in 1 c of the basic Regulation means...
I assume you are referring to article 4.1.(c) of the BR, as there is no article 1 (c). Now that article is only applicable to
an operator established or residing in the Community or
an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations.
Your first reading is therefore incorrect because
(a) EASA - as pointed out before - is not a Member State
and
(b) No Member State ensures oversight of operations of an N-registered plane in France.
Furthermore, knowing Cathar, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that any point he makes is correct.
Also, the fact that your beginning your sentence with "I'm no lawyer but..." seems to vindicate my point that this regulation is anything but clear. Most Cologne-generated prose isn't.
Finally, if you are the owner / operator of the N-reg plane (which can be the case if you are a US citizen - there wouldn't be a trust involved then) and you are resident in the EU, then your pilot (even if he is Brazilian) must have EASA papers according to part FCL and the BS, as flying out of the Community falls under article 4.1.c. If you are the owner of a US company (or a Brazilian company, or a Liechtenstein company) that operates the N-reg plane, then 4.1.d would apply and hence part FCL would not be applicable.
I therefore do not see why it should be career risking for CAA officials to enforce the law. Indeed they will place themselves in a very difficult position if the ignore evidence of illegal activity.
Well for starters, it is not clear what would constitute "evidence" of illegal activity. And you can rest assured that any arbitrary enforcement would not remain without political consequences, especially in a country like France, where the majority of GA is N-registered.
Civil servants can only get away with so much when they are not in the spotlight of public scrutiny. That is why they avoid a proper debate at all costs.
You seem to ignore how this legislation came about. Most transport ministers were blisfully unaware of what was going on. There was unanimity in the
second EASA committee only, where a lot of member states' representations were absent. And the vote in the Transport Committee of the EP, which Baldwin forced through in double quick time on that 1st of September, without proper debate, was anything but unanimous. Oh, and the "translation" of the legislation took about 6 months, so that it was ensured that it was sent to the MEPs during the holiday period.
I think you people are quickly running out of credit with the EU citizens. But obviously you don't give a toss about that.