Nullity of Article 3 of the Guidelines for the Exercise and Control of Institutional NotariesNulidad del artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional

“IIIo.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In this regard, this Tribunal considers the following: 1) Regarding the legal nature of the Dirección Nacional de Notariado and the regulatory powers granted to it by the Código Notarial. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of the Código Notarial, the Dirección Nacional de Notariado is a maximum deconcentration body attached to the Ministry of Justice and Peace, with administrative, budgetary, and functional autonomy. By reason of the foregoing, it has instrumental legal personality (personalidad jurídica instrumental) to carry out contractual activity, administer its resources, and its assets. For this reason, the Dirección Nacional de Notariado shall formulate its budget and submit it to the Contraloría General de la República and, subsequently, shall present the budget execution report to it. Said budget shall be constituted by the resources provided in the Código Notarial and shall not be subject to directives on economic or budgetary matters that limit its execution and operation in any way. Now then, the Dirección Nacional de Notariado shall be the governing body (órgano rector) of notarial activity and shall have exclusive competence to regulate all active public notaries. The body responsible for said functions of direction and issuance of policies and directives is the Consejo Superior Notarial, which is composed of five principal members. In that regard and with respect to what concerns the specific case, it is the responsibility of the Consejo Superior Notarial to issue guidelines and directives of mandatory compliance for the exercise of the notarial profession and all decisions relating to the organization, supervision, control, regulation, and adaptation of the Costa Rican notarial profession. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 22 of the Código Notarial, said guidelines, directives, and resolutions shall have executive force and must be published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta. At this point, it should be highlighted that, given the nature that the legislator granted to the regulations issued by the Consejo Superior Notarial of the Dirección Nacional de Notariado, the exercise of said power is subject to the limits provided in Articles 11 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; and the principles of legal reservation (reserva de ley), proportionality, and reasonableness. This implies that the Dirección Nacional de Notariado, in the exercise of said power, must respect the normative hierarchy; it may not innovate the legal system, which implies that it may not reform or repeal, through this means, higher-ranking norms or authentically interpret legal norms; therefore, it is unable to permit what the Law of the Constitution or the Law prohibits, to create new obligations, duties, or requirements, or to suppress rights in the norms subject to execution. This implies that it may not impose limitations on the recognition and exercise of fundamental rights, since their legal regime is reserved to law (reserva de ley); consequently, it may not establish penalties, nor impose levies, fees, fines, or other similar charges, as these aspects are also subject to legal reservation (reserva de ley). Otherwise, the norms issued by the Dirección Nacional de Notariado in contravention of the provisions of Articles 11 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; and the principles of legal reservation (reserva de ley), proportionality, and reasonableness, shall be –in principle– substantially contrary to the legal system. 2) Regarding the right to work and the principle of wage equality. Derived from the foregoing and attending to the object of the proceeding, it should be highlighted that Article 56 of the Constitución Política establishes that: \"Work is a right of the individual and an obligation to society. The State must ensure that everyone has honest and useful occupation, duly remunerated, and prevent conditions from being established based on it that in any way impair the freedom or dignity of man or degrade his work to the condition of a mere commodity. The State guarantees the right to free choice of work.\" For its part, Article 57 of the same regulatory body establishes that: \"Every worker shall have the right to a minimum wage, set periodically for a normal workday, which provides him with well-being and a dignified existence. The wage shall always be equal for equal work under identical conditions of efficiency…\"; which derives from the principle of equality and non-discrimination contained in numeral 33 of the Constitución Política, according to which: \"Every person is equal before the law and no discrimination contrary to human dignity may be made.\" In accordance with the transcribed norms, it follows that it is not enough for people to have a job, but that, in addition, it must possess certain essential characteristics ultimately determined by the constitutional principle of human dignity. From this perspective, work is one of the mechanisms through which people can access the minimum conditions that allow them to develop fully and in freedom, in all areas of human endeavor. That is why the activities they carry out must not be of such a nature as to imply a denial of their fundamental rights; quite the contrary, the right to work implies the opportunity to have access to honest and useful productive activities –as indicated by the Constituent Power– not only for themselves, but also for society. Said tasks must be provided under sanitary conditions that safeguard the life, safety, and physical integrity of the workers; they must be duly and timely remunerated in accordance with objective parameters applicable to all those who are in a similar condition –see the provisions of Article 57 of the Constitución Política–, since human beings, by the mere fact of being so, cannot be subjected to a relationship of servitude. All of the foregoing implies that even when the parties to a public or private employment relationship may agree on certain aspects of the essential elements cited above or on others derived from those relationships, the truth is that said conditions must be more beneficial than those established as a minimum by the Law of the Constitution and by infra-constitutional regulations –this always within the legal framework established by the principles of non-discrimination, reasonableness, and proportionality–, because otherwise, there would be not only discriminatory and therefore unreasonable treatment to the detriment of the persons performing the work or providing the service, but also, ultimately, the essential content of the fundamental right to work would be rendered nugatory, impairing the dignity inherent to every human being, by imposing unfavorable working conditions on them that prevent them from developing as persons, because they are unhealthy, unsafe, degrading, cruel, unpaid, or remunerated late or at amounts lower than those objectively established as a minimum by the legislator. In summary, the principle of human dignity –contained in Articles 33, 56, and 57 of the Constitución Política– has the virtue of permeating and consequently determining the limits and scope of fundamental rights in general, which cannot be ignored either by the entities or bodies exercising legislative or regulatory powers, or by the subjects of public or private law who, in the exercise of the principle of freedom of contract, are called upon to regulate employment relationships or service contracts (see in a similar sense, judgments number 798-08 of fifteen hours on October eighth, two thousand eight, and 671-09 of sixteen hours thirty minutes on April thirteenth, two thousand nine, both issued by the Sección Sexta of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda); 3) Generalities regarding the nature of the employment relationship, and the scope and limitations of the functions of Institutional or In-House Notaries, pursuant to the provisions of the Código Notarial and constitutional case law. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código Notarial, constitutional case law has considered in this regard that: \"…It is important (sic) to recall that the hiring of professional legal and notarial services by the Public Administration can be done through two channels: as servants of the institution through an employment contract whose remuneration will be a salary, and an economic compensation if an exclusive dedication contract is signed –an assumption which is of interest in this action–; and the hiring of legal professionals –lawyers and notaries– to provide these services externally, through an administrative contract for professional services. In the first assumption, an employment relationship of subordination of the professional to the institution is created, which is compensated through the payment of a stipend of a salary nature established in advance, which does not allow the servant any other remuneration for the services provided. Note that if the professional was hired in his capacity as lawyer and notary, he is responsible for the preparation and drafting of contracts, authentication of signatures, representation of the interests or cases of the institution for which he works in the courts of justice, drafting of public instruments (cartulación), registry studies, etc.; functions in which that of providing advice in the field of his specialty is implicit, that is, providing the technical counsel requested. It is for this reason that for these lawyers –the in-house ones–, the charging of fees for judicial proceedings they must attend to is inappropriate, given that these tasks generate absolutely no right to charge fees in favor of lawyers who are officials of the entity, since these are already compensated in their salary; if these fees were paid to them, these professionals would be receiving a salary and professional fees for the same work for which they were hired, which is clearly inappropriate and illogical. It can therefore be concluded that regardless of the name used in the descriptive manual –whether as advisor or as lawyer, or notary–, if the position includes as part of its functions attending to the processing of both executive and ordinary proceedings in which the public institution for which he works appears, the drafting of public deeds, formalization of credits, conducting registry studies, and other legal acts in which the institution participates and the acts of the public institution for which they work, it is evident that the professional could not receive fees, since those professional services are understood to be remunerated with the salary; for this reason it is necessary that the content of the obligations assumed by the hired servant be clearly specified, either in the employment contract or in the descriptive manual of positions…\" (see the digital version of judgment number 2000-444 of the Sala Constitucional, on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). A criterion that has been reiterated –among others– in judgment number 2003-5417 of fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on June twenty-fifth, two thousand three, through which and with regard to what concerns this case, it considered: \"…In conclusion, it is clear that notaries who work for and from the Administration may indeed receive a salary for the notarial activity they perform, since what is prohibited to them is to receive fees for said function, except for the exception relating to savings and loan funds that operate attached to the institution and that are not an ordinary activity of the employer entity. Likewise, in-house notaries are prohibited from the external exercise of the notarial profession whether because they receive payment for a prohibition on practicing or exclusive dedication or because there is a time overlap; however, this does not prevent them from performing acts or contracts in which the institution of which they form part is a party, provided they do not charge fees for it, since they are receiving a salary that covers the provision of their services. Consequently, by disregarding in the operative part of the challenged directive the existence of the salaried notary, the Law of the Constitution is evidently violated…\" (see the digital version of judgment number 2003-5417 of the Sala Constitucional, on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). Consequently, institutional notaries maintain a public employment relationship with the body or entity of the central or decentralized Public Administration that designates them based on the principles contained in Articles 192 et seq. of the Constitución Política, in order to serve in that class of positions. By reason of the foregoing, institutional notaries do not earn fees, with the exception contained in the final part of subsection b) of Article 7 of the Código Notarial, but rather receive a salary for the functions entrusted to them. Likewise, institutional notaries may perform the protocol or extra-protocol actions provided for in numeral 34 of the