It may have been there for a while, but the beef is that the CAA have only just started applying it - and unevenly at that. Some pilots have been issued ratings outside the seven years and some have been refused. And some who had their requirements stating in writing from the CAA to put a rating on their UK/JAA licence found they didn't qualify when the CAA finally got round to issuing LASORS 2010 in April 2011!
The rule is nonsensical. Are ratings issued by an ICAO authority such as the Hong Kong CAD any lower quality than those isssued by say, Portugal or Turkey? The HK pilot will probably have been using his rating to fly in the Europe. And is there any relevance to answering questions about the lattitude nut in a DI to transferring a 747 rating to his/her UK/JAA licence? It would be like asking a doctor to retake his biology GCSE after working overseas for seven years!
Other JAA authorities haven't been applying this - some even issue ratings based on another ICAO rating with no additional requirements. Some of the cynics amongst us may suggest that the CAA have seen a way of boosting their revenue prior to handing a major chunk of their income to EASA.
The fact that it's a rule from a document isued by an agency which no longer exists applied a year too late confirms what most of us know about the CAA. If the people it regualtes gave the same level of attention to their work, Europe would be littered with aircraft wrecks. And I don't know if EASA will apply the seven year rule to IR renewal. I hope they see the nonesense in and don't and don't. But one things for sure, although for many JAA state's pilots things will probably get worse - for the UK pilots, there is lots of room for improvemnet.