The new Article 26-ter of the Italian Codice della Nautica da Diporto applies to foreign-flagged recreational craft up to 24 metres that are owned by Italian residents or Italian legal entities and are navigating or lying in Italian internal waters, territorial waters or ecological protection zones. The rule requires those craft to prove their navigability. If the flag state issues a relevant certificate, that certificate should be carried on board. If the flag state does not issue such a certificate, the yacht must be inspected by an Italian notified technical body, which then issues an attestation valid for five years.

On paper, this looks like a small technical amendment. In practice, it raises a bigger question: how far can Italy go when a yacht is flying another EU flag and that flag state has deliberately chosen a different certification model? That question matters because EU yacht flags do not all work in the same way. Some have formal inspection regimes, while others rely more on registration, CE conformity, equipment rules and owner responsibility, especially for private pleasure craft. Italy’s new rule sits directly on that dividing line.

The Italian position
Italy presents the measure as an environmental and safety rule. This is important because coastal states are entitled to regulate navigation in their own waters and EU law recognises this.

Italy can check whether a yacht in its waters presents a real environmental or safety risk.
It cannot use that check to impose an Italian technical certification system on yachts that are
lawfully registered under another EU flag.

The EU Recreational Craft Directive allows member states to adopt national rules for navigation in specific waters where those rules protect the environment or waterway safety, but there are limits. Such rules must be justified, proportionate and must not require modifications to craft that are otherwise compliant with EU product law. The Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport has also tried to narrow the scope of the new provision. In its circular of 18 June 2026, the Ministry stated that navigability remains a matter for the flag state. It also clarified that the Italian attestation is not meant to replace a flag-state safety certificate. The inspection should focus on the condition of the craft and on obvious risks caused by poor maintenance or neglect. That clarification is welcome; it also shows where the legal boundary lies.

Italy can check whether a yacht in its waters presents a real environmental or safety risk. It cannot use that check to impose an Italian technical certification system on yachts that are lawfully registered under another EU flag.

Why EU flags need separate analysis
The term “foreign flag” is too broad for this issue. A Cayman, Jersey or Marshall Islands flag raises one set of questions, an EU flag raises another.

Within the EU, registration and flag-state regulation are part of the internal market. Owners may rely on the legal systems of other member states. Yacht managers, brokers, surveyors and charter companies often structure their work around those differences. That does not mean Italy must accept unsafe craft in Italian waters, but it does mean Italy must respect the regulatory choices of other EU member states unless there is a proportionate reason to interfere. The hardest cases arise where an EU flag state does not require a periodic safety certificate for a private yacht. If Italy then says that the absence of such a certificate automatically triggers an Italian attestation, the argument becomes much more difficult.

The absence of a certificate may simply reflect the flag state’s legal model rather than indicating a regulatory gap.

Spain and Croatia: the easier cases
Spain and Croatia are likely to be the least controversial examples.

Spain has a structured system for recreational craft, including the Certificado de Navegabilidad and periodic inspections for many vessels. Commercial use is also subject to stricter treatment. Croatia also has a relatively developed inspection and technical suitability regime. For Croatian-flagged craft, technical inspections and documentary requirements are part of the flag-state framework.

For owners and managers, the practical point is simple: keep the flag-state documents current,
carry them on board and make sure they are understandable to Italian authorities.

In the charter context, Croatia has also tended to require technical confirmation linked to the flag state or to recognised organisations acting under that state’s authority. For these flags, Italy’s role should usually be straightforward. If a Spanish or Croatian certificate is valid and covers the relevant category of yacht, Italy should recognise it. A further Italian inspection would only be defensible if there is a concrete reason to believe that the yacht is poorly maintained or presents an actual risk. For owners and managers, the practical point is simple: keep the flag-state documents current, carry them on board and make sure they are understandable to Italian authorities. If necessary, prepare certified translations in advance.

Malta, Poland and France: the more difficult cases
Malta, Poland and France create more nuanced questions.

Malta has a strong commercial yacht regime. Its Small Commercial Yacht Code applies to commercial yachts under 24 metres and gives Italy a clear flag-state framework to recognise. The position is different for private pleasure yachts. Malta’s approach to private craft below 24 metres is not the same as a mandatory periodic certification system. Safety guidance exists, but it is not necessarily equivalent to a compulsory state-issued navigability certificate.

Poland is even more specific. Polish commercial yachts require safety certification. Private seagoing recreational yachts above 15 metres are also treated differently from smaller recreational craft, but for private recreational yachts up to 15 metres, the Polish Yacht Safety Certificate is recommended rather than mandatory. In that category, the lack of a certificate is part of the Polish regime.

France has its own split. Private pleasure craft below 24 metres are governed by Division 240, which focuses on safety equipment and operating conditions. Commercial pleasure craft fall under Division 241 and have a stronger documentary basis. A private French yacht may therefore not have the type of periodic certificate Italy appears to expect.

Article 26-ter does not apply to every foreign-flagged yacht under 24 metres in Italian waters; it applies where the yacht is owned by an Italian resident or an Italian legal entity. That makes the rule easier to understand politically, but harder to justify legally.

