Back

Themes: Right to a fair trial Andorra

UTE Saur Vallnet v. Andorra  | 2012

A second chance at justice for Saur Vallnet enterprise denied a fair trial

...the Court notes that it is not contested that the judge . . . was a partner at a Spanish law firm . . . which was listed as a provider of paid legal advice to the [Andorran] government at the time of the proceedings in question. 

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, August 2012

Background

A company’s lawyer discovered a conflict of interest at the heart of their legal challenge against the government.

UTE Saur Vallnet had taken the Andorran government to court after officials slapped the company with fines totalling over €1.8 million in 2007 for breaching a public contract relating to a sewage works it had built and operated.

But the Andorran courts rejected the company’s request to have the decision reversed and the contract cancelled, as well as its subsequent appeal in 2009.

However, Saur Vallnet soon found out that the judge who decided on their appeal also worked at a law firm which advised the government on other cases.

The company’s lawyer tried to get the appeal decision revoked, but the Andorran courts rejected the claim because it had been filed too late.

Saur Vallnet were not able to stop the courts ordering the payment of the fine, but they did launch a successful claim leading to the removal of the judge from their case in 2011 because of a “reasonable doubt” about the court official's impartiality.

The Andorran court based its decision on the fact that invoices had changed hands between the government and the judge’s law firm at a time when Saur Vallnet was having legal problems in Andorra.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Saur Vallnet was justifiably concerned about the Andorran judge’s impartiality and this amounted to a violation of the company's right to a fair trial.

In the European court's view, the company was still affected by the 2009 appeal judgment despite the Andorran court having confirmed its doubts about the tribunal’s lack of impartiality.

Follow-up

In response to the European court’s judgment in Saur Vallnet’s case, Andorra brought in a new law in 2014 allowing a national court judgment or decision to be revised after a Strasbourg ruling finding a violation of the human rights convention.

Saur Vallnet’s lawyer used the change in the law to apply to have their case re-examined. The company also requested the return of €630,000 it had initially paid as part of the fine.

An Andorran court ordered the re-examination of Saur Vallnet’s case and revoked the 2009 appeal judgment, cancelling all actions that had taken place since then.

It also ordered that the sum of money be returned to the company because the fine fell under the range of measures that needed to be cancelled to erase all the damaging effects of the human rights violation.

The Andorran government returned the money to Saur Vallnet in 2017.

Andorra also introduced a new law in 2016 which allowed the government itself to seek revision of a national court decision or judgment that has violated the human rights convention.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Case highlights the need to protect the impartiality of judges

Mrs M. had her legal dispute presided over by a judge who was closely related to two of the lawyers representing the other side. The European court ruled that Mrs M.’s fears of impartiality had been justified and her right to a fair trial had been breached.

Themes: Right to a fair trial Malta

Read more