Mobile terminal homologation and proportionalityHomologación de terminales móviles y proporcionalidad

II.On the homologation (homologación) of terminal equipment for mobile telephone use.- From the analysis of the evidence provided in the case file, as well as the study of the reports rendered by the respondent authorities, this Chamber concludes that, in general, the procedure developed in resolutions number RCS-614-2009 and number RCS-427 of the Council of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, is consistent with the provisions of Article 46 of the Constitución Política, since this procedure seeks to ensure that the equipment intended to be connected to the mobile telephone network meets minimum conditions or standards, so as to guarantee the health, safety, and economic interests of the users themselves. The provisions contained in these resolutions, supported by the Reglamento sobre el Régimen de protección al consumidor and by Laws N° 7593 and N° 8642, are based, in addition to the legal norms, on various commercial, technical, and social reasons. Among the technical reasons are included, among others, ensuring that the terminal equipment allows the user to freely choose and change service providers, receive service continuously and equitably, have access to improvements implemented by the provider, receive quality services under the terms previously stipulated and agreed upon with the provider, and be able to access information in the Spanish language. Within the social reasons are included, in turn, measures aimed at protecting user safety against non-ionizing radiation and possible attacks on communication privacy. It also seeks to protect environmental sustainability (sostenibilidad ambiental), and to avoid the importation of "technological waste." All these aspects duly justify the Procedure for the Homologation of Mobile Telephone Terminals developed by the regulatory entity through the cited resolutions number RCS-614-2009 and number RCS-427-2010. For the foregoing reasons, on this point, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal.-

III.- On the obligation of an operator or provider to activate on its networks only terminals homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. As already indicated, the aforementioned homologation procedure seeks to protect the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe functioning of the terminal devices or equipment introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile telephone service networks. This is, in principle, reasonable. On the other hand, it should be noted that this obligation with the homologation procedure is applicable to the operating or provider companies that subsequently obtain the homologation certificate, which must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to its distribution or commercialization at the national level. This requirement is also reasonable when dealing with companies dedicated to this commercial activity. What is not coherent, nor reasonable, is that if a user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device that does not have the homologation distinctive (distintivo de homologación) (according to Considerando X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009), but the brand and model of their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating system versions it contains, have been analyzed and tested by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones on previous occasions and it has been determined that they are suitable for connecting to cellular telephone networks, they are required, due to an erroneous normative interpretation, to subject their device to the entire homologation procedure developed in that resolution. This goes against the provisions of Article 17 of the Reglamento de protección al usuario final de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, which states: "(...) Additionally, operators are obligated to activate terminal equipment that is homologated by SUTEL and enabled to operate on their network (...)" and the last paragraph of said norm indicates: "For those cases in which the user purchases both the terminal equipment as well as other equipment necessary to acquire any telecommunications service, these cannot be considered as assets of the operators or service providers.". This requirement of the Superintendencia is in force, according to the report of the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad; by virtue of resolution RCS-614-2009. In such a case, if the service provider or operator can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device and that it corresponds to a brand, model, and version of software, firmware, and operating system that has already been previously homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones - by virtue of a homologation request made by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or private individual -, and if the other requirements imposed by the legal system are also met, there is no reasonable justification for denying the user the provision of the service, regardless of whether the device has the aforementioned distinctive or not. This is especially true if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to subject the device to the referred homologation procedure. Given such a hypothesis, it can be validly concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the aforementioned distinctive to cellular telephone networks, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not satisfy "proportionality in the strict sense" (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto) - as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued -.

