The Galician High Court’s ruling in the As Conchas case
On 11 July 2025 the Tribunal Superior de Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) handed down a landmark judgment condemning the Xunta de Galicia (the regional government) and the Confederación Hidrográfica Miño-Sil (the State water-management authority) for the severe contamination of the As Conchas reservoir, in Galicia.
The pollution, caused by the uncontrolled discharge of livestock slurry from hundreds of intensive farms (more than 300 pig and poultry “macrogranjas”) in the comarca of A Limia, has turned the reservoir’s water into a toxic “sewer”: a proliferation of cyanobacteria (97 million per litre of water), blue-green algae and nitrates far in excess of legal limits (up to 1,000 times above the threshold according to the expert reports). For more than a decade residents have endured the lack of drinking water, foul emissions and serious health risks (a higher incidence of nitrate-related diseases, including cancers, has been demonstrated), to the point that life in the village has become almost unliveable. Despite repeated complaints and scientific evidence, the authorities had until now remained inactive, indeed allowing the further expansion of intensive farms in the area without adequate controls. Against this background, a group of citizens (seven residents of As Conchas, supported by the local neighbourhood association, the consumer federation CECU and the environmental NGOs ClientEarth and Amigas de la Tierra) sued the competent administrations — and have now obtained justice.
The TSXG held that the authorities’ inaction violated the residents’ fundamental rights protected at constitutional level. In particular, the judgment declares a violation of the right to life (Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution) – understood as also encompassing the right to physical and moral integrity – in connection with the right to private and family life and the inviolability of the home, as well as a violation of the residents’ right to property, since all of these rights are impaired by the impossibility of enjoying clean water and a healthy environment. The Court linked these fundamental rights to the right (recognised by Article 45 of the Spanish Constitution) of every person to “enjoy a healthy environment adequate to their needs”. This is an innovative and pioneering approach: severe environmental degradation is no longer viewed merely as a breach of ecological rules, but as a direct assault on citizens’ basic human rights. The Galician judges stress that the possibility of living in an unpolluted environment is an essential precondition for the effective protection of people’s lives, health, private sphere and property. The ruling has already been hailed as a “historic judgment” and a precedent at European level, because it addresses the mismanagement of industrial farming from the standpoint of fundamental human rights and not merely of administrative breaches.
Consequences: the human right to water and compensation
In its operative part, the TSXG ordered the administrations to act immediately to put an end to the pollution and restore acceptable environmental conditions in the As Conchas reservoir and its surroundings. In particular, the Xunta and the Confederación must adopt “all measures necessary to bring the foul odours and the environmental degradation to an end” and guarantee the local population a supply of clean and safe drinking water, free of dangerous contaminants. The stated objective is to restore to residents the full enjoyment of their violated fundamental rights, including their human right to drinking water. It is highly significant that the judgment speaks explicitly of a “human right to water”: a phrase that echoes the international recognition of access to clean water as a fundamental human right. The authorities will therefore have to carry out remediation works and purification systems, monitor water quality and secure alternative water supplies where necessary, in order to protect public health.
Beyond ordering urgent environmental measures, the Court awarded the residents concerned compensation for moral damage. Seven residents will receive 1,000 euros per month (up to a maximum of €30,000 each, and €6,000 for one resident living outside the area) from the start of the proceedings, until the serious environmental situation is resolved. The court justified the award by recognising the “undeniable moral harm” suffered by the community: for over 14 years (since 2011) the applicants have lived in a state of anguish and anxiety, watching the grave health risks persist over time (contaminated water, unbearable odours, fear of disease) and feeling powerless in the face of institutional inaction. In other words, the prolonged violation of the right to a healthy environment caused concrete psychological and physical suffering among the population: harm that the law of damages is called upon to compensate, at least in part.
Environment and human rights: from the Aarhus Convention to the ECtHR
This judgment confirms a key principle: the protection of the environment and the protection of fundamental human rights are closely interdependent. It is no coincidence that, at international and pan-European level, it has long been affirmed that a healthy and liveable environment is a precondition for the effective enjoyment of rights such as life, health, private life and property. The 1998 Aarhus Convention – ratified by the European Union and by Italy, among others – expresses this link clearly: Article 1 proclaims that “every person of present and future generations has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being”, obliging States to protect and improve the environment. Beyond recognising this substantive right, the Aarhus Convention introduced three “pillars” of procedural rights in environmental matters: the right of access to environmental information, the right of public participation in decision-making processes affecting the environment, and the right of access to justice in environmental matters. These instruments strengthen environmental democracy, enabling citizens to be informed, to contribute to decisions (for example in environmental impact assessments) and to take legal action against ecological violations. The As Conchas case is a concrete example: citizens, supported by associations, exercised their right of access to environmental justice, filling the void left by inert authorities.
