The Constitutional Court dismisses the appeal for the recusal of Magistrate Estragués

The Constitutional Court has dismissed the accumulated appeals for protection 2026-39-RE and 2026-40-RE, filed by Josep Antoni Silvestre Cánovas against the resolutions that confirmed the dismissal of the recusal of magistrate Anna Estragués Armengol. The judgment, issued on September 9, 2026, is published in the Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra (BOPA) no. 105, of September 16, 2026, in section 04. Constitutional Court / Judgments (pp. 1-11). The court imposes costs on the appellant and endorses the interpretation made by the ordinary courts.

The appeals, registered under numbers 228-2026 and 229-2026, were filed on May 15, 2026, against the orders of April 17, 2026 (07-2026 and 08-2026), issued by the Presidency of the High Court of Justice, and against the orders of March 13, 2026 (04-2026 and 05-2026), issued by the president of said court. All of these pertain to the recusal incident of magistrate Anna Estragués Armengol within criminal proceeding 6000096/2025, pursued for an alleged crime of money laundering.

The appellant, a lawyer affiliated with the Andorran Bar Association and acting in his own name and interest, alleged the violation of the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 6 of the Constitution) and the rights to jurisdiction, to a decision based on law, and to an impartial tribunal predetermined by law (Article 10). The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the dismissal. On June 15, 2026, the court joined the two cases and admitted them for processing without suspensive effects, with reporting magistrate Joan Manel Abril Campoy.

Chronology of events

• August 30, 2024: the Specialized Instruction Section 2 of the Court of First Instance dismisses several petitions for the lifting of bank seizures.
• January 7, 2026: the acting president of the Court of Appeals dismisses the recusal of magistrate Nàdia Alís Cirera.
• January 27, 2026: the composition of the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice is communicated, and it is stated that the reporting responsibility falls to Anna Estragués Armengol.
• February 23, 2026: the appellant initiates a procedure for abstention and, subsidiarily, for recusal.
• March 13, 2026: the president of the High Court of Justice dismisses the recusal (orders 04-2026 and 05-2026).
• April 17, 2026: the High Court of Justice dismisses the appeals and imposes costs on the promoter (orders 07-2026 and 08-2026).

Grounds for the appeal

The appellant argued that the mandatory report of the recused magistrate had not been notified to him, which would violate the principle of contradiction and the right to defense, and that he was only able to access the content of the documents on May 13, 2026. He also advocated for an extensive reading of the grounds for recusal by analogy with the regime of marriage and cohabitation, and challenged the award of costs, considering that it breaks the principle of equality. Subsidiarily, he requested a ruling on the constitutionality of articles 15.1 and 18 ter 2) of the Transitional Law of Judicial Procedures, and requested that his personal data not be published.

The court’s doctrine

The Constitutional Court recalls that the recusal procedure is special and that, once the three-day period for the other parties has elapsed, there is no procedure for replying to the report of the recused magistrate; therefore, there were no actions to be notified. It adds that the grievances regarding access to the file were not raised in the prior ordinary channels, as required by article 88.2 of the Qualified Law of the Constitutional Court.

On the merits, the court emphasizes that article 73 of the Qualified Law of Justice regulates the relationships between a magistrate and the parties, lawyers, or procurators, while article 70 refers to marriage or analogous cohabitation between magistrates of the same court. A relationship of friendship between two magistrates of two different collegiate instances does not affect the collegiality of the jurisdiction nor prove an interest that violates impartiality. It also recalls that the principle of equality in article 6 cannot by itself ground a petition for protection (recurs d’empara) and that the doctrine of small states (judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Steck Risch, Micallef v. Malta, and A. K. v. Liechtenstein) admits that an excessively strict interpretation of impartiality could hinder the administration of Justice.

Decision

• Dismiss case 2026-39 and 40-RE.
• Impose the procedural costs on the appellant, in accordance with article 92.4 of the Qualified Law of the Constitutional Court.
• Publish the judgment in the Official Gazette of the Principality of Andorra, according to article 5 of the same law.
• The resolution is signed by Pere Pastor Vilanova (president), Víctor Torre de Silva López de Letona (vice-president), Jean-Yves Caullet, and Joan Manel Abril Campoy (magistrates).

The decision establishes that the recusal of a magistrate due to their relationship with another magistrate in the same case is not equivalent to a relationship with a party, and limits the scope of Article 73 of the Qualified Law of Justice. For litigants, it confirms that the right to an impartial tribunal does not allow for the extension of the grounds for recusal beyond the legal text and that the principle of equality does not, in itself, open the way for protection.

Source: Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra, no. 105, September 16, 2026, section 04. Constitutional Court / Judgments, pp. 1-11 (official reference: case 2026-39 and 40-RE, registration numbers 228-2026 and 229-2026).