OK, let's do it blow by blow...
If you look at my post in this forum of 14 Oct at 15:24 you will see that MATS supports Rustle's point. I am told that the wording is taken verbatim from ICAO Annex 15
The MATS wording is indeed taken from ICAO Annex 15 and the ICAO AIS Manual. The paragraphs that describe what should or should not be NOTAMed do not mention stand closures explicitly. However, the appendix to the NOTAM chapter in the AIS Manual goes through every permissible NOTAM code. One of them is "QMPLC", for stand closures. The tables in the appendix even list the NBOMIV flags that should be used for it.
If a stand closure does not meet the ICAO requirements for the issue of a NOTAM, why did ICAO invent and list a code for it?
DVLA hold the address of every vehicle owner in the UK but it would not be appropriate to send a recall notice on a Ford Fiesta to the whole address list, you need to have more precise targetting.
It's a good analogy. If there's a recall issued on the Ford Fiesta, Ford notifies the appropriate agency in each country. The agency is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected owners.
If a stand is closed at LGW, the airport operator raises a NOTAM to warn the AIS. The AIS distributes the NOTAM to those states whose operators may be affected by this. The state AIS is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected operators.
The same applies to the CAA wanting to warn owners of certain Russian registered aircraft that their C of A may not be valid for international use.
So how is the pilot of a Russian-registered aircraft based in France going to find out that the UK CAA will ground his aircraft if he flies it to the UK unless he first gets an exemption?