Andorra Tribunal Annuls Eviction Over Tenant's Small Dog

Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal has annulled a Superior Tribunal ruling that authorized the eviction of a tenant for keeping a small dog in a rental apartment, despite a no-pets clause in the lease agreement.

The decision, published Wednesday in the Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra (BOPA), requires the Civil Chamber of the Superior Tribunal to deliver a fresh judgment with adequate reasoning. The high court upheld the tenant's amparo appeal, identifying a "logical fracture" in the lower court's analysis.

The dispute began in February 2024 when the landlord sought to end the lease, arguing the tenant breached the contract by housing the animal without consent. The Batllia court rejected the claim at first instance. However, on 10 March, the Superior Tribunal's Civil Chamber reversed that outcome on appeal, terminated the contract, mandated eviction and threatened enforcement if the tenant did not vacate voluntarily.

The chamber had treated the pet prohibition as a fundamental contract term, emphasizing the landlord's firm objection from the start and differentiating the matter from earlier precedents.

The tenant contested the ruling before the Constitutional Tribunal, asserting a violation of her right to a properly reasoned decision. She maintained the small dog generated no disturbances for neighbors or damage to the property. She also cited prior Superior Tribunal case law demanding evidence of harm, in addition to any contractual violation, before lease termination.

The Public Prosecutor's Office supported the appeal, contending the Civil Chamber deviated from settled doctrine—requiring both landlord intolerance and proven pet-related issues—without sufficient justification.

The Constitutional Tribunal sided with these arguments, ruling the lower decision lacked proper motivation. It faulted the chamber for abandoning the harm criterion without compelling rationale, stating that the pet's mere presence did not amount to a serious breach on its own. The no-pets clause held no elevated status in the contract, the judges noted, and the tribunal rejected mootness claims despite the tenant's voluntary departure, due to enduring constitutional relevance.

No costs were imposed in the amparo case, leaving the Civil Chamber to reassess whether the dog's presence justified eviction absent documented problems.