Código Notarial, with the exception of those that according to the legal system correspond to the Notaría del Estado, and with the sole condition that those protocol or extra-protocol actions are related to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and therefore, involve acts or contracts in \"…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…\" or in which \"…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…\", and do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts, as provided by numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 paragraph 2 of the Código Notarial. Finally, it should be noted that the Public Administrations have the competence, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Código Notarial, to decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be supplied by external notaries or by institutional notaries designated in accordance with the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 et seq. of the Constitución Política; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa; 163 paragraph 4 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. An example of this is the content of Article 173 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica (see the digital version of Ley 7558, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij) and the Reglamento para la Prestación de Servicios de Notarios Externos del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (pages 192 to 201 of the judicial file), which establish the parameters for the internal distribution of notarial work in the commercial banks of the State. For all of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 subsection b), 8 paragraph 2, and 34 of the Código Notarial; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, this Tribunal considers that the cited norms of the Código Notarial do not establish that certain protocol or extra-protocol acts or contracts among those provided for in Article 34 of that regulatory body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; a reason for which, and a contrario sensu, they also do not limit or circumscribe the exercise of the protocol or extra-protocol actions that institutional notaries may perform, with the exception of those that must be granted by the Notaría del Estado and with the sole condition that those protocol or extra-protocol actions are related to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and therefore, involve acts or contracts in \"…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…\" or in which \"…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…\", and do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 4) Regarding the criteria expressed on the subject by the Procuraduría General de la República and the scope of the parameters that the opinions issued by it contain on the matter. In that sense, it should be noted that through Opinion number C-016-2007 of January twenty-ninth, two thousand seven, the Procuraduría General de la República, in response to a request for clarification of several aspects of Opinion C-477-2006 raised by the Dirección Nacional de Notariado through official letter 1163-DNN-2006 of December twenty-second, two thousand six, concluded –with respect to what concerns this case– that: \"…4. In application of the principles that inform and govern the regime of Fundamental Rights, it corresponds to the legislator to establish the conditions and requirements for a person to exercise the notarial profession in the country (…) 16. The Código Notarial does not prohibit an in-house notary from performing legal advocacy tasks for the Administration that employs him. That is, the notary may be a lawyer-notary of the employing entity, a decision that falls within the purview of the administrative organization. 17. The in-house notary may perform the notarial activity of interest to the Administration with which he works. However, this scope is limited by the competence of the Notaría del Estado. 18. Consequently, the in-house notary may perform extra-protocol acts, as well as protocol documents other than the public deeds that must be formalized by the Notaría del Estado (…) 20. It falls outside the scope of the Notaría del Estado to execute the deeds concerning the ordinary activity, particularly the credit activity, of the decentralized Public Administration and public companies. These deeds may be executed by the in-house notary, on the understanding that he is prohibited from charging fees…\" (see pages 127 to 155 of the judicial file). A criterion it reiterated in Opinion number C-026-2008 of January thirtieth, two thousand eight, through which the Procuraduría General de la República addressed the consultation raised by the Banks of Costa Rica, Nacional de Costa Rica, Bancrédito, and Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, regarding whether resolution number 1159-2007 issued by the Dirección Nacional de Notariado on August thirty-first, two thousand seven, restricted the professional practice of institutional notaries, limiting them to certain acts and contracts, which in their judgment would prevent their services from being used in the ordinary activity proper to the consulting banking entities. In that sense, the Procuraduría General de la República concluded –with respect to what concerns us– that: \"…5. When providing for notarial acts, the Código Notarial does not circumscribe their execution to a specific type of notarial practice, verbi gratia the external notary. From its provisions, it is not possible to conclude that an in-house notary appointed within the framework established by the Code itself has their notarial practice restricted to certain acts among those provided for by the Code. That is, that there are notarial actions that can only be authorized by external notaries. 6. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the Code limits the actions that in-house notaries of public banks can perform regarding the notarial services required by the entity with which they work. In that sense, a prohibition cannot be extracted from Articles 7 and 8 for in-house notaries of public banks from participating in the formalization of contracts that develop the bank's ordinary activity, within which all credit operations are found. What the in-house notary is prohibited from doing is the private exercise of the notarial function and the receipt of fees (…) 7. It is an essential part of the normal and ordinary operation of a banking entity, including public banks, the execution of credit operations. Therefore, by prohibiting the authorization of credit deeds proper to the bank's ordinary activity, the Dirección Nacional de Notariado disregards the object of Article 7, subsection b) of the Código Notarial…\" (pages 102 to 126 of the judicial file). Now then, at this point it should be highlighted that in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República, the opinions and pronouncements issued by the Procuraduría General constitute administrative jurisprudence, and are of mandatory compliance for the Public Administration. Consequently, even though the norms or aspects consulted by the Dirección Nacional de Notariado or by the State Commercial Banks do not refer to the provision contained in Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional that is challenged here; it is also true that in the aforementioned opinions, a series of parameters or general guidelines are established regarding both the public nature of the employment relationship of institutional notaries and the scope and limitations of their functions, which find their basis not only in the Código Notarial itself but also in the case law of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia. Parameters or general guidelines that are consequently binding and of mandatory compliance for the Dirección Nacional de Notariado, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 11 of the Constitución Política; 6 and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; and 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 5) Brief considerations on the scope of the ordinary activity of the commercial banks of the State and its impact on the protocol or extra-protocol acts that their institutional notaries may perform. In accordance with the provisions of Article 116 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, only public or private entities, expressly authorized by law to do so, may carry out financial intermediation in the country, upon prior compliance with the requirements established by the respective law and prior authorization from the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, when the legal requirements are met. It should be remembered that financial intermediation is understood as the raising of financial resources from the public, on a regular basis, for the purpose of allocating them, at the account and risk of the intermediary, to any form of credit or investment in securities, regardless of the contractual or legal figure used and the type of document, electronic record, or other analogous means in which the transactions are formalized. In that sense, the State Commercial Banks –see Article 1 of the Ley del Sistema Bancario Nacional– have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by numeral 61 of that same regulatory body, among which the following stand out –with respect to what concerns the specific case–: \"…1) To finance operations related to agricultural, livestock, and industrial production. 2) To finance national companies in the sectors of tourism services, transportation, and media. 3) For the financing of operations originating in the import, export, purchase, sale, or transportation of easily marketable products and merchandise. 4) To finance the storage of agricultural, livestock, or industrial products or import or export merchandise, provided that said products or merchandise are insured to the satisfaction of the Bank and are not luxury goods (…) 8) To carry out credit operations that are compatible with the technical nature of commercial banks and that are not expressly prohibited by law…\". Said purposes respond ultimately to the essential functions entrusted by the legislator to the banking entities of the State, in subsection 4) of Article 3 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, regarding \"…Preventing that there are inactive means of production in the country, seeking out the producer to place at their service the economic and technical means available to the System…\". By reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal shares the criterion expressed by the State Representative, in the sense that \"…the granting of credit, as an essential operation of financial intermediation, is part of the ordinary activity proper to the consulting banks. That credit operation is not referred to the actual transfer of property over the money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather, by credit operation must be considered the business that empowers the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of endorsements and guarantees…\" (page 119 of the judicial file). Now then, given that the State Commercial Banks have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by numeral 61 of that same regulatory body, it is that paragraph 5 of Article 173 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica establishes that \"…Financial entities of public law, regulated by the Superintendencia, that use the services of more than one public notary, whether in-house or external, shall establish a single \"rol\" for all deeds in which that entity appears as creditor. Said \"rol\" must be fulfilled permanently and in strict order, in order to guarantee an equitable and fair assignment of notarial tasks…\". Said norm is consistent with the provisions of the Código Notarial and in constitutional case law, in the sense that institutional notaries may perform the protocol or extra-protocol actions provided for in numeral 34 of the Código Notarial, with the exception of those that according to the legal system correspond to the Notaría del Estado, and with the sole condition that those protocol or extra-protocol actions are related to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and therefore, involve –in this case– financial intermediation actions in \"…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…\" or in which \"…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…\", and do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts, as provided by numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 paragraph 2 of the Código Notarial. It should be noted that this was the intention of the legislator who enacted the Código Notarial, as can be inferred from the legislative discussion of the original draft of that regulatory body, processed under file number 10.102, in which it was indicated –with respect to what concerns this case– that: \"…such is the good faith of the drafting committee, that for example, in Article 9 we establish the possibility for the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies incorporated as corporations to appoint external notaries, so to speak, of the Sistema Bancario Nacional. Whom is that going to benefit?