IV.- On the policy of free competition and Consumer protection guaranteed at the constitutional level. Free competition is one of the pillars upon which the free market economy rests, with economic activity being based on three aspects: growing needs, scarce means to satisfy those needs, and the alternative use of those means. Thus, free competition seeks to guarantee the maximum satisfaction of needs through the efficient use of resources, which are not limited to purely material matters but also extend to intangible needs, in particular the inherent rights of the person. The object of free competition is to guarantee free access to the market for economic operators, without them encountering unjustified barriers, avoiding practices that in some way restrict or limit supply to a few economic agents. The preceding philosophy impacts, with even greater reason, the subject of telecommunications in a globalized society where users and consumers require guarantees of access to various services. Every consumer has the right to choose, within their sphere of individual freedom, and under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and the means of freely accessing the referred goods and services. In particular, they must have a wide range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering the price and their personal needs, to request the connection of the service. Consequently, the consumer, respecting the legal norms and the technical requirements that the legislator establishes with criteria of reasonableness and proportionality for the provision of a public service, could request the activation of a mobile telephone service. In that sense, it is necessary to indicate that the degree of satisfaction or fulfillment of the constitutional good, which is protecting the public service and the quality of the public service provided, is not comparable with the restriction imposed on the client or user. It is in this specific aspect that the rule becomes relevant that affectations of fundamental rights must be as restricted as possible, and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose; Public Bodies, without renouncing their powers, must not exceed their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought to be achieved by the measure and the restriction, limitation, or affectation of fundamental rights that occurs to achieve it. At this point, it is important to reiterate what is provided in Article 46 of the Constitución Política, as it enshrines various principles and rights related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. The implementation of that constitutional provision seeks to prevent the exercise of a dominant position, or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can lead to the capacity to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court understands that the decision of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services that they may only activate on their networks those terminal equipment that bear the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, represents a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality – for contravening the sub-principle of “proportionality in the strict sense” –, to the detriment of the right of consumers to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.

V.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry telephone. From the reports rendered under oath, it is extracted that the terminal mentioned by the appellant, a BlackBerry, which “is a leading wireless solution supported over the cellular telephone service that allows users to remain connected to their personal or corporate email” and which enables email synchronization, the sending and receiving of SMS and MMS messaging, WEB browsing, viewing attachments, using their device as a modem, using their terminal as an agenda or organizer, and using instant messaging and internet, mean that terminals of this range must comply with a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct functioning. As was well mentioned previously, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying the activation of a terminal model that was previously homologated, and because it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied its activation, despite complying with all other legal requirements necessary for its activation.

VI.- In conclusion. By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services that they may only activate on their networks those terminal devices or equipment that bear the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model, and version of hardware, software, firmware, and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. Regarding the other allegations and the actions of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, it is appropriate to dismiss the amparo under study, since it has limited itself to fulfilling its obligation to comply with the provisions issued by the regulatory entity in the matter of telecommunications.” In this specific aspect, the rule gains relevance that impairments of fundamental rights must be as restricted as possible and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose. Public Bodies (Órganos Públicos), without renouncing their powers, must not exceed them in their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought to be achieved with the measure and the restriction, limitation, or impairment of fundamental rights that occurs to achieve it. At this point, it is important to recall what is provided in Article 46 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), insofar as it enshrines several principles and rights related to entrepreneurial freedom and the protection of consumer rights. The implementation of said constitutional provision is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position, or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can cause the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) understands that the decision of the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones) to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness (razonabilidad) or proportionality –for contravening the subprinciple (subprincipio) of “proportionality in the strict sense”–, to the detriment of consumers’ right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Arial'>V.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry phone. </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Arial'>From the reports rendered under oath, it is extracted that the terminal (terminal) mentioned by the appellant, being a BlackBerry, which <i>“is a leading wireless solution supported over cellular telephone service that allows users to stay connected to their personal or business email”</i>, which allows email synchronization, sending and receiving SMS and MMS messaging, web browsing, viewing attachments, using the device as a modem, using the terminal (terminal) as an agenda or organizer, using instant messaging and internet, so that terminals in this range must comply with a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct operation. As was well mentioned previously, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying the activation of a Terminal model that was previously homologated, and due to the fact that it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied its activation, despite complying with all other legal requirements necessary for its activation. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%; font-family:Arial'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;VI.- In conclusion.</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%; font-family:Arial'> By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones) for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal devices or equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model and version of hardware, software, firmware (firmware) and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones). Regarding the remaining allegations and the actions of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), it is appropriate to dismiss the amparo under study, insofar as it has limited itself to complying with its obligation to adhere to the provisions issued by the regulatory body in matters of telecommunications.” </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> It is precisely in this specific aspect that the rule gains relevance—restrictions on fundamental rights must be as limited as possible and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose. Public bodies, without renouncing their powers, must not exceed in their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought by the measure and the restriction, limitation, or impairment of fundamental rights produced to achieve it. At this point, it is important to recall what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, insofar as it enshrines various principles and rights related to freedom of enterprise and consumer protection. The implementation of that constitutional provision seeks to prevent the exercise of a dominant position or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can bring about the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court understands that the decision of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality—by contravening the sub-principle of “proportionality in the strict sense”—to the detriment of consumers' right to freely choose and access the goods and public services of interest to them.

