Andorran Tribunal Upholds Rare Prosecution-Led Judge Recusal

The Andorran Constitutional Tribunal has upheld the recusal of a judge from a criminal case, siding with the Public Prosecutor's Office in a rare move initiated by the prosecution.

In a ruling dated 19 January, to which Diari d'Andorra has had access, the tribunal dismissed appeals from two parties in the proceedings who argued the decision violated their right to an impartial tribunal and a judge predetermined by law. The court found no breach of fundamental rights, confirming that the recusal complied with legal standards.

The case stems from a long-running criminal procedure in which the Public Prosecutor's Office sought to remove a magistrate who had handled an earlier phase. Prosecutors cited her close friendship with one of the affected parties, arguing it could undermine her impartiality. Although the president of the Tribunal de Corts initially rejected the request, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice overturned that decision on appeal, ordering the judge's removal.

This intervention marked an unusual step, as recusals are typically filed by defence teams rather than the prosecution. The appellants contended there was no evidence the personal relationship influenced the judge's actions, which they described as transparent and professional. They warned the ruling could set a risky precedent, allowing recusals based on subjective perceptions.

The Constitutional Tribunal rejected these claims, stating that an "intimate friendship"—acknowledged by the judge herself—provided objective grounds for doubt about impartiality, even without proof of direct influence. It emphasised that constitutional protections require not only actual impartiality but also its appearance, to maintain public trust in the justice system.

The court clarified it does not re-examine evidence or judicial discretion but verifies whether fundamental rights were infringed. Here, it ruled the Criminal Chamber's decision was well-motivated, balanced, and aligned with established jurisprudence, with no arbitrariness in the substitution process.