Text original publicat per No es época para tontos.
An independent investigation by Inglourious Basterds, S.L., based exclusively on court judgments, official regulations, BOPA publications and other public documents, examines one of the most puzzling lines of reasoning found in Andorran administrative justice.
The case concerns the consolidation and expansion of a parking building, involving 119 existing spaces and 126 new ones. A 70% construction-tax rebate provided by the relevant tax ordinance was requested. The court of first instance initially recognised the benefit, but the Administrative Chamber of the High Court of Justice overturned that decision, concluding that the parking structure and the residential building formed a single development, despite evidence of separate structures, distinct access points and an easement between the two properties.
The investigation explores the contradictions between the technical evidence and the judicial reasoning, the initial denial of an easement that was later acknowledged, the use of a 2020 Construction Regulation in relation to a 2019 licence connected to a development originating in 2001, and the later attempt to neutralise that error by referring to a 2012 regulation. It also examines the censorship of the Comú’s name in the Administrative Chamber judgment and the citation of a BOPA publication containing Ordino ordinances, although the dispute concerns Escaldes-Engordany.
By comparing the decisions of the first-instance court, the Administrative Chamber, the Plenary of the High Court and the Constitutional Court, the podcast raises a fundamental question: can a judicial system correct its own errors when every subsequent decision introduces a new argument to preserve the previous result?
The investigation does not allege criminal conduct or hidden motives. It confronts public records, judicial arguments and verifiable contradictions so that viewers can assess the coherence, transparency and quality of the institutional reasoning for themselves.
