order

Greenpeace v. Spain I - order

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Greenpeace v. Spain I - Other

decision

Greenpeace v. Spain I - decision

appeal

Greenpeace v. Spain I - appeal

complaint

Greenpeace v. Spain I - complaint

reply

Greenpeace v. Spain I - reply

judgment

Greenpeace v. Spain I - judgment

Filing Year For Action

On September 15, 2020, Greenpeace Spain, Oxfam Intermón, and Ecologistas en Acción filed a motion notifying the Supreme Court of their intention to sue the Spanish Government, alleging failure to take adequate action on climate change. The plaintiffs assert that Spain is in violation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. According to plaintiffs, by December 2019, Spain should have approved a National Energy and Climate Plan with climate goals for 2030 and a Long Term Strategy with goals for 2050; and the draft plan is not consistent with the Paris Agreement and IPCC recommendations to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The complaint seeks an order compelling greater climate action. 

On September 30, 2020, the Supreme Court admitted the statement of claim and required the Ministry of the Presidency to present its administrative file within 20 days. After the government presented its file, plaintiffs filed an application for the Court to order an expanded file on the argument that the file the government presented was incomplete. The Court rejected this application, and Plaintiffs appealed. 

In the meantime, on November 3, 2020, Spain's Council of Ministers approved a Long Term Decarbonization Strategy for 2050. Then, on November 26, 2020, the State Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with regard to the Long Term Strategy, and plaintiffs filed a motion on December 15, 2020 agreeing with the dismissal of that claim but retaining their suit challenging the lack of a 2030 plan. 

On December 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the Supreme Court, alleging that Spain unlawfully failed to produce a National Energy and Climate Plan with 2030 climate targets, in violation of national law, EU regulations, and their obligations under the Paris Agreement. 

The government filed their response on March 2, 2021. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting all of the plaintiffs' witnesses as irrelevant to the trial, and the plaintiffs appealed this decision.

Also in March 2021, the government approved the National Energy and Climate Plan. The defendants then filed a brief requesting dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed their response on May 26, 2021. In the meantime, the plaintiffs filed additional case challenging the National Energy and Climate Plan. 

On June 14, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the approval of the National Energy and Climate Plan did not exhaust plaintiffs' claims because their claims were broader than simply seeking the passage of the Plan. Instead, they sought an order that the Plan must be more ambitious to be aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. On June 30, 2021, the government appealed. On July 9, 2021, the plaintiffs responded to the appeal. 

On September 14, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected the State's appeal to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court found that the inactivity of the Spanish government can still be observed, since the government has not fully complied with the content of the Paris Agreement.

On March 7, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a ruling (not publicly available) which stated that the case was ready for deliberation. Greenpeace appealed the ruling based on formal considerations. The appeal particularly focused on a request that Greenpeace vs. Spain II be jointly considered and judged, given the close connection between the matters under both of them. On March 31, 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Greenpeace's arguments and confirmed the earlier ruling. The case is pending final decision.

On 20 June 2023, the Supreme Court issued its final decision on Greenpeace v. Spain, known as the trial for climate (“el juicio por el clima”). The decision was notified to the parties on 27 July and, although still pending publication, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Government of Spain and against the environmental and human rights organizations such as Greenpeace and Oxfam who sued the Government of Spain alleging failure to take adequate action on climate change. Particularly, the plaintiffs alleged that the National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030  (PNIEC) approved by the Government of Spain was not ambitious enough to meet the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.  Spain’s Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 is the main Spanish instrument that defines the goals for GHG emissions reduction, sets out the objectives for renewable energy and those of energy efficiency for the period 2021-2030.

The plaintiffs requested the Supreme Court that the PNIEC was declared partially null, as the objectives laid out not to exceed 1.5º C were not ambitious enough, as the GHG emissions reduction should at least be 55% in 2030, compared to 1990, and the organizations found that the 23% reduction set out in the PNIEC was not adequate. Alternatively, the plaintiffs requested the Supreme Court that the PNIEC was wholly declared null. 

Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court decision argues that the Government of Spain has acted in accordance with the Paris Agreement and cannot be held accountable for non-compliance, as it has joined the Paris Agreement through the European Union, and has passed national legislation in accordance with the commitments adopted at EU level. 

The Supreme Court points out that although the Paris Agreement and the subsequent EU commitments and regulations adopted constitute the minimum limit for Member States to adopt their own regulations, it cannot be concluded that the Spanish Government has failed to adopt regulation, when the regulation passed is aligned with the EU commitments to which the Spanish State is adhered such as the Paris Agreement. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court argues that the objectives laid down in the PNIEC cannot be deemed as arbitrarily, but on the contrary, as they are aligned with the EU regulations and follow EU's criteria for PNIECs. The Court goes beyond to state that, in declaring the PNIEC null, and even noting that the Paris Agreement and EU regulations allow Member States to set out more ambitious objectives, if the Court declared the PNIEC null it could be in violation of the scope of their jurisdiction, as the PNIEC was adopted and negotiated harmoniously within the EU.

All documents below are in Spanish. 

Greenpeace v. Spain I

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

A commitment to balance GHG emissions with removal by a certain point in time, effectively reducing the net emissions to zero

Jobs that contribute to preserving or restoring the environment. We include jobs which require a high amount of green skills or which spend much of their time on green activities, as well as jobs transforming polluting industries.

Greenpeace v. Spain I - order

Target

Risk

Impacted group

Just transition

Greenhouse gas