Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, also known as the EU deforestation regulation, is an important piece of legislation that was passed by the European Commission on the 31st o May 2023, in regard to deforestation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, 2023). On paper, it looks like a promising piece of legislation, since it aims to protect the environment (Commission v Denmark, 1988), while also reducing human rights abuses in industrial agriculture (Human Rights Watch, 2023). However, this particular regulation also caused some issues, since it put free movement of goods policies and environmental policies in conflict with each other (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, 2023). Therefore, this article will analyse this regulation in more details and will also focus on two important questions, which are as follows: ‘’Is this regulation on deforestation-free products necessary?’’ and ‘’What does the future look like in regard to free movement of goods policies and environmental policies?’’.

 

As mentioned above, this particular regulation is a landmark regulation in the environmental field. This is because the European Commission is now encouraging Member States and companies in aligning themselves with the mandatory requirements enshrined in Article 36 of the TFEU (Commission v Denmark, 1988). As a result, this regulation is completely in lin with this article, as already debated previously in the 1988 Commission v Denmark case (Commission v Denmark, 1988), the 2001 Preussen Elektra case (PreussenElektra AG v Schhleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein, 2001) and in many other CJEU rulings that dealt with these particular problems. Additionally, this regulation is also in line with Article 191 of the TFEU, which is the article that talks about the EU’s competence in regard to environmental issues (European Commission, 2024, p. 3). In essence, Article 191, Paragraph 1 outlines the objectives of the Union policy on the environment, which is as follows: “preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, promoting measures to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combatting climate change” (European Commission, 2024, p. 3). In addition, the European Commission is also encouraging the Member States and the companies to cut down on human rights abuses in industrial agriculture (Human Rights Watch, 2023). These are as follows: child and forced labour, exposure to toxic pesticides, forced displacement and eviction, invasion of Indigenous peoples’ territories and finally, intimidation and violence against environmental advocates (Forwood et al., 2024).

 

Yet, the European Commission also made some serious mistakes when passing this regulation. Firstly, this regulation brings in quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, as outlined in Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (Consolidated Version of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union, 2016, p. 13). Secondly, the European Commission decided to ‘ban’ only certain products related to deforestation, such as palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, cocoa, timber, rubber, and certain derivatives of these products (such as meat products, leather, chocolate, coffee, palm nuts, palm oil derivatives, glycerol, natural rubber products, soybeans, soy-bean flour and oil, fuel wood, wood products, pulp and paper and printed books) (Forwood et al., 2024).

 

Nonetheless, this problem can be avoided if companies produce a due diligence statement before importation or exportation of the aforementioned products (European Commission, 2023). In essence, this statement needs to mention that the company used land that was not deforested after 31st of December 2020 (European Commission, 2023) and that it respected fundamental human rights provisions, such as: laws on land use rights, labour rights, human rights protection under international law, free, prior and informed consent, which is present in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and respect of anti-corruption laws and the other relevant laws of the country of production (Forwood et al., 2024). However, in recent times, there have been some complaints in regard to the geolocation mapping of these plots of land (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). One such case comes from a complaint raised by Australia, who had their products prohibited from being sold in the EU (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). Essentially, they claimed that there are key differences between Australia’s own 2023 Forests of Australia map and a 2020 map from the EU Observatory on deforestation and forest degradation (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). This is simply due to Australian authorities and EU authorities’ different interpretations and definitions of forested areas (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024).

 

Lastly, the European Commission only allows 18 months for companies to adapt to the new laws, before receiving penalties for violations agreed upon beforehand by the Member States (Human Rights Watch, 2023). However, micro and small companies and enterprises will have some slight advantages in this matter, namely that they get a longer time period to adapt to these new laws and that they have some other specific provisions apply to them, as opposed to normal sized companies (European Commission, 2023).

