Overview
The Principality of Andorra (Principat d'Andorra) is a parliamentary co-principality in the Pyrenees, whose heads of state are the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell. There is no bilateral extradition treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany; Andorra is, however — like Germany — a contracting state to the European Convention on Extradition (ECE, ETS No. 24) of the Council of Europe. Extradition relations are therefore assessed primarily under this Convention, supplemented by the German Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG). Andorra is not a member of the European Union; the European Arrest Warrant does not apply.
In practice, the volume of extradition traffic between Germany and Andorra is very low. Andorra is a functioning state under the rule of law with no human-rights concerns; the death penalty has been abolished, and torture and inhuman treatment do not occur systematically. The country is mainly relevant in connection with economic, tax and financial offenses — owing to Andorra's historical significance as a low-tax and banking jurisdiction with a long tradition of banking secrecy. Typical constellations concern money laundering, tax evasion, breach of trust, fraud and investment offenses. In addition, although Andorra belongs neither to the Schengen Area nor to the EU, it is in fact strongly integrated into European travel and trade through its open borders with France and Spain — an arrest based on an Andorran alert is therefore typically a question of a check in a neighboring or transit state.
The defense in Andorra-related constellations therefore shifts away from the human-rights questions that dominate in the case of third states toward the classic admissibility hurdles of extradition law: dual criminality (particularly delicate in tax and fiscal offenses), the rule of specialty, fiscal and political criminal matters, and the blocking effect of Article 16(2) of the Basic Law for German nationals.
Legal basis
The decisive basis in international law is the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 (ECE, ETS No. 24), to which both Germany and Andorra are contracting states. Where the Convention leaves gaps, the German Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) of 23 Dec 1982 applies in a supplementary capacity on the German side (Section 1(3) IRG: precedence of agreements under international law). Under Article 2 ECE, extradition requires dual criminality (the offense punishable by a custodial penalty of at least one year at its maximum; in the case of enforcement, a remaining sentence of at least four months).
For German nationals, extradition to Andorra is excluded under Article 16(2) of the Basic Law; the relaxation provided by Section 80 IRG applies only to extraditions to EU member states, among which Andorra does not count. The blocking effect also applies to German dual nationals. Conversely, Andorra may refuse the extradition of its own nationals under Article 6 ECE and the declaration it made in relation to the Convention.
On the Andorran side, substantive criminal law is based on the Codi penal (Llei 9/2005); the procedure is governed by the Codi de procediment penal. Extradition requests are decided by the Andorran criminal court (Tribunal de Corts), with an appeal to the Superior Court (Tribunal Superior de Justícia). On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts decide on admissibility (Sections 13 ff. IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Offices, and in cases of fundamental importance or significance for foreign policy by the Federal Office of Justice in agreement with the Federal Foreign Office.
Country-specific issues in Andorra
Death penalty — abolished and prohibited under constitutional law: Andorra abolished the death penalty with the Criminal Code of 1990; Article 8(1) of the 1993 Constitution guarantees the right to life and expressly prohibits the death penalty. The last execution dates back to 1943. A bar to extradition under Section 8 IRG is therefore practically out of the question; this point of review, central in the case of many third states, does not arise.
Rule of law and political persecution — no structural deficiencies: Andorra is a stable, democratic state under the rule of law, a member of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as a contracting state to the UN Convention against Torture; judgments of the Andorran Superior Court are ultimately subject to review by the European Court of Human Rights. There are no indications of political persecution (Section 6 IRG) or politically motivated criminal proceedings. The focus of the defense therefore lies not on the human-rights grounds for refusal, but on a careful review of the formal and substantive extradition requirements. This does not mean, however, that an extradition to Andorra would be granted without further ado: precisely because the major human-rights themes drop out, the proceedings turn on the technical requirements of the Convention — dual criminality, fiscal offenses, specialty and the statute of limitations — and a precise command of these shapes the outcome.