… The intention of ours in this provision is that the Banco Nacional have a body of fifty notaries on a fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to lower the cost for the client, for the farmer who comes to the Banco Nacional to mortgage his farm so that it finances his rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of his deed is lowered perhaps by more than 1%. It would be appropriate here to suggest that this last paragraph, stating that the fees belong to the institution, be eliminated, because it would have no reason to exist, especially when they are matters of the bank…” (see folios 117, 121, 122, and 149 of the court file). For all the foregoing reasons, this Court considers that Article 173, paragraph 5 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; Article 7, subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código Notarial, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts, as provided for in Article 34 of the Código Notarial, are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the state commercial banks from carrying out protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the diverse purposes established by numeral 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, with the exception of those that must be granted by the Notaría del Estado, provided they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 6) Regarding the substantial violation of the legal order of the provisions of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional issued by the Consejo Superior Notarial. It has been proven that in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, the “Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional” issued by the Consejo Superior Notarial was published, in session number 27 held on October 6, 2010, which, in its Article 3, provides: “…Article 3.- External Notary. In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the external notaries of the institution. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the ‘roster’ referred to in Article 173 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica Nº 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Instruments that must be authorized by the Notaría del Estado are excluded from this provision…” (folio 101 of the court file). This norm has the effect of repealing Articles 25 through 30 of the Lineamientos para el Ejercicio y Control del servicio Notarial, published in the Boletín Judicial number 99 of May 24, 2007 (see Article 10 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control de Notario Institucional, visible at folio 101 of the court file). It should be noted that –in what is relevant– Articles 25, 26, and 28 established that: “…Article 25. Concept. Notary authorized to provide service solely for the State, with fixed remuneration, exclusive dedication, and subject to the public employment regime. It is subject to control, publicity, requirements, prohibitions, impediments, and disciplinary regime (…) // Article 26. Prohibitions, impediments, and limitations. The institutional notary is obligated to provide the service, both protocolary and extra-protocolary, from a public office, with the obligation to exercise the notarial profession privately and to charge fees to the State, authorizing acts adjusted to these guidelines and referred exclusively to the Institution for which they work. // Article 28. Requirements. To be authorized as an institutional notary, the notary, in addition to meeting the requirements and criteria established by Law, must comply with the following provisions: a. Indicate the functions of the position held in the Public Administration. b. Verify the existence or non-existence of savings and loan schemes attached to the public institution that do not correspond to its ordinary function. c. Describe their functions as an institutional notary according to the job manual, as well as the items of exclusive dedication or prohibition, which must be certified by the corresponding authority (…) f. Establish the type of acts or contracts in which the institution for which they work participates. g. Identify the specialized advisory functions required by the Institution…” (folios 66 to 100 of the court file). These norms –currently repealed– had, in turn, as an antecedent resolution number 1817-2003 of 3:00 p.m. on September 24, 2003, by which the Dirección Nacional de Notariado –in what is relevant– provided: “…In accordance with what was resolved by the Sala Constitucional in votes 00-444 and 03-5417 of January 12, 2000, and June 25, 2003, respectively, it is provided: (…) 2) The applicant who is authorized to practice under the figure of ‘Staff Notary’, will be governed under the following conditions: a) May perform protocolary and extra-protocolary notarial acts solely for the Institution in which they work, b) without the right to charge fees, c) may only charge fees to private individuals when it involves the formalization of deeds related to the savings and loan funds operating attached to the institution and that do not correspond to the ordinary activity of the employing entity, d) if receiving payment for prohibition or exclusive dedication, or if the schedule and workday generate a time overlap, the external exercise of the notarial profession will not be authorized…” (folios 58 to 65 of the court file). It should be noted that both resolution number 1817-2003 and Articles 25, 26, and 28 of the Lineamientos para el Ejercicio y Control del Servicio Notarial were consistent with applicable legislation; constitutional jurisprudence and binding opinions of the Procuraduría General de la República, regarding that numerals 173, paragraph 5 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; Article 7, subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código Notarial, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts as provided for in numeral 34 of that normative body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the state commercial banks from carrying out protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the diverse purposes established by numeral 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, with the exception of those that must be granted by the Notaría del Estado, and provided they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. However, the foregoing, Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional substantially contravenes the provisions of Articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59 subsection 1), and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código de Notariado; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa; 116 and 173 paragraph 5 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; Articles 1, 3 subsection 4), and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional; 163 paragraph 5 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, since by establishing that “In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the external notaries of the institution. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the ‘roster’ referred to in Article 173 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica Nº 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Instruments that must be authorized by the Notaría del Estado are excluded from this provision…” (folio 101 of the court file); it imposes an illegitimate, unreasonable, and disproportionate restriction, both on the enjoyment of the right to work of institutional notaries, and on the exercise of the competence granted to Public Administrations by numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Código Notarial, to decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be provided by external notaries or by institutional notaries designated according to the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Constitución Política; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa and 163 paragraph 4 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. In that sense, the challenged norm circumscribes the activity of institutional notaries to those acts or contracts in which the organ or entity with which they maintain a public employment relationship must directly appear as a party, with the exception of those that must be granted by the Notaría del Estado. Now then, contrary to what the Dirección Nacional de Notariado maintains, the challenged norm does not complement the provisions of Articles 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Código de Notariado, but rather imposes a requirement not contemplated in said provisions, since, as already analyzed supra, numerals 173, paragraph 5 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código Notarial, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts provided for in Article 34 of the Código Notarial are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the state commercial banks from carrying out protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the diverse purposes established by numeral 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, with the exception of those that must be granted by the Notaría del Estado, provided they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. Consequently, imposing by regulatory means a requirement that the law does not establish for institutional notaries to exercise the functions entrusted to them by the aforementioned norms implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve in matters of fundamental rights, as it limits the exercise of the right to work of institutional notaries by regulatory means, when the law itself merely limits itself to indicating that institutional notaries may perform the protocolary or extra-protocolary actions provided for in numeral 34 of the Código Notarial, with the exception of those that, according to the legal order, fall under the competence of the Notaría del Estado, and with the sole condition that those protocolary or extra-protocolary actions be related to the ordinary activity of the organ or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship –provided they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts– and therefore, be –in this case– actions of financial intermediation in “…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as parties…” or in which “…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are parties…” (numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 paragraph 2 of the Código Notarial). Said limitation is also unreasonable and disproportionate, not only to the purpose sought by the legislator when issuing Articles 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código de Notariado, but also to the very nature of financial intermediation, which constitutes the ordinary activity of the State Commercial Banks, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 1, 43 subsection 4, and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 116 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica. In that sense, it is worth remembering –as indicated supra– that the intention of the legislator who enacted the Código Notarial was that: “… so much so is the good faith of the drafting committee, that for example, in Article 9 we establish the possibility for the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies titled as corporations to appoint external notaries, so to speak, of the Sistema Bancario Nacional. Who will that benefit? The bank's client, the institution's client (…) The intention of ours in this provision is that the Banco Nacional have a body of fifty notaries on a fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to lower the cost for the client, for the farmer who comes to the Banco Nacional to mortgage his farm so that it finances his rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of his deed is lowered perhaps by more than 1%. It would be appropriate here to suggest that this last paragraph, stating that the fees belong to the institution, be eliminated, because it would have no reason to exist, especially when they are matters of the bank…” (see folios 117, 121, 122, and 149 of the court file). Likewise, it must be kept in mind that, as the ordinary activity of the State Commercial Banks is to execute credit operations and make investments for the diverse purposes established by numeral 61 of that same normative body, “…the granting of credit (...) is not referred to the actual transfer of ownership over money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather a credit operation must be considered the business that empowers the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of endorsements and guarantees…” (folio 119 of the court file). By virtue of the foregoing, it is unreasonable and disproportionate that the exercise of institutional notaries –in this case, of the state commercial banks– is limited solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party; since precisely what the legislator intended was that the state commercial banks appoint institutional notaries, so that they would be responsible –among other aspects– for authorizing the protocolary or extra-protocolary acts related to the ordinary financial intermediation activity of said banking institutions, in order to facilitate the access of the productive sector to credit sources (Article 3, subsection 4 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), given that they would not have to pay fees for the acts related to said credit operations. The foregoing also affects the effective exercise of the competence granted by the legislator through Articles 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Código Notarial, so that Public Administrations may decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be provided by external notaries or by institutional notaries designated according to the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Constitución Política; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa and 163, paragraph 4 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; this, inasmuch as the provision in Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notario Institucional implies a limitation on the exercise of the competence granted for this purpose by Articles 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Código Notarial, through a norm of lower rank, insofar as it limits the exercise of institutional notaries –in this case, of the state commercial banks– solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party, which is substantially inconsistent with the provisions of numeral 59, subsection 1) of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. 7) Corollary. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court declares: a) The Absolute Nullity of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, issued by the Consejo Superior Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, 2010, for being substantially contrary to the legal order, specifically to the provisions of Articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59 subsection 1), 158 subsection 2), and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código de Notariado; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa; 116 and 173 paragraph 5 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; Articles 1, 3 subsection 4), and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional; 163 paragraph 5 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; b) In accordance with numeral 130, subsection 3) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the declaration of absolute nullity due to substantial inconsistency with the legal order of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, issued by the Consejo Superior Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, 2010, has erga omnes effect, all without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations; c) In order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty or a serious dislocation in the operation of the Public Administrations that have institutional or external notaries for the authorization of protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts related to the exercise of their ordinary activity, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of Article 131 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, to dimension the effects of the partial declaration of absolute nullity of resolution D.R.L. 035-2009, in the following manner: i) All acts, actions, or protocolary or extra-protocolary contracts that have been or are to be authorized by the external notaries who provide services to the public entities or organs that have contracted them for this purpose, under the protection of the annulled norm, are maintained, during the period between the date on which Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, came into effect –namely: November 2, 2010–, and until the publication of the operative part of this judgment; ii) In the case of the institutional notaries of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica who appear as the plaintiff party in this proceeding, the effects of this judgment will come into effect as of the date it becomes final; d) Once this judgment is final and in application of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, publish in this specific case only a summary of its operative part in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta, at the expense of the Dirección Nacional de Notariado.” Conversely, the rules issued by the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado) in contravention of the provisions of articles 11 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); 6, 11, 19, and 124 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); and the principles of legal reserve, proportionality, and reasonableness, will—in principle—be substantially contrary to the legal system. 