 

Despite all this, there is a worry that Member States may try to provide ‘safe havens’ for these so-called ‘illegal’ products (Human Rights Watch, 2023), unless they harmonise the fines to an agreed upon level (KPMG, 2025) and designate authorities that would constantly check on companies and traders compliance with the Regulation (KPMG, 2025). These particular fines for non-compliance with the Regulation can be of 4 types, which are as follows: fines proportionate to the environmental damage and value of the items, which can gradually increase with repeated breaches to a maximum of 4% of the EU turnover of the company, confiscation of the products or confiscation of the revenues gained from the selling of these products in the European Union, a temporary exclusion from public procurement processes and public funding and finally, for serious or repeated breachings, a temporary prohibition from sending these types of products into the EU, or a prohibition from using the simplified due diligence process (Forwood et al., 2024).

​

Nonetheless, this particular regulation may cause problems with certain companies and Member States in the future. For example, in recent times, some major stakeholders, such as companies, traders, EU countries and non-EU countries (European Commission, 2024), have addressed some complaints to the European Commission in regard to this regulation (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). The first is in regard to a lack of clarity of certain provisions of the Regulation and the due diligence requirements (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). This particular complaint has been launched by US Government representatives and European People’s Party representatives, who believe that unless this problem is solved, companies and operators would not be ready to comply with the provisions outlined in the Regulation (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024).

​

Then, the second complaint is in regard to technological failures (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). In essence, Article 33 of the Regulation outlines that the due diligence information needs to be entered into an IT system, which will be established by the Commission before the 30th of December 2024 (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). However, there have been several reports which claimed that the EU encountered technical issues with the online reporting systems (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024), despite the European Commission’s assurances of working information systems for operators and traders (European Parliament, 2024). Therefore, this means that major stakeholders are not really able to take proper action in complying with the Regulation (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024).

​

As a result of this, the European Commission decided to pass another regulation, known as Regulation (EU) 2024/3234 (AGRINFO, 2025). This particular regulation just states that the entry into force of the original regulation is pushed back until the 30th of December 2025 for big companies, and until the 30th of June 2026 for micro and small companies (AGRINFO, 2025). Nonetheless, despite all this progress, there is a high possibility that companies and Member States might still lodge cases against the Commission on this regulation before their national courts and even the CJEU, unless the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph are fixed by the time Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 comes into force.

​

Yet, these particular complaints launched by the major stakeholders are all legitimate, although the most legitimate is arguably the one regarding technological failures of due diligence systems (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). If these particular systems do not work, there is absolutely no way for operators and traders to comply in time with the requirements of the Regulation (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). However, the other two complaints raised, such as the one on geolocation mapping and lack of clarity in certain provisions of the Regulation are politically motivated (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). Firstly, the geolocation mapping complaint was launched by Australia, who tried to argue that their products should have been allowed into the EU based on their own definition of forests and forested areas, instead of the one that the European Union uses (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024). Secondly, the lack of clarity of certain provisions of the Regulation complaint was also purely political, since it was launched by representatives of the US Government and respectively, of the European People’s Party (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024).

​

To conclude, this article has focused on the landmark Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, regarding deforestation-free products, which was passed by the European Commission on the 31st of May 2023 (European Commission, 2023). It has done so with the help of two important guiding questions, which were as follows: ‘’Is this regulation on deforestation-free products necessary?’’ and ‘’What does the future look like in regard to free movement of goods policies and environmental policies?’’.

 

In regard to the first question, it is very clear that this regulation on deforestation-free products was necessary. That is because it was crucial for the European Commission to start encouraging Member States and the companies in protecting the environment (Commission v Denmark, 1988), and also encourage them to cut down on human rights abuses in industrial agriculture (Forwood et al., 2024).

 

When it comes to the second question, it can be said that the future for free movement of goods policies and environmental policies and this regulation, in particular, is both bright and bleak at the same time. The future is bright, because this is one of the first ever regulations that deals with the environment and deforestation-free products in particular. However, the future for this regulation is also quite bleak, since the European Commission introduced a number of restrictions which may be criticized by Member States and companies.

