I had a quick look at the BR and found interestingly in the preamble
(6) The scope of Community action should be clearly defined so that persons, organisations and products subject to this Regulation and its implementing rules can be identified without ambiguity. Such scope should be clearly defined by referring to a list of aircraft which are exempted from the application of this Regulation.
which has very clearly been accomplished
with the use of 'Operator' and 'Established' (neither of which as we know are defined)
In addition, (and some what amusingly, at least to me) the last point of Article 4 (which imposes the 3rd country requirements) says,
6. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of third countries as specified in international conventions, in particular the Chicago Convention.
Obviously other than the right for third countries to have their aircraft, operated by their pilots (as we tend to think is specified in ICAO), without requiring pilots licences issued by the various countries/supranational organisations in which they may operate.
The assumption by those much more knowledgeable than I is, EASA and the EU decision makers must have taken legal advice that paragraph 6 does not obviate the requirements of the second half of Article 4 1c. On the other hand, the UK does like to write laws that state one thing in the first paragraph and then 3 paragraphs later put an override in that nullifies the first statement! Maybe the same drafters have 'helped' EASA.
Who knows, all food for the very important lobbying and legal professions to ensure a sustainable source of fees.
(Must be in a particularly sarcastic mood today)