2) Regarding the right to work and the principle of equal pay. Deriving from the foregoing and attending to the object of the process, it should be noted that article 56 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) establishes that: "Work is a right of the individual and an obligation to society. The State must strive to ensure that everyone has honest and useful occupation, duly remunerated, and to prevent that on account of it conditions are established that in any way undermine the freedom or dignity of man or degrade his work to the condition of a simple commodity. The State guarantees the right to free choice of work." For its part, article 57 of the same normative body establishes that: "Every worker shall have the right to a minimum wage, fixed periodically for a normal workday, which provides them with well-being and a dignified existence. The wage shall always be equal for equal work under identical conditions of efficiency…"; which derives from the principle of equality and non-discrimination contained in numeral 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), according to which: "Every person is equal before the law and no discrimination contrary to human dignity shall be made." In accordance with the transcribed rules, it follows that it is not enough for people to have a job; rather, it must possess certain essential characteristics ultimately determined by the constitutional principle of human dignity. From this perspective, work is one of the mechanisms through which people can access the minimum conditions that allow them to develop fully and freely in all areas of human endeavor. It is for this reason that the activities they perform must not be of such a nature as to imply a denial of their fundamental rights; quite the opposite, the right to work implies the opportunity to have access to honest and useful productive activities—as the Constitutional Assembly points out—not only for themselves but also for society. Said tasks must be performed under sanitary conditions that safeguard the life, safety, and physical integrity of the workers; they must be duly and timely remunerated in accordance with objective parameters applicable to all those who are in a similar condition—see the provisions of article 57 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política)—since human beings, by the mere fact of being so, cannot be subjected to a relationship of servitude. All the foregoing implies that even though the parties to a public or private employment relationship may agree on certain aspects of the essential elements cited above or on others derived from those relationships, the truth is that such conditions must be more beneficial than those established as a minimum by Constitutional Law and by infra-constitutional regulations—always within the legal framework established by the principles of non-discrimination, reasonableness, and proportionality—otherwise, it would not only result in discriminatory and therefore unreasonable treatment to the detriment of the persons performing the work or providing the service, but definitively, the essential content of the fundamental right to work would be rendered nugatory, undermining the dignity inherent to every human being, by imposing unfavorable working conditions that prevent them from developing as persons, because they are unhealthy, unsafe, degrading, cruel, unpaid, or remunerated late or in amounts lower than those objectively established as a minimum by the legislator. In summary, the principle of human dignity—contained in articles 33, 56, and 57 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política)—has the virtue of permeating and consequently determining the limits and scope of fundamental rights in general, which cannot be disregarded either by the entities or bodies exercising legislative or regulatory powers, or by public or private legal persons who, in the exercise of the principle of freedom of contract, are called upon to regulate employment relationships or service contracts (see in a similar vein, judgments number 798-08 of fifteen hours on the eighth of October two thousand eight and 671-09 of sixteen hours thirty minutes on the thirteenth of April two thousand nine, both issued by the Sixth Section of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal); 3) General considerations regarding the nature of the employment relationship, and the scope and limitations of the functions of Institutional or In-house Notaries (Notarios Institucionales), in accordance with the provisions of the Notarial Code and constitutional jurisprudence. In accordance with the provisions of articles 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, constitutional jurisprudence has considered in this regard that: “…It is important (sic) to recall that the contracting of professional legal and notarial services by the Public Administration can be done in two ways: as servants of the institution through an employment contract whose remuneration will be a salary, and an economic compensation if a full exclusivity contract is signed—an assumption which is the one of interest in this action—; and the contracting of legal professionals—lawyers and notaries—to provide these services externally, through an administrative professional services contract. In the first assumption, a labor relationship is created, of subordination of the professional to the institution, which is compensated through the payment of a stipend of a salary nature established in advance, which does not allow the servant any other remuneration for the services provided. Note that if the professional was hired in their capacity as lawyer and notary, they are responsible for the preparation and drafting of contracts, authentication of signatures, the representation of the interests or causes of the institution for which they work in the courts of justice, the issuance of public instruments (cartulación), registry studies, etc.; functions in which the provision of advice in their field of specialty is implicit, that is, to provide the technical counsel requested. It is for this reason that for these lawyers—the in-house ones—the collection of fees for the judicial processes they must attend to is inappropriate, given that these tasks absolutely do not generate any right to collect fees in favor of the lawyers who are officials of the entity, since they are already compensated in their salary; if these fees were paid to them, these professionals would be receiving a salary and professional fees for the same work for which they were hired, which is clearly inappropriate and illogical. It must therefore be concluded that, regardless of the denomination used in the descriptive manual—whether as advisor or as lawyer, or notary—if the position has as part of its functions attending to the processing of both executive and ordinary processes in which the public institution for which they work appears, the drafting of public instruments (escrituras públicas), formalization of credits, conducting registry studies and other legal acts in which the institution participates, it is evident that the professional could not receive the fees, because those professional services are understood to be remunerated by the salary; for this reason, it is necessary that the content of the obligations assumed by the hired servant be clearly specified, be it in the employment contract or in the descriptive manual of positions…” (see the digital version of judgment number 2000-444 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). This criterion has been reiterated—among others—in judgment number 2003-5417 of fourteen hours and forty-eight minutes on the twenty-fifth of June two thousand three, through which and concerning what is relevant for this case, it considered: “…In conclusion, it is clear that notaries who work for and from the Administration can receive a salary for the notarial activity they perform, since what is prohibited to them is receiving fees for said function, except for the exception relating to the savings and loan funds that operate attached to the institution and that are not the ordinary activity of the employing entity. Likewise, in-house notaries are prohibited from the external practice of the notarial profession either because they receive a prohibition or full exclusivity payment or because there is a schedule overlap; however, this does not prevent them from performing acts or contracts in which the institution of which they are a part is a party, provided they do not charge fees for it, as they are receiving a salary that covers the provision of their services. Consequently, by disregarding in the operative part of the challenged directive the existence of the salaried notary, the Constitutional Law is evidently violated…” (see the digital version of judgment number 2003-5417 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). Consequently, institutional notaries maintain a public employment relationship with the central or decentralized body or entity of the Public Administration that appoints them, based on the principles contained in articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), in order to perform in that class of positions. By reason of the foregoing, institutional notaries do not earn fees, with the exception contained in the final part of subsection b) of article 7 of the Notarial Code, but rather receive a salary for the functions entrusted to them. Likewise, institutional notaries may perform the notarial acts within or outside the protocol (actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares) provided for in numeral 34 of the Notarial Code, except for those that according to the legal system are the responsibility of the State Notary's Office (Notaría del Estado), and with the sole condition that these acts within or outside the protocol are related to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and, therefore, involve acts or contracts in "…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…" or in which "…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…", and that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts, as provided by numerals 7 subsection b) and 8, paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code. Finally, it should be noted that the Public Administrations have the competence, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, to decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be supplied by external notaries or by institutional notaries appointed according to the rules of public employment, contained in articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 67 of the Law on Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa); 163, paragraph 4 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement. An example of this is the content of article 173 of the Organic Law (Ley Orgánica) of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (see the digital version of Law 7558 (Ley 7558), on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij) and the Regulation for the Provision of Services of External Notaries of the National Bank of Costa Rica (folios 192 to 201 of the judicial file), which establish the parameters for the internal distribution of notarial work in the state commercial banks. For all the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 7 subsection b), 8 paragraph 2, and 34 of the Notarial Code; 13 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this Tribunal considers that the cited rules of the Notarial Code do not establish that certain acts or contracts within or outside the protocol of those provided for in article 34 of that normative body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; a reason for which, a contrario sensu, they also do not limit or circumscribe the exercise of the acts within or outside the protocol that institutional notaries may perform, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary's Office (Notaría del Estado) and with the sole condition that these acts within or outside the protocol are related to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and, therefore, involve acts or contracts in "…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…" or in which "…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…", and that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 4) Regarding the opinions expressed on the subject by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and the scope of the parameters contained on the matter in the opinions issued by it. In that sense, it should be noted that through Opinion number C-016-2007 of the twenty-ninth of January two thousand seven, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), at the request for clarification of several aspects of Opinion C-477-2006, which was raised by the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado) through official letter 1163-DNN-2006 of the 22nd of December two thousand six, concluded—in what is relevant for this case—that: “… 4. In application of the principles that inform and govern the regime of Fundamental Rights, it is up to the legislator to establish the conditions and requirements so that a person may practice the notarial profession in the country (…) 16. The Notarial Code does not prohibit the in-house notary from performing legal work for the Administration that employs them. That is, the notary can be lawyer-notary of the employing entity, a decision that falls solely within the purview of the administrative organization. 17. The in-house notary can perform the notarial activity that is of interest to the Administration with which they work. However, that scope is limited by the jurisdiction of the State Notary's Office (Notaría del Estado). 18. Consequently, the in-house notary can perform extra-protocol acts (actos extraprotocolarios), as well as the protocol documents other than the public instruments (escrituras públicas) that must be formalized by the State Notary's Office (Notaría del Estado) (…) 20. Beyond the scope of the State Notary's Office (Notaría del Estado) is the execution of the deeds concerning the ordinary activity, particularly the credit activity, of the decentralized Public Administration and public enterprises. These deeds may be executed by the in-house notary, on the understanding that they are prohibited from charging fees…” (see folios 127 to 155 of the judicial file). This criterion was reiterated in Opinion number C-026-2008 of the 30th of January two thousand eight, through which the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) referred to the consultation raised by the Banks of Costa Rica, Nacional de Costa Rica, Bancrédito, and Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, regarding whether resolution number 1159-2007 issued by the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado) on the thirty-first of August two thousand seven restricted the professional practice of institutional notaries, limiting them to certain acts and contracts, which in their view would prevent their services from being used in the ordinary activity typical of the consulting banking entities. In that sense, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) concluded—in what is relevant—that: “…5. When providing for notarial acts, the Notarial Code does not circumscribe their execution to a specific type of notarial practice, verbi gratia the external notary. From its provisions, it is not possible to conclude that the in-house notary appointed within the framework established by the Code itself has their notarial practice restricted to certain acts of those provided for by the Code. That is, that there are notarial acts which can only be authorized by external notaries. 6. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the Code limits the acts that the in-house notaries of public banks can perform in relation to the notarial services required by the entity with which they work. In that sense, from articles 7 and 8, a prohibition cannot be extracted that prevents the in-house notaries of public banks from participating in the formalization of contracts that develop the bank's ordinary activity, within which all credit operations are found. What is prohibited to the in-house notary is the private exercise of the notarial function and the receipt of fees (…) 7. The realization of credit operations is an essential part of the normal and ordinary operation of a banking entity, including public banks. Therefore, by prohibiting the authorization of credit deeds typical of the bank's ordinary activity, the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado) disregards the purpose of article 7, subsection b) of the Notarial Code…” (folios 102 to 126 of the judicial file). Now, at this point, it should be highlighted that, in accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Organic Law (Ley Orgánica) of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), the opinions and pronouncements issued by the Office of the Attorney General constitute administrative jurisprudence, and are of mandatory compliance for the Public Administration. Consequently, even though the rules or aspects consulted by the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado) or by the State Commercial Banks do not refer to the provision contained in article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notarial Practice challenged herein; it is also true that, in the aforementioned opinions, a series of parameters or general lines are established regarding both the public nature of the employment relationship of institutional notaries and the scope and limitations of their functions, which find their basis not only in the Notarial Code itself but also in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice. Parameters or general lines that are consequently binding and of mandatory compliance for the National Directorate of Notariado (Dirección Nacional de Notariado), in accordance with the provisions of articles 11 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 6 and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 13 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional); and 2 of the Organic Law (Ley Orgánica) of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República); 5) Brief considerations on the scope of the ordinary activity of the state commercial banks and its incidence on the acts within or outside the protocol that their institutional notaries may perform. In accordance with the provisions of article 116 of the Organic Law (Ley Orgánica) of the Central Bank, only public or private entities expressly authorized by law to do so may carry out financial intermediation in the country, upon prior compliance with the requirements established by the respective law and prior authorization from the General Superintendency of Financial Entities (Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras), when the legal requirements are met. It should be recalled that financial intermediation is understood as the capture of financial resources from the public, on a regular basis, with the purpose of allocating them, at the account and risk of the intermediary, to any form of credit or investment in securities, regardless of the contractual or legal figure used and the type of document, electronic record, or other similar means in which the transactions are formalized.

