Andorran Constitutional Court Rejects Bias Challenge Against Magistrate in BPA Scandal Case

The Andorran Constitutional Court has rejected a challenge against one of its own magistrates in a long-running case tied to the BPA scandal, dismissing claims of potential bias and blocking further evidence on the matter.

In a ruling dated 13 March 2026, the court turned down a recusal request targeting rapporteur Pere Pastor Vilanova, filed by lawyer Josep Antoni Silvestre within an appeal against the prior inadmissibility of an amparo claim. The tribunal deemed the arguments unsubstantiated, reliant on unproven insinuations, rumours, and irrelevant academic links—such as supposed ties to former Attorney General Alfons Alberca or the University of Andorra—that failed to meet legal thresholds for recusation. It also denied all proposed evidence, noting that even if verified, the facts would hold no bearing on the magistrate's subjective or objective impartiality. Pastor Vilanova will remain in charge, with the case proceeding without additional probes into these issues.

This development stems from an earlier dispute over seized assets in BPA-related proceedings. There, the Corts Court initially assigned magistrate Núria Garcia Val as rapporteur, but the Public Prosecutor's Office sought her recusal over alleged personal ties to a defendant, including prior representation in other cases. The Corts Court rejected it, but the Superior Court of Justice's Criminal Chamber upheld the appeal, removing her based on "legitimate apprehension" over appearances of bias.

Silvestre then pursued an amparo before the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of rights to an impartial tribunal, a legally predetermined judge, and reasoned decisions. The court inadmitted it in January 2026 for lack of foundation, prompting Silvestre's appeal—which now faces this setback.

The ruling underscores procedural limits on recusals, especially those lacking concrete evidence, amid efforts to maintain judicial stability.

This impasse echoes broader frustrations in BPA offshoots. Preliminary proceedings opened by Batllia in July 2015 against two individuals—one now deceased, with succession to their children—remain stalled despite the Constitutional Court's 2024 and 2025 findings of unreasonable delays. It urged Batlle Azahara Cascales to act within three months (extendable by three more with cause), but no progress followed. Complainants sought case dismissal, account unfreezing after a decade, resolution annulments, and sanctions against Cascales—requests rejected in recent rulings. The court affirmed its decisions bind all under Article 2.1 of its Qualified Law but stressed its non-judicial status precludes direct enforcement, fines, or sanctions. Such remedies must go through ordinary courts, prosecutors for criminal liability, or the Superior Council of Justice for discipline—unlike Spain's model, which allows coercive measures. Ordinary courts face no duty to enforce outside amparo paths, prolonging delays.