Economic, tax and financial offenses — the practical core: For decades Andorra was a low-tax country with pronounced banking secrecy. Since the introduction of an income tax (2015) and accession to the automatic exchange of information (CRS/OECD), the picture has changed; nonetheless, requests with an Andorra connection concern money laundering, tax offenses, breach of trust and investment fraud disproportionately often. Here Article 5 ECE (fiscal offenses) must be reviewed carefully: extradition for tax, customs and currency offenses is admissible only under special conditions. At the same time, in the case of tax offenses dual criminality (Article 2 ECE, Section 3 IRG) must be examined precisely, because Andorran and German tax offenses are not congruent.
Interpol and alerts: Andorra is a member of Interpol; an arrest at home or in a transit country abroad may be based on an Andorran Red Notice or diffusion, even before a formal request is on file. Unlike in the case of authoritarian states, an abusive, politically motivated alert is not to be expected with Andorra; nonetheless, the lawfulness of the alert and the scope of the allegation must be reviewed early on, where appropriate via the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF).
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
With the Centre Penitenciari de la Comella in Andorra la Vella, Andorra has a single, small detention facility with a capacity in the low three-digit range (typically around 100 places; occupancy was most recently well below that). According to the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and by international comparison, detention conditions are unremarkable; structural overcrowding or systematic ill-treatment are not documented. The ground for refusal under the first sentence of Section 73 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR, which is regularly decisive in the case of many third states, is therefore relevant in the case of Andorra only in atypical individual cases.
Country-specific feature of the enforcement of a sentence: Because of the small size of the La Comella facility, longer custodial sentences are regularly enforced in France or Spain on the basis of bilateral agreements between Andorra and its neighboring states. This circumstance deserves attention in extradition proceedings: an extradition to Andorra may indirectly mean a later serving of the sentence in the French or Spanish prison system. For the human-rights review, regard must therefore be had not only to the Andorran facility but also to the specific prison under consideration in the neighboring state — in particular in view of the overcrowding documented in France (ECtHR, J.M.B. and Others v. France, 30 Jan 2020).
Otherwise the following applies: should, exceptionally, a concrete situation of risk be asserted, the standard of review developed in relation to Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 of the EU Charter (Aranyosi/Căldăraru, ECJ C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU — also to be applied outside the European Arrest Warrant) must be applied. Consular assistance for German affected persons is provided under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR); for Andorra, the German Embassy in Madrid is competent.
Lines of defense
The defense in Andorra extradition proceedings concentrates on the formal and substantive admissibility hurdles of the European Convention on Extradition and the IRG. Review framework:
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law (extradition of Germans): for a German national, extradition to Andorra is excluded — even for dual nationals. Always to be reviewed as a matter of priority.
- Article 2 ECE / Section 3 IRG (dual criminality): mirror-image review of the allegation under German law; in tax, currency and economic offenses regularly the decisive lever, because Andorran offenses need not have an exact German counterpart.
- Article 5 ECE (fiscal offenses): extradition for tax, customs and currency offenses only under the special conditions of the Convention — central and to be reviewed carefully where there is an Andorra connection.
- Article 14 ECE / rule of specialty: prosecution only for the offenses granted; concrete definition of the allegations covered, with supplementary requests only upon renewed consent. Particularly significant in extensive economic complexes.
- Article 3 ECE / Section 6 IRG (political offense): rare in practice with Andorra, but to be reviewed for any allegation with a possible political element — political and purely fiscal criminal matters must be assessed separately.
- Articles 7, 8 ECE / Section 9 IRG (double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), parallel prosecution): where there are parallel investigations in Germany or third states, review the grounds for blocking or refusal.
- Article 10 ECE (statute of limitations): review the limitation of prosecution and of enforcement under the law of both states — frequently relevant in older economic matters.
- First sentence of Section 73 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR (detention conditions): decisive in the case of Andorra only in atypical individual cases; however, where enforcement of a sentence in France or Spain is to be expected, the detention conditions there (in particular French overcrowding) must also be taken into account.
- Interpol/CCF: review the lawfulness and scope of a Red Notice or diffusion; where deficiencies exist, file a deletion or correction request via the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, and a protective brief with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): the standard remedy after the OLG's declaration of admissibility where fundamental rights are violated; with a carefully prepared complaint (for instance regarding dual criminality or enforcement in the neighboring state), an effective instrument.
Legal representation in Andorran extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol alert, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.