German court turns a blind eye to illegal Myanmar timber
Last week, a German court dismissed a legal challenge concerning Myanmar teak used in the refurbishment of the German naval training vessel Gorch Fock, in a ruling that risks undermining enforcement of Europe’s forest protection laws and high-risk supply chains.
Germany Navy training vessel the Gorch Fock
The case challenged the decision of Germany’s Competent Authority (Germany’s Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE)) for the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) not to determine whether the teak was illegally placed on the internal EU market. By declining to require the BLE to make that determination, the court has effectively endorsed an approach that EIA believes weakens the application of the EUTR and risks creating a dangerous precedent for future enforcement.
Senior Forests Campaigner, Kate Klikis says,
this judgment sends a deeply concerning message. If competent authorities can choose which parts of the law to enforce, the credibility of the EU’s entire forest governance framework is put at risk
The ruling follows years of evidence linking the ship’s controversial refit to teak sourced from Myanmar. Since the 2021 military coup, EIA and others have repeatedly warned that any trade in Myanmar teak risks financing the military junta responsible for widespread human rights abuses and environmental destruction. Even before the coup, concerns over the legality of Myanmar timber imports were well documented. In 2019, German Green MP Steffi Lemke to condemn the use of Myanmar teak in the Gorch Fock refit as “scandalous”.
The decision is particularly significant because the BLE will also be responsible for enforcing the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from the end of 2026. Effective enforcement depends not only on strong legislation, but on competent authorities applying it consistently and comprehensively.
“As responsibility shifts to the EUDR, robust enforcement will be essential if the EU is to prevent illegal timber and other forest-risk commodities from entering its markets”, added Klikis.
What was the case about?
The case was brought by the German Nature Conservation Ring (DNR), with support from WWF Germany.
Between 2015 and 2017, eight shipments of teak from Myanmar were imported by a German company to be used in the Gorch Fock refit. Given clear evidence of corruption in Myanmar’s timber sector at the time and the high risk of illegally harvested teak, these imports were likely non-compliant with the EUTR.
Despite the importer not providing sufficient evidence that the teak was imported legally under EUTR, in 2018, the BLE only issued a warning to a German importer, not a fine. The BLE stated that the importer’s cooperation with the BLE’s investigations into the importer’s due diligence led to the BLE concluding that any breach was negligent, rather than intentional. The teak was ultimately allowed to enter the EU market.
The Cologne Administrative Court was not asked to determine whether the teak used on the Gorch Fock was illegal. Instead, it was asked to determine whether the BLE should have made a formal finding that the teak imports had been placed on the EU market in breach of the EUTR.
The court ruled that there was no legal basis under the EUTR or German law for the court to make a judgment on the decisions of the BLE and would encroach on the rights of the importer. The court also rejected further requests for additional investigations into the surplus timber’s whereabouts that was not used in the refit.
Why the ruling matters
The BLE appears to have enforced only part of the EUTR. While it identified shortcomings in the importer’s due diligence, it stopped short of determining whether the timber itself was illegal. This could create a significant enforcement loophole. German authorities can avoid reaching conclusions on legality even where serious concerns exist if an importer is deemed to be cooperative when answering follow-up questions around the timber’s import documentation.
By focusing on due-diligence paperwork while avoiding the underlying question of legality, the BLE risks reducing the regulation to a procedural exercise rather than an effective tool against illegal logging and timber trafficking. Questions still remain about the volume of teak imported for the Gorch Fock project and whether any surplus timber entered other supply chains.
Germany out of step with the UK and Netherlands?
Germany’s approach contrasts sharply with enforcement elsewhere in Europe.
Dutch authorities secured criminal convictions and fines for Myanmar teak imports worth more than €2.5 million and concluded that legal compliance for Myanmar teak imports was effectively impossible. They also imposed a €150,000 penalty on yacht builder Oceanco over Myanmar teak products used on Jeff Bezos’ superyacht Koru.
Jeff Bezos’ teak-decked yacht the Koru (c) Guy Fleury
In the UK, yacht manufacturer Sunseeker was fined £240,000, plus costs, after pleading guilty to offences relating to Myanmar teak imports and failures in due diligence under the UK Timber Regulation.
If authorities in the Netherlands and UK were able to conclude that Myanmar teak imports breached timber laws, why was the BLE unwilling to determine whether teak used on one of Germany’s most prominent public projects violated the EUTR?
A warning sign for EUDR enforcement
The ruling of the German court results in an extremely disappointing outcome. It dismisses the core purpose of the EUTR over a legal technicality, namely, to prevent illegal timber entering the EU market. EIA maintains that effective enforcement is essential to reducing demand for illegally sourced timber, protecting forests in producer countries and ensuring a level playing field for responsible businesses.
This case also raises broader concerns about timber regulation enforcement across the EU. When the EUDR comes into force in December 2026, one of the regulation’s key objectives and benefits is to deliver more consistent and harmonised enforcement between Member States, addressing weaknesses that emerged under the EUTR. That harmonisation will only succeed if competent authorities are willing to make determinations where serious legality concerns arise and apply the law consistently.
Germany’s approach to the EUDR has already attracted attention during the regulation’s implementation. In September 2024, Berlin called for a delay to the regulation, citing concerns over administrative burdens for industry. In March 2026, Germany went further by submitting simplification proposals to the European Commission seeking to simplify aspects of the Regulation, changes that many civil society organisations warned could weaken its effectiveness.
Against this backdrop, the outcome of the Gorch Fock case raises important questions about Germany’s approach to future enforcement under the EUDR. EIA will be watching closely to see whether the Regulation delivers the consistent and robust enforcement that it promises. The credibility of Europe’s forest protection regime depends on robust and consistent enforcement across Member States, ensuring that differences in interpretation do not create loopholes for illegal timber and other forest-risk commodities to enter the EU market.