The Ministry of Labor has taken to the Constitutional Court the battle over how far inspectors can go when they access a company without prior notice. The department led by Yolanda Díaz has presented, through the State Attorney's Office, a protective appeal against the ruling of the Supreme Court that established last April that the Inspection needs prior judicial authorization when it intends to enter without consent into a space that is at the same time a workplace and constitutionally protected domicile of a legal entity.
The movement comes after the Supreme itself rejected the attempt by Labor to annul its resolution. The Constitutional Court must now decide, first of all, whether to admit the appeal for processing, something that has not yet occurred. If it ultimately addresses the substance, the case could end up setting the constitutional limits of one of the most important powers of the Inspection: the ability to show up unexpectedly at a company to check if labor legislation is being complied with.
The Supreme Court requires judicial permission even if no documents are registered
The controversy arises from a ruling issued on April 14, 2026, by the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court. The high court concluded that mere entry into the domicile of a legal entity requires judicial authorization when the holder has not given their consent, even if the inspectors do not register offices, do not examine files, nor seize documentation.
The decision is based on Article 18.2 of the Constitution, which establishes that the domicile is inviolable and that no entry or search can be carried out without the consent of the holder or a judicial resolution, except in cases of flagrant crime. The Supreme Court reminds that this protection does not only correspond to natural persons: it also extends to commercial companies, although in a more limited way.
In the case of a company, not all the property necessarily has that protection. Jurisprudence considers spaces such as the offices where the company is managed, decisions are made, or reserved documentation is kept, business files, and certain computer media to be especially protected.
The case began in a company in Valencia
The origin of the conflict dates back to October 2024 in Foios, Valencia. Labor inspectors, accompanied by agents of the National Police, accessed the premises of a company dedicated to the fruit and vegetable sector without judicial authorization and without the consent of the owner. Both the workplace and the registered office of the company were located in the same building.
The company went to court considering its right to the inviolability of the home was violated. The High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community initially rejected that thesis, understanding, among other issues, that the inspectors had not registered or intervened documentation.
The Supreme Court later changed its criterion. According to its ruling, constitutional protection begins before entering, and does not depend on what the inspector does afterwards inside the facilities. The Constitution expressly speaks of “entry or search,” so, for the court, the absence of a documentary record does not make a prior unauthorized access legitimate.
The law allows inspectors to enter without prior notice
The problem arises when comparing that interpretation with the Regulating Law of the Labor and Social Security Inspection System. Its article 13 establishes that inspectors can “freely enter at any time and without prior notice” in workplaces, establishments, and places subject to inspection.
The norm itself includes an express exception: if the workplace coincides with the home of a natural person, it is necessary to have their consent or obtain judicial authorization. However, the text does not expressly mention what happens when the home belongs to a company.
The Supreme Court interprets that this legislative silence does not mean that companies are unprotected. In its view, the obligation to request authorization derives directly from the Constitution and also applies to legal entities. The high court even pointed out that the wording of the law presents a “certain insufficiency” precisely because it mentions natural persons and remains silent about legal entities.
Not all factories, businesses, or offices are shielded
The ruling also does not mean that any company can automatically close the door to an inspector claiming that their registered office is located there. The Supreme Court admits that there are work areas that can remain accessible without judicial authorization when they are clearly separated from the protected area.
For this, two conditions must be met. There must be an appreciable physical separation between the productive or work area and the offices or premises that actually constitute the protected domicile, and the Inspection must make it clear before entering that its action will be limited to the purely labor area.
For example, in a warehouse with a workshop perfectly separated from the offices where the company's documentation is kept, inspectors could limit their visit to the productive space. The problem arises especially in small companies, offices, or other businesses where both areas are physically confused, a frequent situation in the Spanish business fabric.
Labor changed its instructions but wants to reverse the ruling
After learning of the ruling, the Ministry distributed internal instructions to adapt visits to the new criterion. The Inspection began to differentiate more precisely between protected spaces —those where management tasks are carried out or reserved information is kept— and strictly productive or labor areas.
However, Labor believes that the ruling diminishes the effectiveness of inspections, especially in actions whose usefulness depends on being conducted without prior notice. The department first attempted for the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision through an exceptional incident of nullity, alleging problems of motivation and the possible contradiction with international agreements ratified by Spain. The court rejected that request on June 9 and only left the constitutional route open.
The ILO's argument: entering without notice is an essential power
One of the pillars of Labor's position lies in the Convention number 81 of the International Labor Organization, ratified by Spain. Its article 12 establishes that duly accredited inspectors must be empowered to enter freely and without prior notification, at any time of the day or night, into establishments subject to inspection.
The reason is operational. If a company knows in advance that it will receive a visit, certain non-compliances may disappear before the official arrives: unregistered workers may leave the center, documentation may be modified, or an irregular situation regarding working hours, prevention, or hiring may cease to be observable.
The legal discussion now consists of determining how to reconcile that inspection capacity with the constitutional right to the inviolability of the business domicile. That the ILO convention recognizes broad access powers does not imply by itself that a constitutional guarantee can be rendered ineffective, precisely the balance that the Constitutional Court will have to assess if it admits the appeal.
Inspectors denounce more bureaucracy
Within the Inspection itself, there is also no completely uniform assessment of the practical scope of the ruling. The Progressive Union of Labor Inspectors maintains that some companies are already using the ruling to challenge inspection visits and that officials must prepare more documentation to justify where they can enter and which areas they intend to examine.
From the Labor and Social Security Inspectors Union, a more moderate view is offered. Its representatives acknowledge that there was initially concern, but they believe that, after subsequent instructions, the limitation mainly affects specific situations where the workplace and protected domicile actually overlap, more common in small offices than in large factories or stores with clearly differentiated spaces.
The risk pointed out by some jurists is that, in case of doubt, inspectors may choose to request judicial authorization preventively. This may add time to actions in which speed and the element of surprise are part of the very effectiveness of the inspection.
What the Constitutional Court can decide now
The first step will be to know if the Constitutional Court admits the amparo appeal presented by the State Attorney's Office. The Ministry of Labor has not yet made the complete content of the document public nor does it have an official estimate of how many inspection actions are being affected by the Supreme Court's doctrine.
If the resource is admitted, the debate will go beyond a specific company in Valencia. The Constitutional Court will have to assess how far article 18.2 reaches when the domicile of a company coincides with the place where its employees work and what the balance should be between the protection of the company and public powers to monitor compliance with labor legislation.
While that answer arrives, the ruling of the Supreme Court remains in force. Inspectors can enter without notice into the centers under their control, but when they intend to access a space that has the condition of constitutionally protected domicile of a company they must previously have judicial authorization, unless there is a clear separation that allows limiting the action to a strictly labor area.