Andorran Court Suspends Demolition of Disputed Shared Path in Segudet
Constitutional Court halts enforcement of a ruling ordering Cal Sastre to dismantle illegal modifications to a shared path, pending appeal review on.
Key Points
- Court suspends prior ruling mandating reversal of path elevation deemed illegal without co-owner consent.
- Dispute arose from Cal Sastre raising roof and path, allegedly blocking access and directing rainwater to neighbor.
- Cal Sastre alleges violation of effective judicial protection and lack of proper claim notification.
- Suspension in place; case remitted for defense response or new ruling on prescription defenses.
The Andorran Constitutional Court has suspended the demolition of a shared paved path between two properties in Segudet, pending review of an appeal filed by the owners of Cal Sastre.
The court admitted the amparo appeal with suspensive effect, halting enforcement of a prior ruling by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court. That decision had ordered Cal Sastre to reverse construction work on the path, which ordinary courts deemed illegal for lacking agreement from the co-owners of the adjacent Cal l'Areny property.
The long-running dispute traces back to work at Cal Sastre, where owners raised the roof beyond permitted limits. To regularize the elevated covering, they modified the shared access path by raising it as well, reducing the gap between ground level and the roofline. This change allegedly complicated or blocked access to Cal l'Areny and allowed rainwater to flow more easily and forcefully toward it during storms.
Ordinary courts ruled that alterations to the indivisible path required mutual consent from both property owners. Absent agreement, they mandated dismantling the modifications.
Cal Sastre contests the process, arguing it was not properly informed of the claims against it, preventing an adequate defense. The Superior Court's Civil Chamber had previously stated that case files clearly outlined the dispute's scope, describing it as non-substantial. Undeterred, Cal Sastre escalated to the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of the right to effective judicial protection under Article 10 of the Constitution. This includes due process and the right to a legally grounded decision.
The appellants seek annulment of prior resolutions, with proceedings remitted primarily to just before the response filing stage—to allow a proper defense knowing the exact claims—or secondarily before the Civil Chamber's sentence, for a new ruling that addresses prescription defenses, including on the possessory action.
The Constitutional Court has agreed to examine the case, but no final decision has been issued. The suspension remains in place for now.
Original Sources
This article was aggregated from the following Catalan-language sources: