Silvestre Advocats Appeals for Recusal of Magistrate Pastor in Andorra Tribunal

**Silvestre Advocats has filed an appeal with Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal seeking the recusal of reporting magistrate Pere Pastor and challenging the court's prior rejection of their amparo writ.**

The law firm argues that elements could undermine the appearance of impartiality in the tribunal's handling of the case. In a plea of súplica submitted recently, they request the nullification of the tribunal's January 19, 2026, ruling that dismissed their amparo as inadmissible. Alternatively, they seek to have the writ admitted for processing and for proceedings to be rolled back.

A key issue centres on potential academic links at the University of Andorra between Pastor and former Attorney General Alfons Alberca, now a sitting magistrate. The firm calls for documentary evidence to clarify these connections and asks the UdA to identify the director of deputy prosecutor Borja Aguado's doctoral thesis. Lawyer Josep Anton Silvestre insists that in a case focused on judicial impartiality, any objective doubt must be rigorously examined.

Silvestre draws a comparison to the earlier recusal of Núria García Val, president of the Tribunal de Corts, which the Constitutional Tribunal upheld based on a "legitimate apprehension" rooted in appearances rather than proven facts. He contends the court applied a double standard: while appearances justified her removal—prompted by the prosecution—it dismissed their amparo for lacking constitutional substance, despite invoking the same objective impartiality concerns.

The appeal also highlights a notification flaw. Silvestre states he learned of the inadmissibility decision through media reports before receiving formal notice, with the content later published in the BOPA. He argues this breach erodes trust in procedural safeguards, as parties must be notified before resolutions of such importance are publicised.

Further, the firm questions the factual basis for García Val's recusal, including claims of her repeated abstentions in cases involving a specific lawyer, which she publicly denied. Silvestre maintains this reliance on unverified premises raises core constitutional issues about the right to a predetermined judge and impartial tribunal.

The case, which the firm says warranted full review rather than dismissal at the admissibility stage, now tests standards on recusals and equality in judicial application. The Constitutional Tribunal must decide whether to admit the plea and revisit its earlier ruling.