Andorra Court Rejects Caregiver's €9,284 Unfair Dismissal Claim

Andorra's Constitutional Court has rejected a caregiver's appeal against her dismissal, ruling it lacks constitutional grounds and preserving the Private Tutelary Foundation's immunity for following a judicial order.

The court dismissed the worker's claim for €9,284.58 in compensation, deeming the matter one of ordinary legal interpretation rather than a rights violation. This upholds a 3 July 2026 decision by the Superior Court of Justice's Civil Chamber, which had reversed a Batllia ruling that deemed the dismissal improper and set the compensation figure.

The foundation took over management of the caregiver's employer's economic, medical, legal, and administrative affairs on 15 July 2024, following a Batllia order placing the employer—a woman under guardianship for alleged fraud and abuse of trust—under protection. The order mandated immediate termination of the caregiver's contract. Police informed the worker of her contract's end the next day, 16 July, with the foundation later issuing a disciplinary dismissal letter for serious misconduct.

The caregiver filed suit against the foundation and the unidentified heirs of her deceased employer. In November 2024, the Batllia dropped the heirs from the case due to lack of identification, a ruling the worker did not challenge. On 26 February 2026, Batllia Civil Section 3 declared the dismissal unjustified, fixed compensation at €9,284.58, but held the foundation unaccountable as it acted under curatorship rules similar to a mandate.

Both parties appealed. The Superior Court sided with the foundation, ruling it lacked standing as a defendant, rejected the labour claim entirely, and required the worker to cover costs from both proceedings.

In its September 2026 resolution, the Constitutional Court found no infringement of rights to effective judicial protection or reasoned judgments. It noted the foundation acted on behalf of the employer per court instructions, and the claim's failure resulted from the worker's decision not to appeal the heirs' exclusion alongside the labour action's inherent limits. The court stressed that a distinct claim remains possible against the foundation for its curatorship duties, and emphasized that constitutional appeals cannot re-examine full cases.

The ruling shields the foundation from liability in the labour dispute.