Andorra Court Upholds Insurers' Bankruptcy, Grants Landowners Procedural Win

Andorra's Constitutional Court has dismissed a writ of amparo from the former owners of Assegurances Generals and Carlemany, upholding bankruptcy procedures and ruling that their fundamental rights remained intact during the insolvency process. The Calvó family, filing individually and via their companies, contested Batllia and Superior Court of Justice decisions that denied their claims in the insurers' liquidation. They cited violations of defence rights, contradictory rulings, equal arms, evidence access, jurisdiction, and reasoned judgments under Article 10 of the Constitution, pointing to their exclusion from initial asset valuations as grounds for annulment and remand.

The court rejected all arguments, stressing that insolvency is a universal execution mechanism where a judicial administrator, supported by experts, handles preliminary inventories. Debtors retain full rights to challenge and present counter-evidence, which the appellants did. The decision draws on European Court of Human Rights standards for evidence examination, deeming them satisfied here. It mirrors an earlier court rejection of a similar Calvó challenge to the intervention and insolvency, reinforcing procedural fairness and post-valuation defence access.

In a related but distinct ruling, the Constitutional Court upheld a writ from Sandra Tomàs Marot and Raül Tomàs Esteve, owners of the Casa Xirro property—also known as Terres del Solà de l'Estany—against a 5 March 2026 Superior Court Administrative Chamber sentence. The plot, in Escaldes-Engordany near Engolasters lake, falls under UA-SUC-39 as consolidated urban land in the local POUP. The owners seek permits for a single-family home development, approved decades ago before the LGOTU and parish plans but never executed, leaving the site undeveloped.

Lower courts annulled the classification for failing LGOTU requirements after Escaldes-Engordany pursued nullity against old planning decisions. The appellants argued the chamber ignored their points on LGOTU Article 83, its second additional provision, urban regulations Articles 8.1.2 and 11.1, and POUP norms Article 130, which support consolidated status for pre-LGOTU urbanisation projects treated unitarily.

The Constitutional Court found a breach of the right to a reasoned decision under Article 10. It highlighted the chamber's error in analysing an irrelevant precedent—sentence 13-2010—instead of the invoked 20-2010 from Massana, where similar pre-LGOTU land was deemed consolidated urban soil in one action unit. The commune had addressed the Massana case but received no detailed rebuttal. The ruling also faulted insufficient explanation for prioritising LGOTU Article 25 over the specific regime, creating a "logical fracture" in reasoning that undermined security of jurisprudence under civil procedure norms.

The court annulled the sentence without resolving the urban merits, ordering the Superior Court to issue a new one with clear motivation, especially if departing from prior stance. The decision hands a procedural win to Casa Xirro but leaves the core dispute open.