The statute of limitations for a reforestation order is rejected by the Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony – the forest owner remains permanently obligated.

The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony decided by order of 18 August 2025 that a reforestation order is not subject to the statute of limitations. The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony decided by order of 18 August 2025 (Az. 10 LA 4/25) on a decision of significant importance to property owners: An administrative reforestation order, as here under the Lower Saxony Forest Act (specifically: Lower Saxony Act on Forests and Landscape Conservation – NWaldLG) is not subject to the statute of limitations. This makes it clear: Anyone who clears forest land without permission and uses it permanently for other purposes remains obligated to reforest by the reforestation order even many years later.

Background: Why is the statute of limitations an issue in forest law here?

The Lower Saxony Forest Act provides that forest land does not lose its legal status as "forest" merely because trees are removed or the land is used agriculturally. What is decisive, rather, is whether a lawful conversion permission was issued. If this is lacking, the land remains forest in legal terms even if it is factually being used as arable or pasture land for years. In such cases, many property owners wonder whether the responsible forestry or nature conservation authority can demand reforestation even after years or even decades, or whether such a claim does not become time-barred at some point. The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony has now answered this precise question unequivocally.

Reforestation order before the Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony

A property owner had already removed trees on an area of approximately 1,344 m² in 2005 and has since used the land for agriculture – without the required permission for forest conversion. Only in 2022 did the responsible authority order reforestation. The owner resisted this by arguing that the administrative claim was already time-barred since more than 16 years had passed since the clearing. The Administrative Court of Stade rejected the action, and the application for approval of an appeal before the Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony was also unsuccessful.

Legal considerations of the court

The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony made clear that a reforestation order is not to be understood as a civil law "claim" within the meaning of § 194 BGB, but as a public law power of disposition. Powers of disposition and administrative intervention powers are not subject to the general statute of limitations rules of the Civil Code.

• No statute of limitations under the BGB: The §§ 194 ff. BGB do not apply to public law obligations such as reforestation.No statute of limitations under the BGB: The §§ 194 ff. BGB do not apply to public law obligations such as reforestation.
• No forfeiture: Forfeiture is also excluded because there were no special circumstances that would make the exercise of rights after such a long time appear to violate good faith. The mere passage of time is not sufficient for this.No forfeiture: Forfeiture is also excluded because there were no special circumstances that would make the exercise of rights after such a long time appear to violate good faith. The mere passage of time is not sufficient for this.
• Continuing breach of duty: Even if – purely hypothetically – one were to apply statute of limitations provisions, no statute of limitations would have occurred here. This is because the unlawful use as arable land constituted a continuing breach of duty that continues to this day.Continuing breach of duty: Even if – purely hypothetically – one were to apply statute of limitations provisions, no statute of limitations would have occurred here. This is because the unlawful use as arable land constituted a continuing breach of duty that continues to this day.

The Higher Regional Court (OVG) emphasises this point particularly clearly: Forest remains forest as long as no valid conversion permission is in place. The mere fact that trees have been removed or that land has served as an arable field for years does not change this in legal terms. The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony thus aligns itself with the approach of other appellate courts (including the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal Berlin-Brandenburg, the Administrative Court of Appeal Baden-Württemberg) and the Federal Administrative Court: Forest remains forest as long as no valid conversion permission is in place. The mere fact that trees have been removed or that land has served as an arable field for years does not change this in legal terms. The Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony thus aligns itself with the approach of other appellate courts (including the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal Berlin-Brandenburg, the Administrative Court of Appeal Baden-Württemberg) and the Federal Administrative Court: The reforestation obligation does not become time-barred.

Significance of the decision for property owners

For forest owners, this decision is of considerable significance. It makes clear:

• A reforestation order is possible even decades after clearing.
• There is no "escape through the passage of time". Owners cannot rely on the statute of limitations.There is no "escape through the passage of time". Owners cannot rely on the statute of limitations.
• Anyone who converts forest land without permission bears the permanent risk of a reforestation order.

Especially in Lower Saxony, but certainly also in other German states, the respective LWaldG (State Forest Act) makes strict requirements for the preservation and protection of forest land. That is why owners should definitely obtain the required permissions in good time when planning changes in land use. Conclusion The decision of the Higher Regional Court (OVG) Lower Saxony impressively demonstrates: Forest owners remain permanently obligated. Anyone who clears or converts forest land without permission cannot rely on the statute of limitations even after many years. Authorities are at all times authorised to issue a Forest owners remain permanently obligated. Anyone who clears or converts forest land without permission cannot rely on the statute of limitations even after many years. Authorities are at all times authorised to issue a reforestation order – even decades after the clearing.

Our recommendation for property owners and farmers:

• Obtain permission before any conversion of forest land.
• Have existing uses without permission reviewed legally as soon as possible.
• Do not wait passively for administrative orders, but have them reviewed by a specialist lawyer – often there are ways to adjust the requirements or to negotiate a solution with the authority.

As experienced Law firm for administrative law the experts of AVANTCORE Attorneys-at-Law in Stuttgart advise you comprehensively on your rights and obligations as a forest owner. We represent you before the forestry authority or nature conservation authority and develop strategies to avoid unnecessary costs and conflicts.