Andorra Tribunal Annuls Eviction Over Tenant's Small Dog

Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal has annulled a Superior Tribunal decision that ordered the eviction of a tenant for keeping a small dog in a rented apartment, despite a no-pets clause in the lease. The ruling, published Wednesday in the Official Bulletin of the Principality of Andorra (BOPA), directs the Civil Chamber of the Superior Tribunal to issue a new judgment with proper justification.

The case originated in February 2024, when the property owner sued to terminate the lease with the tenants, citing breach of the contract's clause prohibiting animals without permission. The Batllia court initially dismissed the claim. On appeal, the Superior Tribunal overturned that ruling on 10 March, declared the contract ended, ordered eviction and warned of forced removal if the tenants did not leave voluntarily.

The chamber justified its stance by describing the no-pets rule as an absolute and "nuclear" element of the agreement. It also noted the owner's consistent opposition to the dog from the outset, distinguishing the case from prior ones.

The tenant challenged the decision via an amparo appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal, claiming it violated her right to a legally grounded ruling. She argued the small dog caused no neighbor disturbances or property damage, and that earlier Superior Tribunal precedents required proof of such harm alongside any contractual breach to justify ending a lease.

The Public Prosecutor's Office backed this position, urging the appeal's acceptance. It argued the Civil Chamber had shifted established doctrine—requiring both owner non-tolerance and verified harm from the pet—without adequate explanation.

The Constitutional Tribunal agreed, finding the lower court's reasoning deficient. It criticized the chamber for dropping the harm requirement without supporting arguments, deeming mere possession of a pet insufficient alone to constitute an essential breach. The clause received no special prominence in the contract, the ruling added.

Although the tenant had already left the property voluntarily, the tribunal rejected claims of mootness, citing ongoing constitutional interest in whether the decision infringed fundamental rights. No costs were awarded in the amparo proceedings, and the Civil Chamber must now reexamine if the dog's presence warranted eviction without evidence of issues.