Further to our earlier post, in 2022 a German individual was convicted of importing timber from Myanmar in breach of EU sanctions and was sentenced to 19 months in jail and a substantial confiscation order of over €3m was also issued.
The case then went on appeal through the German system, and ultimately a referral was made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).
The argument on the appeals, and for consideration by the CJEU, was that the timber in question underwent sufficient processing in Taiwan, such that it should no longer be considered timber of Myanmarese origin.
The CJEU has ruled that the timber which only underwent “debranching and debarking” was not processed to a level as to amount to a change of origin. The CJEU also held that the timber which was sawn into “wooden cuboids” also did not undergo sufficient processing as to amount to a change of origin.
By contrast the timber which was sawn into finished boards of lumber was held to have undergone sufficient processing to properly be considered of Taiwan origin.
On the referred question of whether the prohibition against goods “exported from Burma/Myanmar” in article 2(2)(a)(ii) of the EU Regulation prohibits imports via third countries, the CJEU held the prohibition “must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only goods that have been imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar“.
It should be noted that this last ruling was in the context of a separate prohibition against the importation of goods which “originate in Burma/Myanmar”, with the court ruling that this other provision was the one which caught imports via third countries.
The German courts will now need to apply these findings to the existing conviction.