**V.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry telephone.** From the reports rendered under oath, it is gleaned that the terminal mentioned by the appellant is a BlackBerry, which *“is a leading wireless solution supported by cellular telephone service that allows users to stay connected to their personal or business email,”* enabling email synchronization, sending and receiving SMS and MMS messaging, web browsing, viewing attached files, using the device as a modem, using the terminal as an agenda or organizer, using instant messaging and the internet; therefore, terminals in this range must pass a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct operation. As mentioned above, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying activation for a terminal model that has already been previously homologated and, because it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied activation thereof, even though it meets all the other legal requirements necessary for its activation.

**VI.- In conclusion.** By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal devices or equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model and hardware version, software, firmware, and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. With respect to the remaining allegations and the actions of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the amparo under study is to be dismissed, since ICE has merely complied with its obligation to adhere to the provisions issued by the regulatory body in telecommunications matters.”

“II. Sobre la homologación de equipos terminales para el uso de telefonía móvil.- Del análisis de la prueba aportada a los autos, así como del estudio de los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas, concluye esta Sala que, en general, el procedimiento desarrollado en las resoluciones número RCS-614-2009 y número RCS-427 del Consejo de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, resulta congruente con lo dispuesto en el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política, por cuanto mediante dicho procedimiento se procura garantizar los equipos que se pretenden conectar, a la red de telefonía móvil, cumplan condiciones o estándares mínimos, de forma que se garantice la salud, la seguridad y los intereses económicos de los propios usuarios. Las disposiciones contenidas en dichas resoluciones sustentadas en el Reglamento sobre el Régimen de protección al consumidor y en la leyes N° 7593 y N° 8642, tienen como fundamento, además de las normas jurídicas diversas razones comerciales, técnicas y sociales. Entre las razones de índole técnico se incluyen, entre otras, asegurar que los equipos terminales permitan al usuario el poder elegir y cambiar libremente al proveedor de servicios, recibir el servicio en forma continua y equitativa, tener acceso a las mejoras que el proveedor implemente, recibir servicios de calidad en los términos estipulados previamente y pactados con el proveedor, y poder acceder a la información en idioma español. Dentro de las razones sociales se incluyen, a su vez, medidas tendientes a proteger la seguridad del usuario, frente a radiaciones no ionizantes y ante posibles ataques a la privacidad de las comunicaciones. También se pretender resguardar la sostenibilidad ambiental, el evitarse la importación de “basura tecnológica”. Todos estos aspectos justifican, debidamente, el Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil desarrollado por el ente regulador mediante las citadas resoluciones número RCS-614-2009 y número RCS-427-2010. Por lo expuesto, en cuanto a este extremo lo procedente es desestimar el recurso.- III.