According to the ruling, the Fifth Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber has dismissed the appeal filed by the Association Platform in Favor of Teruel’s Landscapes and upheld the challenged decisions as “in accordance with the law,” although it did not award costs. The court had already rejected precautionary requests to suspend the project in July and December 2025.
The platform challenged the Council of Ministers’ decision of July 23, 2024, which authorized Energías Renovables Ormuz to build the 36.6-megawatt El Cid I wind farm in Cantavieja and Mirambel (Teruel), with its power evacuation infrastructure running through three municipalities in Castellón. It also challenged the environmental impact statement of December 1, 2022, covering the cluster’s 22 wind farms, which have a combined capacity of 882.85 megawatts.
In this way, the Supreme Court upholds the construction authorization, the authorization for modifications and the declaration of public utility for El Cid I, as well as the environmental assessment of the entire cluster. It considers that “in this case, we are dealing with a renewable energy project that involves a superior public interest.”
FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The environmental impact statement, the report assessing the project’s effects on the environment and establishing the conditions for its implementation, was prepared by the Directorate-General for Environmental Quality and Assessment of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. According to the document, the wind farms’ power is concentrated at a collector substation known as SET Iglesuela and transmitted at 400 kilovolts to Red Eléctrica’s substation in Morella.
To avoid increasing the impact on the L'Alt Maestrat Special Protection Area, the environmental impact statement required the new line and Renomar’s existing line to be integrated into a single infrastructure, and two pylons to be moved 200 meters away from a griffon vulture nest. The Supreme Court rejects the inadmissibility sought by the State Attorney’s Office and, after reviewing the document together with the Council of Ministers’ decision, upholds it.
The Chamber recalls that, according to a previous order dated January 20, 2025, environmental impact statements “are procedural acts that are not independently qualified for legal challenge.” It also maintains that the environmental authority “acted in full compliance with the principle of legality,” which led to the removal of two wind farms, Cabecero I and El Cid V, and 23 wind turbines from the remaining projects.
“COMPLETE” AND “COMPREHENSIVE” ASSESSMENT
The judges stress that the appellant has not provided “clear and unequivocal evidence” of significant environmental damage that cannot be mitigated or offset through the measures in the environmental impact statement. They also accept the State Attorney’s argument that the project contributes to renewable energy production, an objective of the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (Pniec), which aims for an energy system that is 81% renewable by 2030.
For the court, the joint assessment of the 22 wind farms “has been more complete and comprehensive than it would have been if each farm had been assessed individually.” Nor was new public information necessary, since “those modifications do not entail environmental effects significantly different from those originally anticipated.”
The ruling also rejects the claim that the Council of Ministers lacked jurisdiction, stating that its actions are “fully in accordance with the applicable regulations,” and upholds the developer’s technical and financial capacity and the declaration of public utility. Regarding Natura 2000, it concludes that the environmental authority “conducted a detailed analysis of the potential impacts arising from the project.”
