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

Andorra's Constitutional Court has dismissed an appeal by a caregiver seeking €9,284.58 in compensation for an allegedly unfair dismissal, ruling that the claim lacks constitutional merit and falls under ordinary legal interpretation.

The court rejected the worker's challenge to a 3 July 2026 decision by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice. That earlier ruling had overturned a Batllia judgment declaring the dismissal improper and awarding the compensation amount, while noting the Private Tutelary Foundation could not be held directly liable as it acted under judicial mandate.

The foundation had been appointed on 15 July 2024 by the Batllia to manage the economic, medical, legal, and administrative affairs of the caregiver's employer—a woman placed under guardianship amid allegations of fraud and abuse of trust. The order required immediate termination of the caregiver's contract. The next day, 16 July, police notified the worker of the end of her employment, followed by a formal disciplinary dismissal letter from the foundation citing serious misconduct.

The caregiver sued the foundation and the unidentified heirs of her late employer. In November 2024, the Batllia dismissed the claim against the heirs for lack of identification—a decision the worker did not appeal. In February 2026, Batllia Civil Section 3 found the dismissal unjustified and set compensation at €9,284.58 but ruled it could not be enforced against the foundation, which operated under curatorship rules akin to a mandate.

Both sides appealed. The Superior Court upheld the foundation's position, citing its lack of standing as a defendant, dismissed the labour claim outright, and ordered the worker to pay costs for both instances.

In its September 2026 resolution, the Constitutional Court found no breach of rights to effective judicial access or reasoned decisions. It emphasised that the foundation executed the dismissal in representation of the employer per court order, and the claim's rejection stemmed from the worker's choice not to appeal the heirs' dismissal and the logical outcome of the labour action pursued. The court reiterated the availability of a separate liability claim against the foundation for its curatorship role, as noted by the Superior Court.

The decision confirms the foundation bears no responsibility in the labour proceedings.