Quite simply the residence stuff has never been defined.
People are in two camps on this.
One is that EASA has clever lawyers and they drafted it to cover all possibilities.
The other is that they have stupid lawyers and/or they drafted it in a Cologne pole dancing club (be pleased that I resisted a trip to google/images at this point 
)
I believe the latter, as does a CAA-employed aviation barrister I spoke to. The wording is just too ambiguous, and since generally, under criminal law (which this is), any ambiguity is in favour of the defendant, this is crap law which would have never got through say the UK lawmaking process. Other indications which popped up around the place and which tend to confirm this view suggest that the anti N-reg project was a “private project” by 3-4 individuals at EASA.
I spoke to a highly positioned guy in the UK CAA, face to face, who told me he has no idea what the words mean and doesn’t really want to know either.
There is no case law on it, and IMHO there isn’t going to be for a long time, if ever. There is no indication that anybody anywhere in Europe wants to touch it. I think there are the following areas of risk
Thank you Peter for trying to clarify a very opaque topic. Clearly a special interest group not very far up the food chain was attempting something for friends or their benefit.
This has nothing to do with EU or EASA. N-regs or any other reg are governed by national laws. The only aircraft under EASA control are EASA aircraft. Not even the majority of aircraft (all Annex II) are controlled by EASA.
This has nothing to do with EU or EASA. N-regs or any other reg are governed by national laws.
I am struggling to work out the semantics there…!
No, it’s not practically true. Each EU state signed up to obey Brussels, and therefore anything controlled by its laws is now controlled by EU laws – to the extent that the EU has drafted specific laws.
One could argue that EASA FCL doesn’t contain the phrase “we want to screw N-regs”, which is true. And the requirement for EASA pilot papers if the operator is EU based applies equally to Mongolian regs, etc. It just so happens that there aren’t many Mongolian regs in Europe… It also applies to French and German and UK regs. It just so happens that those pilots already hold EASA papers!
The EU has not (yet) passed a law requiring the wearing of yellow underpants while riding a bike, so, yeah, the colour of cycling underpants remains under national control, for the time being!
OK, I’ll try again 
EASA has no saying what so ever about non EASA aircraft. It is outside their jurisdiction.
EASA cannot make rules and regulations for stuff where they have no jurisdiction. This goes for Annex II as well. Operations of N-regs is therefore a national thing, for the same reason Annex II is a national thing.
What they can do, is to say for instance that no training and no hours done on an N-reg will count in the EASA system, or similar things. They did this for microlight earlier, but recently they changed it, so today I think 10 or 15 hours are deducted from LAPL/PPL training when you have a national microlicht license. They also wanted to make hours done on Annex II for instance in a Cub, non countable for EASA PPL, but changed their minds.
So, how and why and by whom an N-reg is operated, is a national thing within the country it is operated. EASA cannot make any regulations, unless these regulations somehow affects the EASA system.
EASA has no saying what so ever about non EASA aircraft. It is outside their jurisdiction.
I think there is a misunderstanding here of “EASA aircraft”. That is a specific term. It does not mean EASA registered aircraft. It means any aircraft capable of having an EASA CofA
(In fact it might mean "any aircraft capable of having an ICAO CofA, but the distinction is very subtle and there are very few of those i.e. can be N-reg but can’t be EASA-reg)
EASA cannot make rules and regulations for stuff where they have no jurisdiction.
True
This goes for Annex II as well.
True
Operations of N-regs is therefore a national thing, for the same reason Annex II is a national thing.
Not true – see above.
What they can do, is to say for instance that no training and no hours done on an N-reg will count in the EASA system, or similar things.
True. I don’t think that has happened though, has it (I can’t think of a current example).
They did this for microlight earlier, but recently they changed it, so today I think 10 or 15 hours are deducted from LAPL/PPL training when you have a national microlicht license. They also wanted to make hours done on Annex II for instance in a Cub, non countable for EASA PPL, but changed their minds.
Acceptance (or not) of previous training done elsewhere is at the target license issuer’s (EASA’s) discretion. But, under ICAO, the target license issuer is supposed to accept time flown elsewhere under the ICAO system (and e.g. the USA does that fully, notwithstanding widespread disinformation to the contrary). But microlights and Annex II are not ICAO CofA aircraft (and the instructors working in them do not necessarily need ICAO instructor qualifications) so the acceptance of time flown in those is going to be vulnerable to, shall we say, “local interpretation”…
You get the same when leaving the military. Your instructors were probably not ICAO qualified instructors, and certainly no “proper” military plane can hold any ICAO CofA! When I was doing the JAA IR ground school, I met a number of ex RAF pilots there whose RAF qualifications (right up to an ATPL) were completely unrecognised and they were re-doing their IRs, their CPLs etc… Two of them were Chinook pilots, re-doing their civilian IRs!
So, how and why and by whom an N-reg is operated, is a national thing within the country it is operated.
No, that is incorrect – see above.
Every ICAO certified N-reg I can think of is an “EASA aircraft”.
If you were right, the whole EASA FCL stuff would be a complete non-event to N-reg pilots based in Europe…
What is not clear (to me, at least) is whether national control is retained over possible long term parking controls on N-regs (etc). Currently, Denmark is the only case I know of that has such a law. It was hoped that EASA FCL and EASA OPS would end that practice but I am not sure… But “parking” is meaningless anyway. It’s just a lump of aluminium (or fibreglass) sitting on the ground somewhere. Any parking controls must be expressed in terms of an inbound flight, followed by being parked within the borders of the country, and ending only with a departure flight.
That is a specific term. It does not mean EASA registered aircraft. It means any aircraft capable of having an EASA CofA
It could, but does it? I have not seen that in writing. I believe this still is a national thing.
I think there is a misunderstanding here of “EASA aircraft”. That is a specific term. It does not mean EASA registered aircraft. It means any aircraft capable of having an EASA CofA
Saying it many times doesn’t make it any more true.
The dividing line between Annex 2 and, let’s call it “non-Annex 2” is a totally arbitrary one and has little to do with CofA. There are loads of Annex 2 birds out there which have a regular CofA.
That’s why I posted that link above, which is at least the UK CAA position.
Anyway, this is irrelevant to the whole topic here, because there are AFAIK no Annex II types permanently based in Europe which are N-reg.