 

Firstly, this regulation brings in quantitative restrictions on imports and exports (Consolidated Version of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union, 2016, p. 13), despite it being fully in line with Article 36 of the TFEU and the mandatory requirements outlined in the 1988 Commission v Denmark case (Commission v Denmark, 1988) or the 2001 Preussen Elektra case (PreussenElektra AG v Schhleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein, 2001) and Article 191 of the TFEU, which relates to how the European Union’s policy on protection of the environment (Consolidated Version of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union, 2016).

 

Secondly, this particular regulation only prohibits some products, but not all products related to deforestation, such as palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, cocoa, timber, rubber, and the derivatives of these products (European Commission, 2023).

 

Thirdly, the European Commission only allows companies 18 months to adapt to the new laws, before they receive penalties for violations agreed upon beforehand by the Member States (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

 

Finally, there is a fear inside certain circles that Member States may try to provide ‘safe havens’ for these so-called ‘illegal’ products, unless they decide to harmonise the fines (Human Rights Watch, 2023). Therefore, this means that in the future, these companies and Member States will end up lodging cases against the Commission on this regulation before their national courts and even the CJEU, unless the European Commission can fix the biggest issues in regard to this regulation, which are as follows: lack of clarity in certain provisions of the Regulation, geolocation mapping and technological failures (Mason Hayes & Curran, 2024).

 

Thankfully, due to the complaints launched by European countries, non-European countries, companies and traders in regard to the lack of clarity of the certain provisions of the original Regulation, the geolocation mapping and technological failures, the European Commission has passed Regulation (EU) 2024/3234 in the meantime (AGRINFO, 2025). Essentially, this regulation states that the entry into force of the original regulation is delayed until the 30th of December 2025 for big companies, and until the 30th of June 2026 for micro and small companies (AGRINFO, 2025). Therefore, as long as the European Commission fixes the issues that have been raised in regard to this regulation, there should not be a problem in getting EU countries, non-EU countries, companies and traders compliant by the new date of the entry into force of the regulation. It is very crucial for countries, companies and traders to protect the environment, cut down on human rights abuse in industrial agriculture, but also not disrupt the free movement of goods.
​​​​​​​​​​​

References​​

​

The Court, Case 302/86, Commission v Denmark (1988), ECR 4607, [Online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:672ac3d2-ebcc-4078-8282-8e14e241c073.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDF (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

AGRINFO, (2025), EU Deforestation Regulation: 12 month delay to implementation, [Online]. Available at: https://agrinfo.eu/book-of-reports/eu-deforestation-regulation-commission-proposes-12-month-delay/ (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

Consolidated Version of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union, (2016/C202/01), (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p.1-329) [Online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9e8d52e1-2c70-11e6-b497-01aa75ed71a1.0006.01/DOC_3&format=PDF (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

European Commission, (2023), Green Deal: New law to fight global deforestation and forest degradation driven by EU production and consumption enters into force [Online]. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/green-deal-new-law-fight-global-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-driven-eu-production-and-2023-06-29_en (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

European Commission, (2024), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards provisions relating to the date of application [Online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52024PC0452R(01) (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

European Parliament, (2024), Deforestation law: Parliament gives companies extra year to comply. [Online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241212IPR25961/deforestation-law-
parliament-gives-companies-extra-year-to-comply (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

Forwood et al., (2024), 10 key things you STILL need to know about the new EU Deforestation Regulation [Online]. Available at: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/10-key-things-you-still-need-know-about-new-eu-deforestation-regulation (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

Human Rights Watch, (2023), EU: Major Step For ‘Deforestation-Free’ Trade. [Online]. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/19/eu-major-step-deforestation-free-trade (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

KPMG, (2025), New EU Regulation to combat deforestation entered into force: Regulation 2023/1115/EU entered into force on 29 June [Online]. Available at: https://kpmg.com/hu/en/home/insights/2023/07/new-eu-regulation-to-combat-deforestation-entered-into-force.html (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

Mason Hayes & Curran, (2024), Stakeholder Concerns with EU Deforestation Regulation [Online]. Available at: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/stakeholder-concerns-with-eu-deforestation-regulation (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

ECJ, Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra AG v Schhleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein (2001), ECR I-2099 [Online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0379 (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247 [Online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115 (Accessed on the 15th of July 2025).

​​