These examples are important because they show that the Italian rule cannot be applied mechanically. For a Spanish or Croatian yacht, the key issue may be recognition of existing documents. For a private Maltese, Polish or French yacht, the question may be whether Italy is trying to fill a “gap” that the flag state has intentionally left open. That distinction is central under EU law.

The ownership trigger is vulnerable
There is another problem: Article 26-ter does not apply to every foreign-flagged yacht under 24 metres in Italian waters; it applies where the yacht is owned by an Italian resident or an Italian legal entity. That makes the rule easier to understand politically, but harder to justify legally. If the purpose is environmental protection, the owner’s residence is not a strong risk criterion. A badly maintained yacht can cause the same damage whether it is owned by an Italian, a German, a French national or a Maltese company. The focus should be the condition and use of the craft, not the nationality or residence of the owner. This selective trigger may suggest that the rule is aimed partly at Italian owners who have chosen a foreign flag. That does not automatically make the law unlawful, but it weakens Italy’s proportionality argument.

EU law allows member states to protect their waters. It is far less tolerant of measures that make the use of another EU flag less attractive without a clear safety justification.

What a lawful application should look like
A defensible application of Article 26-ter should follow four principles.

First, Italy should recognise valid flag-state certificates issued by other EU member states.

Second, where the flag state does not issue a certificate for the relevant category of private craft, Italy should not treat that fact alone as evidence of non-compliance.

Third, any Italian inspection should be limited to objective maintenance and environmental risks: defective bilge systems, dangerous electrical or gas installations, fire-safety deficiencies, serious leaks, fuel risks or visible structural neglect.

Fourth, Italy should not require additional equipment, modifications or Italian technical standards for a yacht that is CE-compliant and lawful under its EU flag, unless there is a specific and proportionate local safety reason.

Owners with EU-flagged craft under 24 metres and an Italian ownership link should not wait for a marina inspection or a Guardia Costiera query. The file should be prepared before the yacht enters the season.

That is the difference between a port-state maintenance check and a second certification system. The first can be justified, the second is vulnerable.

Practical steps for owners and managers
Owners with EU-flagged craft under 24 metres and an Italian ownership link should not wait for a marina inspection or a Guardia Costiera query. The file should be prepared before the yacht enters the season. Managers should identify the exact flag category, the use of the yacht and the certification duties under that flag. A private yacht, a bareboat charter yacht, a crewed charter yacht and a training vessel may be treated very differently. They should then collect the relevant documents: registration certificate, CE declaration, builder documentation, insurance survey, maintenance records, yard invoices, gas and electrical checks, fire-extinguisher service records, bilge and through-hull checks, and any available flag-state confirmation. For Malta, Poland and France, it may be useful to obtain a short written explanation from a local maritime adviser or flag-state representative confirming whether a safety certificate is required for that specific category of craft. This can be more persuasive than simply saying that no certificate exists.

For Spain and Croatia, the priority is different: ensure the existing technical certificate is valid, properly translated where needed and available on board.

The wider trend is clear – Mediterranean coastal states are becoming more assertive. Italy is now
testing how far coastal-state control can reach into EU flag-state choices.

The wider lesson
Article 26-ter is not aimed at large superyachts, because it stops at 24 metres. Yet it still matters for the superyacht sector as many ownership structures include smaller EU-flagged assets: chase boats, tenders with separate registration, day boats, family yachts, support craft and occasional charter units. These vessels often move across borders and between private and operational use. They are also the vessels most likely to sit in the grey zone between light private regulation and more formal commercial certification.

The wider trend is clear – Mediterranean coastal states are becoming more assertive. Italy is now testing how far coastal-state control can reach into EU flag-state choices. Croatia has already shown how technical, tax and charter rules can be tightened through practical enforcement rather than headline reforms. For the industry, the lesson is straightforward: flag choice must be matched with the yacht’s real use, ownership, location and documentation file.

A flag may be valid and the structure may be lawful, but that no longer guarantees an easy conversation on the quay.

Conclusion
Italy’s new rule can be defended if it remains a narrow environmental and maintenance control. It becomes legally vulnerable if it is applied as a second Italian safety certification for yachts flying another EU flag. The strongest objections will arise with private Maltese, Polish and French yachts where the flag state does not require the certificate Italy appears to expect. Spain and Croatia are likely to be less problematic, because their systems already provide documents Italy can recognise. The practical answer is not to challenge every inspection, but to be precise.

• What does the flag state require?
• What documents exist?
• What is the yacht’s actual use?
• Is Italy checking a real risk or imposing a parallel standard?

Those questions will decide whether Article 26-ter remains a legitimate coastal-state measure or becomes an EU-law problem.

As an open-source platform we offer an industry-wide invitation to anyone and everyone in our sector to share their knowledge, experience and opinions. So if you have an interesting and valuable contribution to make, and would like to join our growing community of guest columnists, share your ideas with us at newsdesk@thesuperyachtgroup.com

Click here to become part of The Superyacht Group community, and join us in our mission to make this industry accessible to all, and prosperous for the long-term. We are offering access to the superyacht industry’s most comprehensive and longstanding archive of business-critical information, as well as a comprehensive, real-time superyacht fleet database, for just £10 per month, because we are One Industry with One Mission. Sign up here.