- Sobre la obligación que tiene un operador o proveedor de activar en sus redes únicamente terminales homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. Como ya se indicó, el citado procedimiento de homologación pretende resguardar la salud, seguridad e intereses económicos de los usuarios, al verificar el correcto y seguro funcionamiento de los dispositivos o equipos terminales que se introducen el país con la intención de conectarse a las redes de servicio de telefonía móvil. Lo que, en principio, resulta razonable. Por otro lado debe destacarse que dicha obligación con el procedimiento de homologación resulta aplicable a las empresas operadoras o proveedores que ulteriormente obtienen el certificado de homologación, los cuales deben enviar las listas de los equipos móviles previo a su distribución o comercialización a nivel nacional. Exigencia que también es razonable, cuando se trata de empresas que se dedican a ese giro comercial. Lo que no resulta coherente, ni razonable, es que si un usuario adquiere, de forma lícita, un equipo o aparato terminal de telefonía celular que no cuenta con el distintivo de homologación, (según el considerando X, punto 6, de la resolución RCS-614-2009), pero la marca y modelo de su equipo, así como las versiones de hardware, software, firmware y sistema operativo que éste contiene, y han sido analizadas y probadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones en ocasiones anteriores y se ha determinado que sí son idóneos para conectarse a las redes de telefonía celular, se le exija por una errónea interpretación normativa, someter su aparato a todo el procedimiento de homologación desarrollado en dicha resolución. Ello va en contra de lo dispuesto en el artículo 17 del Reglamento de protección al usuario final de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, dispone: "(...) Adicionalmente, los operadores está obligados a activar los equipos terminales que se encuentren homologados por la SUTEL y habilitados para funcionar en su red (...)" y en el último párrafo de dicha norma se indica: "Para aquellos casos en los que el usuario compre tanto el equipo terminal así como otros que sean necesarios para adquirir algún serviciio de telecomunicaciones, estos no pueden considerarse como activos de los operadores o proveedores de servicio.". Dicha exigencia de la Superintendencia está vigente, según lo informa el Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad; en virtud de la resolución RCS-614-2009. En tal caso, si el proveedor u operador del servicio puede establecer con certeza el origen lícito del aparato y que éste corresponde a una marca, modelo y versión de software, firmware y sistema operativo que ya ha sido previamente homologados por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones -en virtud de alguna solicitud de homologación planteada por algún otro importador, distribuidor, proveedor, operador o particular-, y si además se cumplen los demás requisitos impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico, no existe una justificación razonable para que se le deniegue el usuario la prestación del servicio, independientemente que el aparato cuente o no con el citado distintivo. Máxime si el requisito para obtener el distintivo en cuestión es someter el aparato al referido procedimiento de homologación. Ante tal hipótesis, se puede concluir válidamente que el requerimiento impuesto por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, en cuanto a la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las redes de telefonía celular aparatos terminales que no cuenten con el citado distintivo, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, se convierte en una prohibición de alcance general que, para este Tribunal, no alcanza a satisfacer la “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto” -como subprincipio del principio constitucional de razonabilidad y que consiste en la determinación de la existencia de un equilibrio o balance entre el medio empleado y el fin perseguido-.

