Andorra Court Annuls Ruling in Casa Xirro Land Dispute

Andorra's Constitutional Court has annulled a March 2026 ruling by the Superior Court of Justice's Administrative Chamber in the urban planning dispute between Casa Xirro and Escaldes-Engordany parish council over land at Terres del Solà de l’Estany near Engolasters Lake.

The high court upheld a constitutional appeal filed by Sandra Tomàs Marot and Raül Tomàs Esteve, owners of the family-held Casa Xirro, finding that the Superior Court breached their right to a properly reasoned decision under article 10 of the Constitution. It has ordered the chamber to issue a fresh ruling on whether the plot qualifies as consolidated urban land within action unit UA-SUC-39 of the parish's Partial Urban Planning Plan (POUP), as the owners argue, or fails to meet requirements under the Land, Urban Planning and Transformations Law (LGOTU), as the parish contends.

The case stems from an old urbanisation project for single-family homes on the site, approved before the LGOTU and modern urban plans but never completed, leaving the area undeveloped. Escaldes-Engordany sought nullity for related decisions, some over 30 years old, leading the Batllia and Superior Court to annul the plot's urban classification and deny building permits.

Casa Xirro argued the Superior Court ignored their appeal citing a 2010 precedent (sentence 20-2010 of 12 April) from a similar La Massana case, where the chamber itself deemed pre-LGOTU urbanisation approvals as consolidated urban land, treated unitarily under LGOTU article 83, urban regulation articles 8.1.2 and 11.1, and POUP norm article 130.

The Constitutional Court ruled this created a "logical fracture" in the chamber's reasoning. It noted the parish had a chance to counter the precedent but did not, yet the court referenced an unrelated decision (sentence 13-2010 of 3 March). The analysis also failed to convincingly explain prioritising LGOTU article 25 over the specific regime in article 83 and regulations, despite the Tomàs family's arguments including LGOTU's second additional provision.

The court annulled the 5 March 2026 sentence and requires the Superior Court to re-examine the case with clear, detailed justification—particularly if diverging from prior jurisprudence—to uphold legal certainty and Civil Procedure Code article 339.2, applied subsidiarily.

The land's status remains undecided, pending the new ruling.