In that regard, the State Commercial Banks – see Article 1 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System – have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by Section 61 of that same regulatory body, among which the following stand out – as relevant to the specific case: *“… 1) To finance operations related to agricultural, livestock, and industrial production. 2) To finance national companies providing tourism, transportation, and media services. 3) For the financing of operations originating in the import, export, purchase, sale, or transportation of products and readily realizable goods. 4) To finance the storage of agricultural, livestock, or industrial products or of import or export goods, provided that said products or goods are insured to the satisfaction of the Bank and are not luxury goods (…) 8) To carry out credit operations that are compatible with the technical nature of commercial banks and that are not expressly prohibited by law…”* These purposes ultimately respond to the essential functions entrusted by the legislator to the state banking entities, in subsection 4) of Article 3 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, regarding *“…Preventing the existence of idle means of production in the country, seeking out the producer to place at their service the economic and technical means available to the System…”*. By reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal shares the opinion expressed by the Representative of the State, to the effect that *“…the granting of credit, as an essential operation of financial intermediation, is part of the ordinary activity of the consulting banks. That credit operation is not referred to the real transfer of ownership over the money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather credit operation should be considered the transaction that entitles the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of endorsements and guarantees…”* *(folio 119 of the judicial expediente)*. Now, given that the State Commercial Banks have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by Section 61 of that same regulatory body, paragraph 5 of Article 173 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica establishes that *“…Public-law financial entities, regulated by the Superintendency, that use the services of more than one notary public, whether in-house or external, shall establish a single ‘roster’ for all deeds in which that entity appears as creditor. Said ‘roster’ must be followed permanently and by strict order, in order to guarantee an equitable and fair assignment of notarial tasks…”* This provision is consistent with what is set forth in the Notarial Code and in constitutional jurisprudence, in the sense that institutional notaries may perform the protocolary or extra-protocolary acts provided for in Section 34 of the Notarial Code, with the exception of those that, according to the legal system, fall under the jurisdiction of the State Notary’s Office, and with the sole condition that those protocolary or extra-protocolary acts are related to the ordinary activity of the organ or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and therefore, they involve – in this case – financial intermediation acts in *“…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…”* or in which *“…the State, its companies, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…”*, and do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts, as provided for in Sections 7(b) and 8, paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code. It is worth highlighting that this was the intention of the legislator who enacted the Notarial Code, as can be deduced from the legislative discussion of the original bill for that regulatory body, processed under expediente number 10.102, in which, it was stated – as relevant to this case – that: *“… the good faith of the drafting committee is such that, for example, in Article 9 we establish the possibility for the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies incorporated as corporations to appoint external notaries, so to speak, of the National Banking System. Who is that going to benefit? The bank’s client, the institution’s client (…) Our intention in this provision is for the National Bank to have a body of fifty notaries on a fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to reduce the cost for the client, for the farmer who goes to the National Bank to mortgage their farm so that it finances the rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of their deed is reduced perhaps by more than 1%…”* *(see folios 117, 121, 122 and 149 of the judicial expediente). For all the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal considers that Article 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; Sections 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in Section 34 of the Notarial Code are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary acts that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by Section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary’s Office, provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 6) Regarding the substantial violation of the legal system of the provisions in Article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notariate issued by the Superior Notarial Council.* It has been proven that in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, the “Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notariate” was published, issued by the Superior Notarial Council, in session number 27 held on October 6, 2010, which, in its Article 3, provides: *“…Article 3.- External Notary. In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the institution’s external notaries. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the ‘roster’ referred to in Article 173 of Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica No. 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Excluded from this provision are instruments that must be authorized by the State Notary’s Office…”* *(folio 101 of the judicial expediente).* This provision has the effect of repealing Articles 25 to 30 of the Guidelines for the Exercise and Control of the Notarial Service, published in Judicial Bulletin number 99 of May 24, 2007 *(see Article 10 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notary, visible on folio 101 of the judicial expediente)*. It should be emphasized that – as relevant – Articles 25, 26, and 28 established that: *“…Article 25. Concept. Notary authorized to provide services only for the State, with fixed remuneration, exclusive dedication, and subject to the public employment regime. They are subject to control, publicity, requirements, prohibitions, impediments, and disciplinary regime (…) // Article 26. Prohibitions, impediments, and limitations. The institutional notary is obliged to provide the service, protocolary and extra-protocolary, from a public office, with the obligation to practice notariate privately and to charge fees to the State, authorizing acts adjusted to these guidelines and referred exclusively to the Institution for which they work. // Article 28. Requirements. To be authorized as an institutional notary, the notary public, in addition to meeting the requirements and criteria established by Law, must comply with the following provisions: a. Indicate the functions of the position they hold in the Public Administration. b. Prove the existence or not of savings and loan regimes attached to the public institution that do not correspond to its ordinary function. c. Describe their functions as an institutional notary according to the position manual, as well as the items of exclusive dedication or prohibition, which must be certified by the corresponding authority (…) f. Establish the type of acts or contracts in which the institution for which they work participates. g. Identify the specialized advisory functions required by the Institution…”* *(folios 66 to 100 of the judicial expediente).* These provisions – currently repealed – had as their precedent resolution number 1817-2003 of three o’clock in the afternoon on September 24, 2003, through which the National Directorate of Notariate – as relevant – provided: *“…In accordance with what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in votes 00-444 and 03-5417 of January 12, 2000 and June 25, 2003, respectively, it is ordered: (…) 2) The applicant who is authorized to practice under the figure of ‘In-house Notary’, shall be governed by the following conditions: a) May perform protocolary and extra-protocolary notarial acts solely for the Institution in which they work, b) without the right to charge fees, c) may only charge fees to private parties, when it involves the formalization of deeds related to savings and loan funds that operate attached to the institution and that do not correspond to the ordinary activity of the employing entity, d) if they receive payment for prohibition or exclusive dedication, or the work schedule and working hours generate a schedule overlap, they will not be authorized for the external exercise of notariate…”* *(folios 58 to 65 of the judicial expediente).* It should be emphasized that both resolution number 1817-2003, and Articles 25, 26, and 28 of the Guidelines for the Exercise and Control of the Notarial Service, were consistent with the applicable legislation; the constitutional jurisprudence and the binding opinions of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, regarding the fact that Sections 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in Section 34 of that regulatory body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary acts that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by Section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary’s Office and provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. However, the foregoing, Article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notariate substantially contravenes the provisions of Articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Political Constitution; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, 59(1), and 124 of the General Law of Public Administration; 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction; 2 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; Sections 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code; 67 of the Law on Administrative Procurement; 116 and Article 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank; Articles 1, 3(4), and 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System; 163, paragraph 5 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement, since by establishing that *“In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the institution’s external notaries. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the ‘roster’ referred to in Article 173 of Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica No. 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Excluded from this provision are instruments that must be authorized by the State Notary’s Office…”* *(folio 101 of the judicial expediente); it imposes an illegitimate, unreasonable, and disproportionate restriction, both on the enjoyment of the right to work of institutional notaries, and on the exercise of the competence granted to Public Administrations by sections 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, to decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be supplied by external notaries or by institutional notaries* appointed in accordance with the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution; 67 of the Law on Administrative Procurement and 163, paragraph 4 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement. In that sense, the questioned provision circumscribes the activity of institutional notaries to those acts or contracts in which the organ or entity with which they maintain a public employment relationship must directly appear as a party, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary’s Office. Now, contrary to what the National Directorate of Notariate maintains, the questioned provision does not complement what is provided in Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, but rather imposes a requirement that is not contemplated in said provisions, since as has already been analyzed supra, Sections 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in Article 34 of the Notarial Code are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason and a contrario sensu, they also do not prohibit institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary acts that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by Section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary’s Office, provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. Consequently, imposing via regulation a requirement that the law does not establish for institutional notaries to exercise the functions entrusted to them by the aforementioned provisions, implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve in matters of fundamental rights, since it limits the exercise of the right to work of institutional notaries, by regulatory means, when the law itself is limited to indicating that institutional notaries may perform the protocolary or extra-protocolary acts provided for in Section 34 of the Notarial Code, with the exception of those that, according to the legal system, fall under the jurisdiction of the State Notary’s Office, and with the sole condition that those protocolary or extra-protocolary acts are related to the ordinary activity of the organ or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship – provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts – and therefore, they involve – in this case – financial intermediation acts in *“…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…”* or in which *“…the State, its companies, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…”* *(Sections 7(b) and 8, paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code). This limitation is also unreasonable and disproportionate, not only to the purpose sought by the legislator when enacting Articles 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, but also to the very nature of financial intermediation, which constitutes the ordinary activity of the State Commercial Banks*, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1, 43(4), and 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System and 116 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica. In that sense, it is worth recalling – as indicated supra – that the intention of the legislator who enacted the Notarial Code was that: *“… the good faith of the drafting committee is such that, for example, in Article 9 we establish the possibility for the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies incorporated as corporations to appoint external notaries, so to speak, of the National Banking System. Who is that going to benefit? The bank’s client, the institution’s client (…) Our intention in this provision is for the National Bank to have a body of fifty notaries on a fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to reduce the cost for the client, for the farmer who goes to the National Bank to mortgage their farm so that it finances the rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of their deed is reduced perhaps by more than 1%.