We receive from the Secretariat of Confindustria Nautica a request for correction in accordance with the law, which we therefore promptly publish with the same emphasis given to our article “Vessels, DCI and incentives. A history of chaos.”
Spett.le Panama Publisher c.a. Luca Oriani
Dear Director,
The article published April 12 in Motor Boats Online, titled “Vessels, DCIs and Incentives. A History of Chaos,” contains a number of misinformation, starting with the one that watercraft would be excluded from the inventions to the scrapping of endothermic engines.
Since the invitation, formulated through the short ways, to your removal, has not been granted, we are obliged to clarify formally, in accordance with the law, requesting the full publication of the following letter of denial and with equal prominence that reserved for the news.
The article in question:
1. contains some unsubstantiated assertions,
2. what was improperly reported could have been easily verified with normal diligence by the reporter, from official sources and by consulting the writer at least for the part that deals with her work,
3. is censurable from the standpoint of incorrect information offered to consumers, to the detriment of consumers, the market, and companies that produce or distribute electric motors,
4. associates the title “A Tale of Chaos” with the image bearing the logo of Confindustria Nautica, therefore it represents reputational damage to the national trade association of Confindustria.
In addition, one reads statements such as: the vessel “was a free port, free from bureaucracy and taxation, but is this really the case?”, “Pandora’s Box?”, “regulatory chaos”, “vessels without EC type approval are second class to access incentives” for scrapping engines, the “DCI, the symptom of a bigger problem, (…) how to obtain this declaration for non-EC type-approved watercraft,” “our country is no stranger to support measures from which, in the end, those who need it the least are able to take advantage,” which are completely misleading.
The reference to the entry into force of EC type approval is also incorrect, demonstrating the lack of expertise of the writer of the piece.
First, no new taxation was imposed on watercraft, as reported.
The non-EC type-approved vessel, i.e., placed on the market before 1998 (not 1993, as it reads) is not affected by any limitation of access to the incentives for scrapping endothermic engines to purchase electric powertrains.
It is not true that “to obtain the DCI without CE marking, one can apply for an attestation of suitability, a certificate issued by a technical body following an inspection of the boat. A procedure that at best costs at least 500 euros.”
It is not true that in order to get the incentive, “in case of theft proving ownership can be really difficult.”
Since the endothermic engine scrappage subsidy uses taxpayers’ deniers, correctly the legislation-published in the Official Gazette and accessible to all-provides for a census of beneficiaries, which is available to the administration and the police for the planned verifications.
So, while for registered boats the license for navigation is authentic. For vessels, which are without, the DCI – Declaration of Construction or Importation issued by Confindustria Nautica following registration on a computer portal whose implementation, personnel and management costs fall on the same organization.
This portal expressly provides for the possibility that the vessel may be without EC type-approval, in fact it provides for it by default and if anything, the person concerned can tick the box “equipped with EC type-approval,” and in this case it provides, in case of the absence of the technical documentation that was in any case mandatory until 1998, for the inclusion of a self-declaration by the owner.
The portal is public and anyone, even the columnist, could have ascertained this as evidenced by the attached screenshots of the registration pages.
The only thing the columnist could have ignored, but could easily have ascertained by asking Confindustria Nautica, is that it was the latter that fought with the administration for it to consider a method of issuing grants that would include all watercraft and not be limited to registered units or, alternatively, those with CE certificates.
Finally, it is regrettable that the mere reporting of the facts was not sufficient for the newspaper to proceed with the removal of the news.
Genoa, April 12, 2025
Confindustria Nautica The Secretariat
The editorial staff of Motor Boats answers.
Dear Confindustria Nautica Secretariat,
we do not dispute what is reported in your letter of correction, which, from a strictly technical point of view, starting with the typo on the year 1993, is true. However, we regret to note that the sense of the article was completely misunderstood, i.e., that owners of vessels without CE markings have to go through an expensive process, in terms of time and money, sometimes disproportionate to the intrinsic value of the vessel, in order to be granted the same rights reserved for owners of newer type-approved vessels.
On the same site of Confindustria Nautica(https://dci.
The Editor-in-Chief of Motor Boats answers.
Dear Confindustria Nautica Secretariat,
it is not our custom to remove published articles, as you have requested. It is the custom of this newspaper and our Publishing House to take full responsibility for what we write, I and all the journalists I have the honor of managing. Removing an article after publishing it in this business is an admission of guilt. And we are only guilty of being of service to our readers, trying to provide correct information and useful and constructive opinions.
Luca Oriani
