所进行的活动是合法的。但问题是，船东将不再享受这个航次的保险。因为，所有成熟的保险市场和船东互保协会，都不可避免地在伦敦和欧洲市场再保险，而这是违反欧盟制裁规定的。
英国财政部的商业、创新与技能部门解释说该制裁法案的第17条规定，禁止保险人参加第三条a项中的活动。对活动做出的禁止与船东注册地无关。
3. 如果船舶在进行不合法航次时发生索赔，但是该索赔并不是由于对叙贸易或者从叙利亚装载石油造成的，那么保险人会对此做出赔付吗？比如，船员在航程中受伤或者生病，这种明显与船舶商业活动和对叙贸易、从叙利亚装载石油无关的情况。
我们认为，保险人不再会赔付在不合法航次中产生的索赔。虽然该航次与索赔之间没有因果关系，因为法案规定保险人对非法活动提供保险本身就是被禁止的，所以与法律概念上的因果关系并无关系。
4. 如果船舶结束不合法航次，船舶保险是否可以恢复，或者船舶因被禁或上了黑名单将不再被保？ 答案是肯定的。（虽然）欧盟尚未提供有关履行不合法航次的公司名单，但是欧盟法律管辖下的保险公司或再保险公司(根据法律规定)不得提供有利于或协助完成不合法航次的保险保障，因此不合法航次结束后船舶保险不可恢复。
所有船壳险保险公司和保赔险保险公司的保险条款里都包含了”限制制裁”及”除外条款”。如果提供保险、支付赔款、或提供任何利益将使保险人受到联合国决议或者欧盟、英国或美国的贸易经济制裁、法律法规的制裁、禁止和限制，保险人将不会支付赔偿或者提供任何利益。
小结
如果船舶前往受制裁国家，那么该航次将不受保险保障。因而，该航次产生的任何索赔都不受赔偿，即使该索赔与被制裁的国家无关。
客户可从美国财政部（US Treasury）和英国外交委员会办公室（the UK’s Foreign Commission Office）网站上获得最新被制裁国家名单。
以上由ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