* It would be appropriate here to suggest deleting that last paragraph stating that the fees belong to the institution, because it would have no reason to exist, especially when these are matters of the bank…” (see folios 117, 121, 122, and 149 of the judicial file). Likewise, it must be borne in mind that since the State Commercial Banks have as an ordinary activity the carrying out of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established in numeral 61 of that same regulatory body, “…the granting of credit (...) is not referable to the actual transfer of ownership of the money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather a credit operation must be considered the business that empowers the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of endorsements and guarantees…” (folio 119 of the judicial file). By virtue of the foregoing, it is unreasonable and disproportionate to limit the practice of institutional notaries —in this case, those of the state commercial banks— solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party; since precisely what the legislator intended was for the state commercial banks to appoint institutional notaries so that they would be responsible —among other aspects— for authorizing the formal or extra-formal acts related to the ordinary financial intermediation activity of said banking institutions, in order to facilitate the productive sector's access to sources of credit (Article 3, subsection 4 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), given that they would not have to pay fees for the acts related to said credit operations. The foregoing also affects the effective exercise of the competence granted by the legislator through Articles 7, subsection b), and 8 of the Código Notarial, so that the Public Administrations may decide whether the notary services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be supplied by external notaries or by institutional notaries designated according to the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Constitución Política; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa and 163, paragraph 4, of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; this is because the provisions of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notario Institucional imply a limitation on the exercise of the competence granted for that purpose by Articles 7, subsection b), and 8 of the Código Notarial, through a lower-ranking norm, insofar as it limits the practice of institutional notaries —in this case, those of the state commercial banks— solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party, which is substantially inconsistent with the provisions of numeral 59, subsection 1), of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

• 7)Corollary. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court declares: a) The Absolute Nullity of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, issued by the Consejo Superior de Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, 2010, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of Articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59 subsection 1), 158 subsection 2), and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Código de Notariado; 67 of the Ley de Contratación de Contratación Administrativa; 116 and 173, paragraph 5, of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; Articles 1, 3 subsection 4), and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional; 163, paragraph 5, of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; b) In accordance with numeral 130, subsection 3), of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the declaration of absolute nullity due to substantial inconsistency with the legal system of Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, issued by the Consejo Superior de Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, 2010, has erga omnes effect, all without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations; c) In order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty or a serious disruption in the functioning of the Public Administrations that have institutional or external notaries for the authorization of formal or extra-formal acts or contracts related to the exercise of their ordinary activity, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of Article 131 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, to shape the effects of the partial declaration of absolute nullity of resolution D.R.L. 035-2009, in the following manner: i) All acts, proceedings, or formal or extra-formal contracts that have been authorized or are to be authorized by the external notaries who provide services to the public entities or bodies that have contracted them for that purpose, under the protection of the annulled norm, during the period between the date on which Article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional entered into force, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010 —namely: November 2, 2010—, and until the publication of the operative part of this judgment, are maintained; ii) In the case of the institutional notaries of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica who appear as the plaintiff in this proceeding, the effects of this judgment shall enter into force as of the date it becomes final; d) Once this judgment is final and in application of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, in this specific case, only a summary of its operative part shall be published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the Dirección Nacional de Notariado.” Said budget shall be constituted by the resources provided in the Notarial Code and shall not be subject to economic or budgetary directives that limit its execution and operation in any way. Now then, the National Directorate of Notariado shall be the governing body of notarial activity and shall have exclusive competence to regulate all active public notaries. The body charged with said functions of direction and issuance of policies and guidelines is the Superior Notarial Council, which is composed of five permanent members. In that regard, and in what is relevant to the specific case, the Superior Notarial Council is responsible for issuing mandatory guidelines and directives for the practice of the notarial profession and all decisions relating to the organization, supervision, control, ordering, and adaptation of the Costa Rican notarial profession. Pursuant to Article 22 of the Notarial Code, said guidelines, directives, and resolutions shall have executive force and must be published in the official gazette La Gaceta. On this point, it should be noted that, given the nature that the legislator granted to the regulations issued by the Superior Notarial Council of the National Directorate of Notariado, the exercise of said power is subject to the limits set forth in Articles 11 of the Political Constitution; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, and 124 of the General Law of Public Administration; and the principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley), proportionality, and reasonableness. This implies that the National Directorate of Notariado, in exercising said power, must respect the normative hierarchy; it may not innovate the legal system, which implies that it may not, through this method, reform or repeal superior norms or authentically interpret legal norms; therefore, it is incapable of allowing what the Constitutional Law or the Law prohibit, or of creating new obligations, duties, or requirements, or suppressing rights in the norms subject to enforcement. This implies that it may not impose limitations on the recognition and exercise of fundamental rights, as their legal regime is reserved to the law; consequently, it may also not establish penalties, nor impose levies, fees, fines, or other similar charges, as these aspects are also subject to the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley). Otherwise, the norms issued by the National Directorate of Notariado in contravention of the provisions of Articles 11 of the Political Constitution; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, and 124 of the General Law of Public Administration; and the principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley), proportionality, and reasonableness, will be – in principle – substantially contrary to the legal system. 2) Regarding the right to work and the principle of equal pay. Derived from the foregoing and attending to the purpose of the proceeding, it should be emphasized that Article 56 of the Political Constitution establishes that: "Work is a right of the individual and an obligation to society. The State must strive to ensure that everyone has honest and useful occupation, duly remunerated, and prevent that, because of it, conditions are established which in any way impair the freedom or dignity of man or degrade his work to the condition of mere merchandise. The State guarantees the right to free choice of work." For its part, Article 57 of the same normative body establishes that: "Every worker shall have the right to a minimum wage, periodically fixed for a normal workday, that provides well-being and a dignified existence. The wage shall always be equal for equal work under identical conditions of efficiency…"; which derives from the principle of equality and non-discrimination contained in numeral 33 of the Political Constitution, according to which: "Every person is equal before the law and no discrimination contrary to human dignity may be made." In accordance with the transcribed norms, it follows that it is not enough for people to have a job, but rather, it must also possess certain essential characteristics that are ultimately determined by the constitutional principle of human dignity. From this perspective, work is one of the mechanisms through which people can access the minimum conditions that allow them to fully develop and in freedom, in all spheres of human endeavor. It is for this reason that the activities they perform must not be of such a nature that they imply a denial of their fundamental rights; quite the contrary, the right to work implies the opportunity to have access to honest and useful productive activities – as the Constitution-maker indicates – not only for themselves, but also for society. Said tasks must be provided under sanitary conditions that safeguard the life, safety, and physical integrity of the workers; they must be duly and timely remunerated in accordance with objective parameters applicable to all those who find themselves in a similar condition – see the provisions of Article 57 of the Political Constitution–, since human beings, by the mere fact of being so, cannot be subjected to a relationship of servitude. All of the foregoing implies that even though the parties to a public or private employment relationship may agree on certain aspects of the essential elements cited above or on others derived from those relationships, the truth is that said conditions must be more beneficial than those established as a minimum by Constitutional Law and by infra-constitutional regulations – always within the legal framework established by the principles of non-discrimination, reasonableness, and proportionality–, because otherwise, there would not only be discriminatory, and therefore unreasonable, treatment to the detriment of the persons performing the work or providing the service, but ultimately, the essential content of the fundamental right to work would be rendered nugatory, to the detriment of the dignity inherent to every human being, by imposing unfavorable working conditions on them that prevent them from developing as persons, because they are unhealthy, unsafe, degrading, cruel, unremunerated, or remunerated late or at amounts lower than those objectively established as a minimum by the legislator. In summary, the principle of human dignity – contained in Articles 33, 56, and 57 of the Political Constitution– has the virtue of permeating and, consequently, determining the limits and scope of fundamental rights in general, which cannot be disregarded either by the entities or bodies exercising legislative or regulatory powers, or by subjects of public or private law who, in exercise of the principle of freedom of contract, are called upon to regulate employment relationships or service contracts (see in a similar sense, rulings number 798-08 of fifteen hours on October eight, two thousand eight, and 671-09 of sixteen hours thirty minutes on April thirteen, two thousand nine, both issued by Section Six of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal); 3) Generalities regarding the nature of the employment relationship, and the scope and limitations of the functions of Institutional or Staff Notaries, in accordance with the provisions of the Notarial Code and constitutional jurisprudence. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 subsection b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, constitutional jurisprudence has considered in this regard that: "…It is important (sic) to remember that the contracting of professional legal and notarial services can be done by the Public Administration via two routes: as employees of the institution through a labor contract whose remuneration will be a salary, and an economic compensation if the contract of exclusive dedication is signed – which is the scenario of interest in this action–; and the contracting of legal professionals –lawyers and notaries– to provide these services externally, through an administrative contract for professional services. In the first case, a labor relationship is created, of subordination of the professional to the institution, which is compensated by the payment of a stipend of a salary nature established beforehand, which does not permit the employee any other remuneration for the services they provide. Note that if the professional was contracted in their capacity as lawyer and notary, they are responsible for the preparation and drafting of contracts, authentication of signatures, representation of the interests or causes of the institution for which they work in the courts of justice, granting deeds, registry studies, etc.; functions in which that of providing advice in their area of specialty is implicit, that is, providing the technical counsel requested of them. It is for this reason that for these lawyers – staff lawyers –, the charging of fees for the judicial processes they must attend is inappropriate, since these tasks absolutely do not generate any right to charge fees in favor of the lawyers who are officials of the entity, as these tasks are already compensated in their salary; if these fees were paid to them, these professionals would be receiving a salary and professional fees for the same work for which they were hired, which is clearly inappropriate and illogical. It can be concluded then, that regardless of the denomination used in the descriptive manual – whether as advisor or as lawyer, or notary –, if the position has as part of its functions the processing of both executory and ordinary proceedings in which the public institution for which they work appears, the drafting of public instruments, formalization of credits, carrying out registry studies, and other legal acts in which the institution participates, it is evident that the professional could not receive the fees, because those professional services are understood to be remunerated by their salary; therefore, it is necessary that the content of the obligations assumed by the contracted employee be clearly specified, whether in the labor contract or in the descriptive manual of