IV.- Sobre la política de libre competencia y la protección al Consumidor garantizada a nivel constitucional. La libre competencia es uno de los pilares sobre los que se asienta la economía de libre mercado, siendo que la actividad económica se basa en tres aspectos: necesidades crecientes, medios escasos para satisfacer esas necesidades y uso alternativo de esos medios. Así, la libre competencia busca garantizar la máxima satisfacción de necesidades, mediante un uso eficiente de los recursos, las cuales no se circunscriben a cuestiones puramente materiales, sino también a necesidades intangibles, en particular los derechos inherentes a la persona. El objeto de la libre competencia es garantizar el libre acceso al mercado de los operadores económicos, sin que encuentren barreras injustificadas, evitando prácticas que de algún modo restrinjan o limiten la oferta en unos pocos agente económicos. La anterior filosofía impacta, con mayor razón, el tema de las telecomunicaciones en una sociedad globalizada en donde se requiere, por parte de los usuarios y consumidores, garantías de acceso a los diferentes servicios. Todo consumidor tiene derecho a elegir, dentro de su ámbito de libertad individual, y bajo el respeto de las regulaciones mínimas que garantizan los servicios de telecomunicaciones, la forma y el medio de acceder libremente a los referidos bienes y servicios. En particular, tienen que tener un abanico abierto de posibilidades para poder escoger el aparato que más le convenga, atendiendo al precio y a sus necesidades personales, para solicitar la conexión del servicio. En consecuencia, el consumidor, respetando las normas legales y las exigencias técnicas que el legislador fija con criterios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad para la prestación de un servicio público, podría solicitar la activación de un servicio de telefonía móvil. En ese sentido, es preciso indicar, el grado de satisfacción o cumplimiento del bien constitucional, cual, es proteger el servicio público y la calidad del servicio público brindado, no es equiparable con la restricción que se le impone al cliente o usuario. En este aspecto en concreto, es donde alcanza relevancia la regla que las afectaciones de derechos fundamentales deben ser lo más restringida, posibles y, consecuencia las mínimas necesarias para alcanzar su finalidad, los Organos Públicos, sin renunciar a sus potestades, no deben excederse en su ejercicio, con el establecimiento de disposiciones que transgredan esa regla y el obligado equilibro entre la finalidad que busca lograr con la medida y la restricción, limitación, o afectación de derechos fundamentales que se produce para lograrlo. En este punto resulta importante rescatar lo que dispone el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política, en cuanto consagra varios principios y derechos, relacionados con la libertad empresarial y la protección de los derechos del consumidor. Con la puesta en marcha de dicha disposición constitucional, se pretende evitar el ejercicio de una posición dominante, o prácticas monopólicas que impidan una competencia efectiva. El ejercicio de dicho poder, puede provocar la capacidad de eliminar o debilitar de forma importante la competencia existente, o impedir que competidores potenciales entren en el mercado. Este Tribunal Constitucional entiende que la decisión de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan activar en sus redes, aquellos equipos terminales que cuenten con el respectivo identificador de homologación, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas, supone una violación al principio constitucional de razonabilidad o proporcionalidad –por contravenir el subprincipio de “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del derecho de los consumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y servicios públicos de su interés.

V.- En cuanto al caso en concreto del teléfono BlackBerry. De los informes rendidos bajo juramento se extrae que el terminal que menciona el recurrente, sea un BlackBerry, el cual “es una solución inalámbrica líder que se soporta sobre el servicio de telefonía celular que permite a los usuarios permanecer conectados a su correo personal o empresarial” que permite la sincronización de correo electrónico, el envío y recepción de mensajería SMS y MMS, la navegación WEB, visualización de archivos adjuntos, utilizar su dispositivo como módem, utilizar su terminal como una agenda u organizador, utilizar mensajería instantánea e internet, por lo que los terminales de esta gama deben cumplir con una serie de pruebas establecidas en el procedimiento de homologación de terminales de telefonía móvil para comprobar su correcto funcionamiento. Como bien se mencionó anteriormente, el proceso de homologación resulta razonable, lo que no resulta razonable es el hecho de negar la activación de un modelo de Terminal que ya fue previamente homologado, y que por el hecho de no portar el sello de Sutil, al usuario se le niega la activación del mismo, a pesar de cumplir con todos los otros requisitos legales necesarios para su activación.

VI.- En conclusión. En razón de lo anterior, procede acoger parcialmente el amparo, únicamente respecto a la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones por su determinación de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan activar en sus redes aquellos aparatos o equipos terminales que cuenten con el respectivo identificador de homologación, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas (marca, modelo y versión de hardware, software, firmware y sistema operativo) que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. Respecto a los demás alegatos y la actuación del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad procede desestimar el amparo en estudio, por cuanto este se ha limitado a cumplir su obligación de ajustarse a las disposiciones emitidas por el ente regulador en materia de telecomunicaciones.”