← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Exp. 91-000191-0007-CO
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber denied the environmental amparo due to insufficient proof of environmental and health impact.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso de amparo ambiental por falta de prueba suficiente sobre la afectación al ambiente y la salud.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber reviewed an amparo filed by a university student against the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) and the National Electricity Service (SNE) regarding the construction of a hydroelectric project in Birrís, Jiménez canton, which allegedly affected a water source. The petitioner claimed a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The Chamber denied the amparo on the merits, finding that the petitioner did not sufficiently prove environmental damage or impact on the right to health; the evidence presented was inadequate to demonstrate the alleged harm. However, the Chamber reaffirmed the doctrine of diffuse standing, allowing any person to file an amparo to protect collective interests such as the environment, without needing to show personal and direct injury. This ruling is an early milestone in Costa Rican environmental jurisprudence; although the outcome was adverse due to lack of evidence, it established foundations for environmental protection through amparo.La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo presentado por una estudiante universitaria contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) y el Servicio Nacional de Electricidad (SNE) por la construcción de un proyecto hidroeléctrico en la comunidad de Birrís, cantón de Jiménez, que afectaba una fuente de agua. La recurrente alegó la violación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La Sala declaró sin lugar el recurso por el fondo, al considerar que la recurrente no demostró de manera fehaciente la afectación al ambiente ni al derecho a la salud; las pruebas aportadas fueron insuficientes para acreditar el daño alegado. No obstante, la Sala reafirmó la doctrina de la legitimación difusa, permitiendo que cualquier persona pueda interponer un amparo para proteger intereses colectivos como el ambiente, sin necesidad de demostrar un agravio personal y directo. Esta sentencia es un hito temprano en la jurisprudencia ambiental costarricense, aunque su resultado fue adverso por falta de prueba, sentando las bases para la tutela del ambiente mediante amparo.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The petitioner has standing to file this amparo, since the right to the environment, by its nature, is a diffuse right, and its protection may be sought by any person, without need to demonstrate personal and direct injury. However, in the present case, he failed to prove the violation of the rights he claims were infringed, so the amparo must be denied.El recurrente se encuentra legitimado para interponer el presente recurso de amparo, ya que el derecho al ambiente, por su naturaleza, es un derecho de carácter difuso, y su protección puede ser solicitada por cualquier persona, sin necesidad de que demuestre un agravio personal y directo. Sin embargo, en el presente caso, no logró acreditar la violación de los derechos que estima conculcados, por lo que procede declarar sin lugar el recurso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El derecho al ambiente, por su naturaleza, es un derecho de carácter difuso, y su protección puede ser solicitada por cualquier persona, sin necesidad de que demuestre un agravio personal y directo."
"The right to the environment, by its nature, is a diffuse right, and its protection may be sought by any person, without need to demonstrate personal and direct injury."
Considerando único
"El derecho al ambiente, por su naturaleza, es un derecho de carácter difuso, y su protección puede ser solicitada por cualquier persona, sin necesidad de que demuestre un agravio personal y directo."
Considerando único
Full documentDocumento completo
**Expediente:** 91-000191-0007-CO **Type:** Action of Unconstitutionality (ASU) **Filing Party:** *Persona física* (artículo 75 Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) **Date of Filing:** 01/29/1991 at 14:41 **Challenged Provision( s):** The location, construction, operation, and the very existence of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline and its complementary works, executed by the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (RECOPE).
**Alleged Constitutional Infringement(s):** Violation of Articles 21, 46, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution.
**General Subject Matter:** Environment > > Environmental damage Land-use planning > Construction permits State Powers > Public Administration > RECOPE.
**Subparameters:** | --- | --- | | Environment | Constitutionality of works | | Construction and operational procedure for the works | | Principle of prevention | | Principle of precaution | | Right to health | | Human life | | Water | | Hydrocarbons | | Environmental risk | | Energy and hydrocarbons | | Environmental deterioration | | Marine pollution | | Environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) | **Abstract of the Case** - An action of unconstitutionality is filed against the location, construction, operation, and the very existence of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline and its complementary works, arguing manifest incompetence, deviation of power, and violation of fundamental rights, given the dangerousness inherent in the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons, within an area of very high population density and essential water resources.
