Supreme Court Upholds €100,000 Fine for Unauthorized Tree Felling in Spain

€100,000 fine for cutting down a tree on your own land

On June 5, 2010, a local police officer visited a property in El Guanol where work was underway to expand a porch. Everything seemed in order until the officer noticed an excavator had uprooted a large ash tree next to the house. There was no permit for this. The penalty: €100,000. The Supreme Court has just confirmed it, after dismissing a review appeal filed by the owner. The story is not new, but the judgment reopens an uncomfortable question: how much is a tree worth that is inside your own fence?

Supreme Court rejects post-judgment reports

The owner based his defense on three documents: a forestry report from an agronomist engineer dated June 2014, another from Seprona dated September 2016, and a third from a civil guard officer dated June 2014. All pointed to trees that were sick, dry, with fallen branches and risk of collapse. The Supreme Court dismissed them. They were not prior to the final judgment of April 2014 and referred to a different state of affairs than the one that motivated the sanction. The felling took place in June 2010. The reports referred to three different trees four years later.

The Chamber of Administrative Litigation, with Magistrate Jesús Cudero as rapporteur, was blunt: the documents served no purpose for review. The Administrative Litigation Court No. 24 of Madrid and the High Court of Justice of Madrid had already confirmed the fine. The Supreme Court merely closed the door.

What the law says that turns felling into a very serious offense

The Law 8/2005 on the Protection and Promotion of Urban Tree Cover of the Community of Madrid classifies unauthorized felling as a very serious offense. The range is between €100,000 and €500,000. Pruning without permission is a serious offense, with a fine of €10,000 to €100,000. The owner received the minimum fine. The authorization is processed at the town hall, with prior payment of fees around €200, including a technical report, photos, and a visit by a municipal technician. The procedure exists. The price of not doing it, too.

The logic of the rule is that urban tree cover is not only owned by the landowner. It is a public good even if it is within private property. That is the theory. In practice, the owner faces a fine that multiplies the cost of the license by 500.

The Borrell case and the proportionality of sanctions

The comparison emerged early in the debate: the CNMV fined Josep Borrell €30,000 for using insider information in the sale of Abengoa shares. Cutting down an ash tree: €100,000. The disproportion became the central argument of indignation. It is not that the fine for the tree is high in the abstract, but that other infringements involving direct economic damage to third parties are cheaper.

Some argue that the problem is not the amount, but the owner's defenselessness: if the sick tree falls on the house, the responsibility is his. If he cuts it down without permission, the fine is his. The town hall does not prune, does not water, and does not assume the cost of maintaining a tree that legally you cannot touch.

The sick tree trap: drill and diesel

In the debate, a practice emerged that, according to several accounts, is used to bypass the rule: drilling the trunk and injecting diesel so that the tree dies. Once dry, felling is ecological and permissible. The illegal shortcut is cheaper than the legal procedure. It is the unintended consequence of a rule that punishes those who ask for permission and rewards those who disguise it.

The legal alternative exists: apply for a felling or transplant license, submit a technical report, plans, photos, and wait. The procedure is free compared to the fine, but it requires time and, above all, requires that the tree is in conditions to be felled. If it is not, there is no permit. And if the tree falls, the problem is the owner's.

El Guanol: where urban planning has known owners

El Guanol is not just any municipality. Families with names that sound like power have passed through there: March, Fierro, Giralt, the emeritus Bourbon, the Francos. Owning a property there has been for decades a way of saying something. Local urban planning, according to firsthand accounts, has functioned with its own rules. The anecdote that circulates: municipal technicians warned an owner that the arizonas on the perimeter were not to be touched. Not even to prune them. The client paid the license, pruned dead and torn branches, and did not touch the rest.

The question is whether the rule applies equally to everyone. Some argue that the construction company that cuts down centuries-old holm oaks to urbanize does not receive €100,000 fines. The individual who uproots a sick ash tree does. The feeling of grievance does not come from the law, but from its application.

The startling figure

The owner paid €100,000 for a tree. The license cost €200. The tree was dry, according to his defense. The Supreme Court says the reports arrived late. The law says the fine is the minimum. And meanwhile, the question remains unanswered: if the tree is yours, it is on your plot, and it harms no one, why does the state decide whether you can cut it down?