Local authorities shall have the right of recourse to a judicial remedy in order to secure free exercise of their powers and respect for such principles of local self-government as are enshrined in the constitution or domestic legislation.
In Andorra, in addition to the ordinary legal remedies, the Comuns are entitled to lodge an individual complaint directly with the Constitutional Court. According to Article 82.1 of the Constitution, “conflicts arising from the interpretation or exercise of jurisdiction between the general bodies of the State and the Comuns shall be settled by the Constitutional Court”. In practice, only about 15 appeals were lodged with the Constitutional Court between 1997 and 2023. To date, the Comuns have never invoked the European Charter of Local Self-Government to assert their rights.
If the acts, resolutions or legislative provisions of the Consell General or the Government interfere with the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Comuns, or if the Comuns exercise powers conferred on the Consell General, the Government or another Comú, the aggrieved party may bring a case of conflict of jurisdiction before the Constitutional Court (Article 69 of the Qualified Law on the Constitutional Court). Positive conflicts of jurisdiction between local authorities and the general organs of the state relate to the qualified laws governing the powers and financial responsibilities of the parishes, which must be considered in conjunction with the Constitution in order to determine where the disputed responsibility lies. A negative conflict of jurisdiction exists when the non-fulfilment of a duty by a general state body or a Comú prevents, hinders or prejudices another body in the fulfilment of its own duty, or violates the subjective rights of an individual.
According to its case law, the Constitutional Court may, in the context of a conflict of jurisdiction, only rule on the question of the delimitation of powers and not on the constitutionality - on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction - of the legislation in question (Judgment of 13 March 1998, case 1997-1-CC). The Constitutional Court has also ruled that the matters assigned to the Comuns by Article 80 of the Constitution (population census; drawing up electoral rolls; participation in the organisation and conduct of elections according to the procedures prescribed by law; popular consultation processes; commerce, industry and professional activities; setting parish boundaries; private property and public property of the Comuns; natural resources; land registers; town planning, public roads, culture, sports and social activities and municipal public services) constitute a list of minimum powers (Judgment of 12 May 1997, case 97-2-L), which cannot therefore be interpreted restrictively, but must be interpreted in the light both of their material context and of the general principle of co-ordination (Judgment of 9 May 2003, case 2003-1-CC).
Since the entry into force of the Charter (on 1 July 2011), the Constitutional Court of Andorra has received only one appeal concerning a conflict of jurisdiction. Case 2018-1-CC, brought by the Comú of Andorra la Vella, concerned the territorial boundaries established by the development plan of the Comú of Sant Julià de Lòria and was declared inadmissible on the grounds that it was a territorial dispute between two local authorities which should be decided by the civil courts. The Court therefore held, in accordance with Article 73 b) of the Qualified Law on the Constitutional Court, that the dispute “must be dealt with by other procedural means”, in this case by ordinary civil proceedings.
Laws and decrees may also be challenged as unconstitutional by three Comuns acting jointly within 30 days of their publication in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court must then rule within two months (Articles 83 and 99 of the Constitution). In all, eight complaints of unconstitutionality have been lodged by Comuns.
Lastly, under Article 102 of the Constitution, any Comú may, on an individual basis, lodge a complaint to protect its constitutional rights, known as a recurs d’empara (in particular, to “protect” its jurisdiction). Local authorities often file such constitutional complaints when they believe that the procedural guarantees to which they are entitled in proceedings against individuals and other Comuns have not been respected by the ordinary courts. The majority of empara cases therefore concern court decisions rather than government decisions. Since 2006, 17 constitutional complaints have been lodged, of which eight were inadmissible. Of the nine admissible appeals, six were upheld and three were dismissed.
In its Judgment of 25 May 2007 in case 2006-22 i 25-RE, the Constitutional Court ruled that “the Comú d’Escaldes-Engordany [was] fully entitled to bring an empara action in order to ensure the protection of the rights enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution”, since “not only natural persons, but also legal persons are entitled to fundamental rights, including the right to effective judicial protection under Article 10 of the Constitution”. If a distinction is to be made between this right and its procedural safeguards, it follows that where, as in the case of Andorra, an empara remedy exists, those exercising these rights are entitled to seek their protection before the Constitutional Court by means of this remedy, which derives literally from Article 102 of the Constitution. Developments in comparative law, such as German law, could justify this argument. Consequently, by virtue of the legal personality of the Comuns, and of Article 2.2 of the Qualified Law on the powers of Comuns of 4 November 1993, their right to effective judicial protection must be affirmed and, therefore, their entitlement to bring an empara action before the Constitutional Court”. [...] “Comparative doctrine and case law have identified ‘specificities’ with regard to the effective judicial protection of public legal persons, and, in particular, of persons vested with powers. However, in the instant case, since the Comú has defended its rights before the various courts in the course of ordinary legal proceedings on an equal footing with the complainant, nothing can deprive it of the right to obtain a decision on its claim based on the law”.
Furthermore, Article 23 of the Law of 20 October 2017 on transfers to the Comuns provides for a specific remedy to contest the Government’s decision on the amount of the transfers allocated each year to the various Comuns. Comuns may file a complaint with the Government within one month of being notified of the payment by the Ministry of Finance. Once the complaint has been lodged, the Government forwards it to the other Comuns, who are also parties to the proceedings and have one month in which to submit their observations. The Government must respond to the complaint within two months of receiving the Comuns’ observations. The complaint is deemed to have been rejected if the Government has not issued an explicit response within three months of receiving it. One or more Comuns contesting the amount to be paid by the Ministry of Finance does not suspend the transfer or alter the amount of that payment, either for the Comú which filed the complaint or for any other Comú, unless the Government has issued an explicit response, which may also be appealed through the same procedure. The Comú that has contested the transfer then has one month to lodge an appeal on the Government’s decision to the courts, in accordance with the procedure laid down in administrative and tax jurisdiction law. The Finance Minister told the rapporteurs that several appeals had been lodged by Comuns on the basis of this legal provision. The most recent disagreement between the Government and the Comuns concerns issues related to financial transfers, in application of the Qualified Laws on powers (2017) and on financial transfers (2018). The Comuns brought an action on 24 February 2022 (through the ordinary administrative courts) to resolve a disagreement on the criteria for the disbursement of transfers for the 2017 financial year. This is primarily a matter of legal interpretation but has potential economic consequences for the local authorities concerned.
The rapporteurs therefore consider that Andorra fully complies with the requirements of Article 11 of the Charter.