positions…" (see the digital version of ruling number 2000-444 of the Constitutional Chamber, on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). A criterion that has been reiterated – among others – in ruling number 2003-5417 of fourteen hours and forty-eight minutes on June twenty-fifth, two thousand three, by which, and in what is relevant to this case, it considered: "…In conclusion, it is clear that notaries who work for and from the Administration may indeed receive a salary for the notarial activity they perform, since what they are prohibited from doing is receiving fees for said function, except for the exception related to savings and loan funds operating under the institution and which are not ordinary activity of the employing entity. Likewise, staff notaries are prohibited from the external practice of the notarial profession either because they receive payment for the prohibition or exclusive dedication, or because there is an overlap in schedules; however, this does not prevent them from performing acts or contracts in which the institution they belong to is a party, as long as they do not charge fees for it, since they are receiving a salary that covers the provision of their services. Consequently, by disregarding in the operative part of the challenged directive the existence of the salaried notary, the Constitutional Law is evidently violated…" (see the digital version of ruling number 2003-5417 of the Constitutional Chamber, on the website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). Consequently, institutional notaries maintain a public employment relationship with the body or entity of the centralized or decentralized Public Administration that appoints them based on the principles contained in Articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution, in order to perform in that class of positions. By reason of the foregoing, institutional notaries do not earn fees, with the exception contained in the final part of subsection b) of Article 7 of the Notarial Code, but rather they receive a salary for the functions entrusted to them. Likewise, institutional notaries may perform the protocol or extra-protocol actions provided for in numeral 34 of the Notarial Code, with the exception of those that, according to the legal system, are the responsibility of the State Notary, and with the sole condition that those protocol or extra-protocol actions relate to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and, therefore, involve acts or contracts in "…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…" or in which "…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…," and that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts, just as provided in numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code. Finally, it should be noted that Public Administrations have the competence, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 7 subsection b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, to decide whether the notarial services they require and which relate to their ordinary activity will be provided by external notaries or by institutional notaries appointed in accordance with the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution; 67 of the Law of Administrative Contracting; 163 paragraph 4 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Contracting. Proof of this is the content of Article 173 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (see the digital version of Law 7558, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij) and the Regulation for the Provision of Services of External Notaries of the National Bank of Costa Rica (folios 192 to 201 of the judicial case file), which establish the parameters for the internal distribution of notarial work in the state commercial banks. For all the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 subsection b), 8 paragraph 2, and 34 of the Notarial Code; 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this Tribunal considers that the cited norms of the Notarial Code do not establish that certain protocol or extra-protocol acts or contracts among those provided for in Article 34 of that normative body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; reason for which, and a contrario sensu, they also do not limit or circumscribe the exercise of the protocol or extra-protocol actions that institutional notaries may perform, except for those that must be granted by the State Notary and with the sole condition that those protocol or extra-protocol actions relate to the ordinary activity of the body or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and, therefore, involve acts or contracts in "…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…" or in which "…the State, its companies, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…", and that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 4) Regarding the criteria expressed on the subject by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic and the scope of the parameters contained on this matter in the opinions issued by it. In that sense, it should be noted that through Opinion number C-016-2007 of January twenty-ninth, two thousand seven, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, at the request for clarification of various aspects of Opinion C-477-2006, which was raised by the National Directorate of Notariado through official letter 1163-DNN-2006 of December twenty-second, two thousand six, concluded – in what is relevant to this case – that: "… 4. In application of the principles that inform and govern the regime of Fundamental Rights, it is up to the legislator to establish the conditions and requirements for a person to practice the notarial profession in the country (…) 16. The Notarial Code does not prohibit the staff notary from performing legal work for the Administration that employs them. That is, the notary can be a lawyer-notary of the employing entity, a decision that falls within the realm of administrative organization. 17. The staff notary may perform the notarial activity that concerns the Administration with which they work. However, that scope is limited by the competence of the State Notary. 18. Consequently, the staff notary may perform extra-protocol acts, as well as protocol documents other than the public instruments that must be formalized by the State Notary (…) 20. It falls outside the State Notary's scope to perform the instruments concerning the ordinary activity, particularly credit activity, of the decentralized Public Administration and public enterprises. These instruments may be carried out by the staff notary, on the understanding that they are prohibited from charging fees…" (see folios 127 to 155 of the judicial case file). A criterion it reiterated in Opinion number C-026-2008 of January thirtieth, two thousand eight, through which the Attorney General's Office of the Republic addressed the inquiry raised by the Banks of Costa Rica, Nacional de Costa Rica, Bancrédito, and Popular and Community Development, as to whether resolution number 1159-2007 issued by the National Directorate of Notariado on August thirty-first, two thousand seven, restricted the professional exercise of institutional notaries, limiting them to certain acts and contracts, which in their judgment would prevent their services from being used in the ordinary activity characteristic of the consulting banking entities. In that sense, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic concluded – in what is relevant – that: "…5. When providing for notarial acts, the Notarial Code does not circumscribe their execution to a determined type of notarial practice, verbi gratia the external notary. From its provisions, it is not possible to conclude that the staff notary appointed within the framework established by the Code itself has restricted their notarial practice to certain acts of those provided for by the Code. That is, that there exist notarial actions that can only be authorized by external notaries. 6. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the Code limits the actions that staff notaries of public banks may perform in order to provide the notarial services required by the entity with which they work. In that sense, from Articles 7 and 8, a prohibition cannot be extracted for staff notaries of public banks to participate in the formalization of contracts that develop the ordinary activity of the bank, within which are all credit operations. What is prohibited for the staff notary is the private practice of the notarial function and the receipt of fees (…) 7. It is an essential part of the normal and ordinary operation of a banking entity, including public banks, to carry out credit operations. Therefore, by prohibiting the authorization of credit instruments characteristic of the bank's ordinary activity, the National Directorate of Notariado disregards the object of Article 7, subsection b) of the Notarial Code…" (folios 102 to 126 of the judicial case file).

Now, at this point, it should be emphasized that in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the opinions and pronouncements issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic constitute administrative jurisprudence (jurisprudencia administrativa), and are of mandatory compliance for the Public Administration. Consequently, even though the rules or aspects consulted by the National Directorate of Notaries or by the State Commercial Banks do not refer to the provision contained in Article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notaries that is challenged here; it is also true that in the aforementioned opinions, a series of parameters or general lines are established regarding both the public nature of the employment relationship of institutional notaries, and the scope and limitations of their functions, which find their basis not only in the Notarial Code itself, but also in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. These parameters or general lines are therefore binding and of mandatory compliance for the National Directorate of Notaries, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 11 of the Political Constitution; 6 and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration; 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction; and 2 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; 5) Brief considerations on the scope of the ordinary activity of the State commercial banks and its impact on the protocolary or extra-protocolary acts that their institutional notaries may perform. In accordance with the provisions of Article 116 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, only public or private entities expressly authorized by law to do so may carry out financial intermediation in the country, upon prior fulfillment of the requirements established by the respective law and prior authorization of the General Superintendency of Financial Entities, when the legal requirements are met. It should be remembered that financial intermediation is understood as the habitual raising of financial resources from the public, for the purpose of allocating them, on the account and risk of the intermediary, to any form of credit or investment in securities, regardless of the contractual or legal figure used and the type of document, electronic record, or other analogous means in which the transactions are formalized. In this sense, the State Commercial Banks – see Article 1 of the Law of the National Banking System – have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by section 61 of that same regulatory body, among which the following stand out – in what is relevant to the specific case: “…1) To finance operations related to agricultural, livestock, and industrial production. 2) To finance national tourism services, transportation, and information media companies. 3) For the financing of operations originating in the import, export, purchase, sale, or transportation of easily realizable products and goods. 4) To finance the storage of agricultural, livestock, or industrial products or import or export goods, provided that such products or goods are insured to the satisfaction of the Bank and are not luxury goods (…) 8) To carry out credit operations that are compatible with the technical nature of commercial banks and that are not expressly prohibited by law…”. These purposes ultimately respond to the essential functions assigned by the legislator to the State banking entities, in subsection 4) of Article 3 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, namely: “…To prevent the existence of inactive means of production in the country, seeking out the producer to put at their service the economic and technical means available to the System…”. In view of the foregoing, this Court shares the criterion expressed by the Representative of the State, in the sense that “…the granting of credit, as an essential operation of financial intermediation, is part of the ordinary activity proper to the consulting banks. That credit operation is not referred to the real transfer of ownership over the money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather credit operation must be considered the business that empowers the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of guarantees and sureties (avales y garantías)…” (folio 119 of the judicial file). Now, given that the State Commercial Banks have as their ordinary activity the execution of credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by section 61 of that same regulatory body, paragraph 5 of Article 173 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica establishes that “…Financial entities of public law, regulated by the Superintendency, which use the services of more than one public notary, whether in-house or external, shall establish a single "roster" (rol) for all public deeds (escrituras) in which that entity appears as creditor. Said "roster" must be complied with permanently and in strict order, in order to guarantee an equitable and fair assignment of notarial tasks…”. This rule is consistent with what is provided in the Notarial Code and in constitutional jurisprudence, in the sense that institutional notaries may perform the protocolary or extra-protocolary actions provided for in section 34 of the Notarial Code, with the exception of those that, according to the legal system, fall under the jurisdiction of the State Notary's Office, and with the sole condition that those protocolary or extra-protocolary actions relate to the ordinary activity of the organ or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship and therefore, are – in this case – financial intermediation actions in “…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…” or in which “…the State, its companies, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…”, and do not charge fees (honorarios) for the authorization of said acts or contracts, as provided for in sections 7(b) and 8, paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code. It should be noted that this was the intention of the legislator who enacted the Notarial Code, as can be inferred from the legislative discussion of the original bill for that regulatory body, processed under file number 10,102, in which it was stated – in what is relevant to this case – that: “…such is the good faith of the drafting committee, that for example, in Article 9 we establish the possibility that the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies constituted as corporations (sociedades anónimas) may appoint external notaries, so to speak, of the National Banking System. Who will that benefit? The bank's client, the institution's client (…) Our intention in this provision is that the National Bank has a body of fifty notaries on a fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to lower the cost for the client, for the farmer who goes to the National Bank to mortgage their farm so that the bank finances the rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of their public deed (escritura) is perhaps reduced by more than 1%. It would be appropriate here to suggest eliminating that last paragraph stating that the fees belong to the institution, because it would make no sense, especially when these are matters of the bank…” (see folios 117, 121, 122, and 149 of the judicial file). For all the foregoing, this Court considers that Articles 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in Article 34 of the Notarial Code are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and conversely (a contrario sensu), they also do not prohibit the institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that carry out the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary's Office, provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts; 6) Regarding the substantial violation of the legal system by the provisions of Article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notaries issued by the Superior Notarial Council. It has been demonstrated that in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 212 of November 2, 2010, the “Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notaries” issued by the Superior Notarial Council was published, during session number 27 held on October 6, 2010, which, in Article 3, states: “…Article 3º- External Notary. In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the institution's external notaries. