LABOUR AND SOCIAL SECURITY DIVISION
Recently, the Spanish Supreme Court issued judgment STS 441/2026, of 14 April, addressing the limits of Labour Inspection powers in business premises. The ruling is particularly significant because it strengthens the protection of the right to the inviolability of the home under Article 18.2 of the Spanish Constitution, extending it to legal persons in the context of inspection actions.
The dispute arose from a Labour Inspectorate intervention carried out in 2024 at an industrial warehouse. The premises had a relevant characteristic: it functioned simultaneously as a workplace and as the company’s registered office. The Labour Inspectorate, accompanied by the National Police, entered the premises without judicial authorisation and without the consent of the owner. No search or seizure of documents was carried out during the intervention.
The central issue was whether the inspection entry into company premises that also constituted its registered office infringed the right to the inviolability of the domicile of a legal person, and whether in such cases either the owner’s consent or prior judicial authorisation is required to legitimise entry.
The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and ruled in favour of the company, overturning the prior decision of the regional High Court of Justice. It declared the Labour Inspectorate’s action unlawful, as it involved entry without consent or judicial authorisation into a constitutionally protected space, namely the domicile.
First, the Supreme Court bases its decision on a broad interpretation of Article 18.2 of the Constitution, concerning the inviolability of the home. Contrary to the regional court’s view, it held that constitutional protection is not limited to situations where a search is conducted or documents are seized. The key element is that the Constitution refers to “entry or search”, meaning that the guarantee is triggered the moment entry into the domicile occurs, regardless of what is done inside.
Second, the Court addresses the silence of Article 13.1 of Law 23/2015 on inspection powers in the domicile of legal persons. It considers that this omission does not remove the requirement of judicial authorisation, as such requirement derives directly from the Constitution. Consequently, it must apply even if the law does not expressly provide for it, as it does for natural persons.
In addition, the Court rejects the Administration’s argument that, since legal persons do not have personal privacy, protection should be limited to access to documents. On the contrary, it affirms that legal persons are also holders of this fundamental right, although with a scope adapted to their nature.
Therefore, as a general rule, prior judicial authorisation is required for Labour Inspectorate entry into business premises that simultaneously constitute the registered office and workplace of a legal person, where the owner has not consented, even if no search is conducted and no documents are seized.
The judgment only contemplates a possible exception, to be assessed case by case, where there is a “clear physical separation” between the office area of the registered office and the area corresponding to the workplace, and where the authority or its agents expressly state that their action is limited exclusively to access to the latter space for the exercise of their legally assigned functions.
In light of this judgment, the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate argues that the requirement of prior judicial authorisation could undermine one of its main enforcement powers. It also emphasises that inspectors are subject to strict duties of confidentiality and professional secrecy, which would already ensure the protection of business information without excessively restricting inspection activity.
In any case, this ruling is particularly relevant for small and medium-sized enterprises, where it is common for the registered office and workplace to coincide in the same physical space. In such cases, it is more difficult in practice to identify the clear physical separation referred to by the Supreme Court, meaning that the requirement of prior judicial authorisation may have a greater impact on inspection activity in these companies.
In conclusion, the judgment strengthens the protection of the right to the inviolability of the domicile in the business context, while also opening a debate on the balance between constitutional guarantees and the effectiveness of labour inspection powers in practice.