- The action was filed directly before this Court; during its pendency, Law 7575 of April 5, 1996 (Ley Forestal) was enacted, providing for the judicial function of environmental oversight (artículo 19 Ley 7575). In this capacity, the Court proceeded to carry out a comprehensive evidentiary phase (scientific evidence, site inspections, public hearings, and statements in the case file), in order to determine the legality or illegality of the challenged conduct, in accordance with the constitutional parameters of environmental protection. The vote is divided into the following chapters: 1. The Court's competence in light of the principle of division of powers and the principle of constitutional supremacy; 2. The precautionary principle (principio precautorio) as a hermeneutical criterion for the environmental constitutional rule, with a review of its objective and subjective elements and the applicable standard of review; 3. Analysis and systematization of the evidence, based on the risks to life, health, and the environment: a. Technical risks (technological failures, natural phenomena, transportation and reception systems, among others), b. Geographical risks and population density, c. The existence of a more favorable alternative; 4. Constitutional norms applicable to the case and international instruments providing for the obligation to prevent environmental risks and damage; 5. Epilogue with recommendations for the comprehensive management of hydrocarbons.
- The Court concluded that the construction and operation of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline (Poliducto) by RECOPE violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (artículo 50 constitucional), because it is located in an area of high population density and in hydrologically vulnerable terrain. An order is issued for the relocation of the pipeline, the operation of the existing facilities for a period of 5 years in a manner that is transitional and subordinate to environmental safety, and the implementation of measures to guarantee its safety during that period, as detailed in the operative part.
**Expediente:** 91-000191-0007-CO **Type:** Action of Unconstitutionality (ASU) **Filing Party:** *Persona física* (artículo 75 Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) **Date of Filing:** 01/29/1991 at 14:41 **Challenged Provision( s):** The location, construction, operation, and the very existence of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline and its complementary works, executed by the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (RECOPE).
**Alleged Constitutional Infringement(s):** Violation of Articles 21, 46, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution.
**General Subject Matter:** Environment > > Environmental damage Land-use planning > Construction permits State Powers > Public Administration > RECOPE.
**Subparameters:** | --- | --- | | Environment | Constitutionality of works | | Construction and operational procedure for the works | | Principle of prevention | | Principle of precaution | | Right to health | | Human life | | Water | | Hydrocarbons | | Environmental risk | | Energy and hydrocarbons | | Environmental deterioration | | Marine pollution | | Environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) | **Abstract of the Case** - An action of unconstitutionality is filed against the location, construction, operation, and the very existence of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline and its complementary works, arguing manifest incompetence, deviation of power, and violation of fundamental rights, given the dangerousness inherent in the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons, within an area of very high population density and essential water resources.
- The action was filed directly before this Court; during its pendency, Law 7575 of April 5, 1996 (Ley Forestal) was enacted, providing for the judicial function of environmental oversight (artículo 19 Ley 7575). In this capacity, the Court proceeded to carry out a comprehensive evidentiary phase (scientific evidence, site inspections, public hearings, and statements in the case file), in order to determine the legality or illegality of the challenged conduct, in accordance with the constitutional parameters of environmental protection. The vote is divided into the following chapters: 1. The Court's competence in light of the principle of division of powers and the principle of constitutional supremacy; 2. The precautionary principle (principio precautorio) as a hermeneutical criterion for the environmental constitutional rule, with a review of its objective and subjective elements and the applicable standard of review; 3. Analysis and systematization of the evidence, based on the risks to life, health, and the environment: a. Technical risks (technological failures, natural phenomena, transportation and reception systems, among others), b. Geographical risks and population density, c. The existence of a more favorable alternative; 4. Constitutional norms applicable to the case and international instruments providing for the obligation to prevent environmental risks and damage; 5. Epilogue with recommendations for the comprehensive management of hydrocarbons.
- The Court concluded that the construction and operation of the Barranca – San José multiple pipeline (Poliducto) by RECOPE violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (artículo 50 constitucional), because it is located in an area of high population density and in hydrologically vulnerable terrain. An order is issued for the relocation of the pipeline, the operation of the existing facilities for a period of 5 years in a manner that is transitional and subordinate to environmental safety, and the implementation of measures to guarantee its safety during that period, as detailed in the operative part.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.