Prosecutor’s Office Of District 15 Tostado v. Algoservicios S.A. — Collective Amparo Action

In early 2025, it was reported that the company Algoservicios S.A. had cleared part of a native forest located in the town of Logroño, in the 9 de Julio department of the province of Santa Fe, to install a cotton ginning plant. Extraction activities in this forest are expressly prohibited by Law No. 26,331, the minimum standards law for the protection of native forests.

On July 1, 2025, the Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 15 of the Judiciary of Santa Fe filed an environmental protection lawsuit requesting the cessation of the deforestation and the restoration of the destroyed portion of the forest. In the lawsuit, the Prosecutor presented significant climate-related arguments. In particular, it contended that the company’s conduct was inconsistent with the legal commitments undertaken by Argentina to address climate change. To that end, the Prosecutor emphasized the role of forest conservation as a climate change mitigation measure and argued that such obligations are binding not only by state actors but also by non-state actors.

On September 30, 2025, Acting Judge Dr. Jorge da Silva granted the injunction and ordered the definitive cessation of the land-clearing activities, declared Algoservicios S.A. responsible for the environmental damage caused, and ordered the company to fully remediate the damage. In reaching this decision, the court considered that the requirement of “manifest illegality” for the admissibility of the environmental injunction was met by the violation of national and provincial regulations mandating adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. The court expressly referred to the Paris Agreement (ratified by Law No. 27,270), which is binding upon Argentina, as well as to Law No. 27,520 (National Minimum Standards Law on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation). It also invoked Article 33 of the Constitution of the Province of Santa Fe, which establishes the duty of every person to cooperate in climate action. According to the court, the clearing of a specially protected native forest constituted a serious infringement of climate mitigation obligations, and it endorsed the Prosecutor’s position that such obligations extend beyond public authorities to the private sector.

The judgment has become final, no appeal having been lodged by the defendants, and is currently under implementation.