Key Spanish judgment on environment and human rights

Sustainability and corporate due diligence

In the current context of a waiting period resulting from the Omnibus I proposal and the revision of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence (“CS3D”), we extend the focus of this blog to matters relating to human rights, the environment and business conduct resulting from non-regulatory developments, such as climate and environmental litigation.

In this post, we analyze Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Galicia of July 11,2025 (“the Spanish Judgment”) which upheld the infringement of fundamental rights resulting from the inactivity of the public administration in the case of pollution caused by intensive livestock farming.

Access previous publications in this series here:

Post | The CS3D in perspective

Post | Who does the CS3D affect?

Post | Legal interests protected by the CS3D

Post | Risk-based approach

Post | The Shell case and its potential implications for corporate due diligence

Post | Obligations to end adverse impacts and to provide remediation beyond financial compensation

Post | Due diligence in the chain of activities: a contractual perspective

Post | Omnibus I and impact on CS3D

Omnibus I Proposal and corporate due diligence: an update

Introduction

This July is seeing many climate and environmental lawsuits based on human rights. In addition to the Spanish Judgment we will analyze today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued the awaited advisory opinion on the scope of the obligations of the states of the Organization of American States regarding human rights and the climate emergency. Regarding this same topic, the International Court of Justice is expected to issue its own advisory opinion during July.

 These procedures should capture businesses’ interest for two reasons:

• On the one hand, because they consolidate the doctrine of interdependence between the environment and climate change and human rights. And this has an impact on the definition of the objective scope of the corporate due diligence obligation regarding human rights (see Post | Legal interests protected by the CS3D).

• And, on the other hand, because, despite these procedures being directed against a state or concerning the states’ obligations, they have an impact on business activity.

The case

The Spanish Judgment upholds the claim by various neighbors, a resident association and a consumer federation, who together reported the inaction of different public administrations regarding pollution, particularly of water, resulting from intensive pig-and-poultry farming in the region and its impact on the neighbors’ fundamental rights.

The claim was filed against the regional administration, a public water authority and several town halls using the procedure for fundamental rights under article 114 Spanish Judicial Review Act. This is a special and preferential procedure when it is considered that an administrative act (or omission) breaches fundamental rights recognized by the Spanish Constitution.

Specifically, the parties complained that (i) the pollution caused by nitrates, nitrites, bacteria and cyanobacteria resulting from intensive livestock farming endangered the supply of drinking water and the environmental quality, affecting the residents’ rights to health, private life and property; and (ii) there was prolonged inactivity by the administrations, despite being aware that there was poor management of waste by companies in the region, and they did not adopt efficient measures, only implementing temporary solutions such as the supply of water in cisterns.

 Relevant aspects

The Spanish Judgment—against which it is possible to file a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court—considers proven that there was pollution of surface water and ground water mainly arising from the intensive livestock farming and poor waste management.

• It backs up its argument with scientific and technical reports that rule out that the main cause of pollution could be urban wastewater, and which highlight the direct relation between the increase in the farming activity and the environmental degradation.
• It reproaches the inaction of certain public administrations which, despite the repeated warnings and scientific evidence, did not adopt sufficient structural or preventive measures to avoid the rapidly increasing pig-and-poultry farming activity from generating a situation where waste was accumulating with no effective control procedures in place, leading to a chronic risk situation for health and the environment.
• Consequently, it declares the infringement of human rights and sentences the mentioned public administrations to immediately adopt all the measures necessary to stop this environmental degradation in the region “to return the complete enjoyment of the rights being claimed.”

We highlight the following points:

• Acknowledgment of interdependence between human rights and environment. The court declared the following rights to be breached: the right to life (article 15 Spanish Constitution (“SC”) and article 2 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), the right to respect for private and family life (articles 18 SC and 8 ECHR) and the right to protection of property (article 33 SC and Protocol 1 ECHR), linked to the right to water, the right to health protection (article 43 SC) and the right to a healthy and adequate environment (article 45 SC).
  
  It highlights that the protection of the environment is a necessary condition for the effective enjoyment of human rights, quoting the European Court of Human Rights (López Ostra v. Spain and Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland cases) and the Spanish Constitutional Court (Judgment no. 119/2001, of May 24,- ECLI:ES:TC:2001:119-), which acknowledge the infringement of human rights due to serious environmental damage, including when there is no immediate danger to health.
• State due diligence obligation or precautionary principle. The court points out the public administrations’ obligation, depending on their respective competences, to adopt reasonable and efficient measures to prevent and remedy environmental damage that affects human rights. This obligation includes a standard of conduct governed by the precautionary principle for risks to health and the environment resulting from economic activity; and this standard requires measures that go beyond formal compliance with sectoral regulations, specifically:   
• control of the increase in an activity that generates risks for the environment, and
• deployment of efficient measures for managing waste generated by such activities due to their impact on 
• Obligation to adopt measures to correct adverse effects and how these affect the business activity. The Spanish Judgment sentences certain public administrations to “immediately adopt” the necessary measures to guarantee the supply of drinking water that is “clean, safe and free of microorganisms and chemical substances.” These measures are to include specific moratoriums on any new licenses and permits for livestock farming.
• The Spanish Judgment applies the doctrine of “fair balance” between public interest and individual rights, concluding that the administrative inactivity in relation to the consequences of the intensive livestock farming activity in the region broke that balance in detriment to the human rights of those affected.

Concluding thoughts

In terms of the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Spanish Judgment reflects the content of pillar I of this international standard: the duty of the state (and of the different administrations comprising it) to protect human rights.

This duty is set as a rule of conduct that includes the protection of human rights against breaches by or resulting from business activity. It specifies the duties to adopt adequate prevention measures, measures for monitoring compliance with the law and remediation measures, through policies, regulation of the economic activity and access to justice.

The Spanish Judgment is also an example of how environmental and climate litigation against states has an impact on private economic activity. In this case, the impact is due to the measures that limit the increase in activities with serious environmental impacts due to their effects on human rights.

Read more about this in our next post.