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has likewise long recognised the correlation between environmental degradation and the violation of human rights. Although the European Convention on Human Rights contains no explicit right to a healthy environment, the Strasbourg Court has interpreted the existing protections in an evolutive manner: it has held that severe pollution may interfere with the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR), and in extreme cases even with the right to life (Article 2). As early as the celebrated case of López Ostra v. Spain (1994), concerning the toxic fumes of a waste-treatment plant, the Court established that harmful emissions and pestilential odours that make a home unliveable infringe the right to private and family life guaranteed by Article 8. In that pioneering judgment, Strasbourg observed that “severe environmental pollution may affect individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely”. Since then, numerous cases have consolidated this approach: for example Guerra and Others v. Italy (1998), concerning a population exposed to the emissions of a chemical factory, in which a violation of Article 8 ECHR was found for the State’s failure to provide environmental protection and information. More recently, in cases such as the Ilva steelworks in Taranto (Cordella and Others v. Italy, 2019) or industrial pollution in Ukraine (Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, 2011), the ECtHR has continued to find violations of the right to private life and to the home where air or water pollution concretely threatens citizens’ health and quality of life.
A crucial point emerging from European case law is that States are under positive obligations of protection: it is not enough for the authorities to refrain from polluting; they must actively adopt reasonable measures to protect citizens from environmental harm, even where it stems from the activities of private parties. In other words, the failure to prevent, or to act against, known pollution can render the State liable for human rights violations. The TSXG’s judgment falls squarely within this line of authority: it found the administrations culpably inert in monitoring and curbing pollution from industrial farms, recognising that this omission infringed citizens’ fundamental rights. This convergence between the Spanish court and the ECtHR demonstrates a principle of general reach: the protection of the environment is not a luxury or an abstract interest, but a constitutive element of people’s well-being and rights. For its part, the Council of Europe – the organisation under whose auspices the ECHR was adopted – has repeatedly called for stronger legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment, regarding it as an emerging fundamental right of every individual and of societies as a whole.
The Italian framework: the right to water and environmental protection
In Italy too, the importance of water and the environment is enshrined in law, albeit in different forms. In its original wording, the Italian Constitution mentioned neither a right to water nor a right to the environment; nevertheless, general principles such as the right to health (Article 32 of the Constitution), the right to life and to human dignity (Article 2) and the Republic’s duty to safeguard the landscape (Article 9) provided a basis for protecting these goods indirectly. Recent years have brought a turning point: with Constitutional Law No. 1 of 11 February 2022, Italy amended Articles 9 and 41 of the Constitution to insert explicitly the protection of the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, also in the interest of future generations among its fundamental principles. Article 9 of the Constitution now provides that the Republic “protects the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, also in the interest of future generations”, thereby enshrining environmental protection as a primary value at constitutional level. This constitutional update – in line with international trends – recognises the environment as an essential public good and also constrains private economic initiative (Article 41 now prohibits economic activities that conflict with health and the environment).
As for the right to water, the Italian Constitution does not articulate it explicitly as an autonomous individual right. Nevertheless, the Italian legal system recognises it in practice as a fundamental human right and as a public common good. Article 144 of the Environmental Code (Legislative Decree 152/2006, which absorbed the earlier “Galli Law” No. 36/1994) already lays down a cardinal principle: all surface water and groundwater is public and cannot be commodified, and must be protected and used according to criteria of solidarity, safeguarding the needs of future generations. This means that water can neither be the exclusive property of private parties nor be managed purely according to a logic of profit, being a vital resource that belongs to the community. In 2011 this concept was also reaffirmed by referendum: by a large majority, Italians voted to keep the management of the integrated water service public, rejecting proposals for far-reaching privatisation. At legislative level, proposals have been put forward to strengthen the guarantee of the right to drinking water: for instance, bills defining “water as a natural good and a universal human right” and aiming to ensure that all citizens receive a minimum vital quantity of water at affordable cost. Italy has also supported United Nations initiatives on the issue: in July 2010 the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark Resolution (64/292) recognising access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right essential to life and to all human rights.
On the environmental protection front, Italy has a detailed regulatory framework: the aforementioned Environmental Code (Legislative Decree 152/2006) gathers together the rules on water, waste, air, soil protection and the remediation of contaminated sites, implementing the relevant European directives. There are also special statutes protecting particular resources (e.g. watercourses, parks, marine areas), alongside adherence to international conventions such as the Aarhus Convention itself and the Paris Climate Agreement. On the criminal side, the legislature has introduced environmental crimes (Law 68/2015), punishing serious eco-offences such as environmental pollution and environmental disaster. Overall, the principle is becoming established in the Italian legal order that the environment and common goods (such as water) constitute a primary public interest, always to be balanced against any economic interests. The recent entrenchment of environmental protection in the Constitution and the international recognition of the right to water strengthen citizens’ ability to demand effective action from institutions to protect the environment and public health, including by taking legal action in the event of default.
In conclusion, the As Conchas case in Galicia – although it unfolded in Spain – sends a powerful message that holds true for Italy as well: harming the environment means violating human rights. The right to live in a healthy environment, to breathe clean air and to drink safe water is not an abstraction for jurists, but a fundamental component of the quality of life of each of us. Institutions have a duty to prevent and punish environmental contamination, because protecting the environment means protecting people and communities in their most basic rights. Judgments such as the TSXG’s galvanise the awareness that the legal tools exist – at national and international level – to defend these rights: from the Aarhus Convention, which gives citizens a voice in ecological matters, to the ECHR and national constitutions, which increasingly embed the value of the environment. The task now is to give these principles full effect, so that environmental tragedies such as that of As Conchas are not repeated and so that every citizen, in Galicia as in Italy, can truly enjoy the human right to clean water and to a healthy, protected environment.
