The Constitutional Court upholds Morales Bussuy's appeal and annuls the Court's order

The Constitutional Court has upheld the appeal for protection (recurs d’empara) filed by John Jairo Morales Bussuy against the order of the Court of Appeal dated August 12, 2026, which had blocked his appeal. The judgment, issued on October 12, 2026, in case 2026-68-RE (registry 420-2026), declares the right of access to jurisdiction violated, annuls the contested resolution, and orders the proceedings to be rolled back. The text is published in the Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra no. 119, dated October 21, 2026, in the Constitutional Court section.

The case stems from proceedings following an alleged major crime of attempted homicide. On July 31, 2026, the Instruction Section 4 of the Court of First Instance issued an order expanding the indictment order, in which it granted the request of the victim and civil plaintiff and added a condition to the defendant’s conditional release: to refrain from approaching or contacting, by any direct or indirect means, the victim, with the obligation to immediately leave the location if they happened to be there by chance.

Procedural background

The defense of Morales Bussuy appealed that decision and requested its nullity based on Article 18 bis 4, paragraphs c) and e), of the Transitional Law of Judicial Procedures. There were two reasons:

• The lack of notification of the writing in which a third party requested the restraining order.
• The fact that non-compliance with the prohibition entailed automatic imprisonment without previously hearing the defense.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on August 12, 2026, understanding that what was being raised was an incident of nullity that should have been addressed to the instructing judge and was not subject to appeal according to Article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The following day, August 13, the defendant’s representation filed the appeal for protection for violation of the rights to defense and to obtain a decision based on Law, recognized in Article 10 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court admitted it for processing on September 9, 2026, without suspensive effects, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted allegations on September 18.

The prosecutor does not oppose it and the court establishes doctrine

The Public Prosecutor’s Office did not oppose the appeal for protection (empara). It recalled that the appropriate way to challenge the order of July 31 was through Article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for an appeal within five days before the Court of Courts against resolutions that grant or deny prison, provisional release, or any preventive measure of a personal nature. It also emphasized that Article 18 ter of the Transitory Law of Judicial Procedures exhaustively regulates the only cases for the nullity of a non-final resolution: at the request of a party, only through the legally established appeals.

The judgment, for which Pere Pastor Vilanova is the rapporteur, concludes that the prohibition of contacting a third party was a preventive measure of a personal nature clearly included in Article 194 and that the circumstance of the appellant requesting nullity instead of revocation could not alter the unequivocal nature of the appeal nor justify its inadmissibility. The court invokes the finalist pro actione interpretation and recalls that Article 9.1 of the Qualified Law of Justice only allows the rejection of claims for formal reasons when the defect is not remediable.

The text warns, “with some concern,” that the same issue had already been examined in the judgment of April 27, 2026 (case 2025-105-RE) and that the doctrine was corroborated in that of September 9, 2026 (case 2026-43-RE). It also relies on precedents such as the judgment of July 13, 2012 (case 2012-7-RE), that of January 20, 2025 (case 2024-59-RE), the order of April 8, 2019 (case 2019-19-RE) and the order of November 14, 2022 (case 2022-52-RE).

The decision

The operative part of the judgment agrees:

• To grant the appeal for protection of Morales Bussuy against the order of the Court of Courts of August 12, 2026.
• To declare the violation of the right of access to jurisdiction, recognized in Article 10 of the Constitution.
• To annul that order and return the proceedings to the moment prior to its pronouncement, so that the Court of Courts may rule on the appeal.
• To declare that no award of costs is appropriate.
• To publish the judgment in the Official Gazette of the Principality of Andorra.

The text is signed by Pere Pastor Vilanova, president; Víctor Torre de Silva López de Letona, vice-president; and magistrates Jean-Yves Caullet and Joan Manel Abril Campoy. Notification must be made to the procedural representation of the appellant, to the Instruction Section 4 of the Court, to the Court of Courts, and to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The resolution has an impact beyond the specific case: it consolidates that an error in the formal classification of the appeal cannot leave the citizen without a judicial examination of their claim when a criminal precautionary measure is at stake. For legal practitioners, it establishes the criterion that the Court of Courts must apply from now on in appeals against personal preventive measures, and opens the door to reviewing previous inadmissions issued with the same reasoning.

Fuente: Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra (BOPA), no. 119, October 21, 2026, Constitutional Court / Judgments, pp. 1-5 (official reference: Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 12-10-2026, case 2026-68-RE).