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the "roster" referred to in Article 173 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica No. 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Excluded from this provision are the instruments that must be authorized by the State Notary's Office…” (folio 101 of the judicial file). Said rule has the effect of repealing Articles 25 to 30 of the Guidelines for the Exercise and Control of Notarial Service, published in Judicial Bulletin number 99 of May 24, 2007 (see Article 10 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notaries, visible at folio 101 of the judicial file). It should be highlighted that – in what is relevant – Articles 25, 26, and 28 established that: “…Article 25. Concept. A notary authorized to provide service solely for the State, with fixed remuneration, exclusive dedication (dedicación exclusiva), and subject to the public employment regime. They are subject to control, publicity, requirements, prohibitions, impediments, and a disciplinary regime (…) // Article 26. Prohibitions, impediments, and limitations. The institutional notary is obliged to provide the service, protocolary and extra-protocolary, from a public office, with the obligation to practice notarial practice privately and charge fees to the State, authorizing acts adjusted to these guidelines and referred exclusively to the Institution for which they work. // Article 28. Requirements. To be authorized as an institutional notary, the attestor, in addition to having the requirements and criteria established by the Law, must comply with the following provisions: a. Indicate the functions of the position they hold in the Public Administration. b. Verify the existence or not of savings and loan regimes attached to the public institution that do not correspond to its ordinary function. c. Describe their functions as an institutional notary according to the job manual, as well as the items of exclusive dedication or prohibition, which must be certified by the corresponding authority (…) f. Establish the type of acts or contracts in which the institution for which they work participates. g. Identify the specialized advisory functions required by the Institution…” (folios 66 to 100 of the judicial file). These rules – currently repealed – had in turn as their antecedent Resolution number 1817-2003 at 3:00 p.m. on September 24, 2003, by means of which, the National Directorate of Notaries – in what is relevant – ordered: “…In adherence to what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in votes 00-444 and 03-5417 of January 12, 2000 and June 25, 2003, respectively, it is ordered: (…) 2) The applicant authorized to practice under the figure of "In-house Notary", shall be governed under the following conditions: a) May perform protocolary and extra-protocolary notarial acts solely for the Institution in which they work, b) without the right to charge fees, c) may only charge fees to private individuals when dealing with the formalization of public deeds (escrituras) related to the savings and loan funds that operate attached to the institution and that do not correspond to the ordinary activity of the employer entity, d) if they receive payment for prohibition (prohibición) or exclusive dedication, or if the schedule and workday generate a time overlap, they will not be authorized for the external practice of notarial law…” (folios 58 to 65 of the judicial file). It should be noted that both Resolution number 1817-2003 and Articles 25, 26, and 28 of the Guidelines for the Exercise and Control of Notarial Service were consistent with the applicable legislation, constitutional jurisprudence, and the binding opinions of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, regarding that sections 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in section 34 of that regulatory body are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and conversely, they also do not prohibit the institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that carry out the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary's Office, and provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. Notwithstanding the above, Article 3 of the Guideline for the Exercise and Control of Institutional Notaries substantially contravenes the provisions of Articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Political Constitution; 29.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 6, 11, 19, 59(1), and 124 of the General Law of Public Administration; 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction; 2 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code; 67 of the Law of Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa); 116 and 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank; Articles 1, 3(4), and 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System; 163, paragraph 5 of the Regulations to the Law of Administrative Procurement, because by establishing that "In those instruments where other acts are authorized in which their employer is not a direct party, these must be authorized by the institution's external notaries. If the institution has a roster of external notaries, the "roster" referred to in Article 173 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica No. 7558 of September 3, 1995, must be followed. Excluded from this provision are the instruments that must be authorized by the State Notary's Office..." (folio 101 of the judicial file); it imposes an illegitimate, unreasonable, and disproportionate restriction, both on the enjoyment of the right to work of institutional notaries, and on the exercise of the authority granted to Public Administrations by sections 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, to decide whether the notarial services they require and that relate to their ordinary activity will be supplied by external notaries or by institutional notaries appointed according to the rules of public employment, contained in Articles 192 and following of the Political Constitution; 67 of the Law of Administrative Procurement; and 163, paragraph 4 of the Regulations to the Law of Administrative Procurement. In this sense, the challenged rule circumscribes the activity of institutional notaries to those acts or contracts in which the organ or entity with which they maintain a public employment relationship must directly appear as a party, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary's Office. Now, contrary to what is maintained by the National Directorate of Notaries, the challenged rule does not complement the provisions of Articles 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, but rather imposes a requirement that is not contemplated in those provisions, since, as already analyzed above, sections 173, paragraph 5 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, do not establish that certain protocolary or extra-protocolary acts or contracts among those provided for in Article 34 of the Notarial Code are reserved for the exclusive exercise of external notaries; for which reason, and conversely, they also do not prohibit the institutional notaries of the State commercial banks from performing protocolary or extra-protocolary actions that carry out the ordinary activity of the bank, which consists of executing credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by section 61 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, with the exception of those that must be granted by the State Notary's Office, provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts. Consequently, to impose by regulation a requirement that the law does not establish for institutional notaries to exercise the functions entrusted to them by the aforementioned rules, implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley) in matters of fundamental rights, because it limits the exercise of the right to work of institutional notaries, by regulatory means, when the law itself merely indicates that institutional notaries may perform the protocolary or extra-protocolary actions provided for in section 34 of the Notarial Code, with the exception of those that, according to the legal system, fall under the jurisdiction of the State Notary's Office, and with the sole condition that those protocolary or extra-protocolary actions relate to the ordinary activity of the organ or entity with which they maintain the public employment relationship – provided that they do not charge fees for the authorization of said acts or contracts – and therefore, are – in this case – financial intermediation actions in “…where their employers or subsidiary companies appear as a party…” or in which “…the State, its companies, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions are a party…” (sections 7(b) and 8, paragraph 2 of the Notarial Code).

That limitation is also unreasonable and disproportionate, not only to the purpose pursued by the legislator when enacting articles 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code, but also to the very nature of financial intermediation, which constitutes the ordinary activity of the State Commercial Banks, as provided for in articles 1, 43(4), and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional and 116 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica. In this regard, it is worth recalling—as indicated supra—that the intention of the legislator who enacted the Notarial Code was that: “…so much so is the good faith of the drafting committee, that, for example, in article 9 we establish the possibility that the State, decentralized institutions, and public companies incorporated as corporations (sociedades anónimas) may appoint external notaries, so to speak, from the National Banking System. Who is that going to benefit? The bank client, the institution’s client (…) Our intention in this provision is that the Banco Nacional have a body of fifty notaries on fixed salary, so the client does not pay notary fees (…) The intention was to lower the cost for the client, for the farmer who comes to the Banco Nacional to mortgage his farm so that it finances the rice harvest. There, if the Bank has a salaried lawyer, the cost of the notary will be borne by the bank, and the cost of his deed is reduced perhaps by more than 1%. It should be suggested here that this last paragraph stating that the fees belong to the institution be eliminated, because it would have no reason to exist, especially when it involves matters of the bank…” (see folios 117, 121, 122, and 149 of the judicial file). Likewise, it must be borne in mind that since the ordinary activity of the State Commercial Banks is carrying out credit operations and making investments for the various purposes established by article 61 of that same regulatory body, “…the granting of credit (…) is not referred to the real transfer of ownership over the money, in the manner of a loan contract, but rather, credit operation must be considered the transaction that entitles the client to dispose of a sum of money, (sic) the granting of endorsements and guarantees…” (folio 119 of the judicial file). By virtue of the foregoing, it is unreasonable and disproportionate to limit the practice of institutional notaries—in this case, of the State commercial banks—solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party; since precisely what the legislator intended was that the State commercial banks appoint institutional notaries so that they would be responsible—among other aspects—for authorizing the protocolary or extraprotocolary acts related to the ordinary financial intermediation activity of said banking institutions, in order to facilitate the productive sector’s access to credit sources (article 3(4) of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), given that they would not have to pay fees for the acts related to said credit operations. The foregoing also affects the effective exercise of the competence granted by the legislator through articles 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, so that the Public Administrations may decide whether the notarial services they require and that are related to their ordinary activity will be provided by external notaries or by institutional notaries appointed in accordance with the rules of public employment, contained in articles 192 and following of the Constitución Política; 67 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, and 163, paragraph 4, of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; this is because the provisions of article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notario Institucional entail a limitation on the exercise of the competence granted for that purpose by articles 7(b) and 8 of the Notarial Code, through a lower-ranking norm, insofar as it limits the practice of institutional notaries—in this case, of the State commercial banks—solely to those acts or contracts in which their public employers must directly appear as a party, which is substantially inconsistent with the provisions of article 59(1) of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. 7) Corollary. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal declares: a) The Absolute Nullity of article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November second, two thousand ten, issued by the Consejo Superior de Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, two thousand ten, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of articles 11, 33, and 56 of the Constitución Política; 29.2 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59(1), 158(2), and 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 2 of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 7(b), 8, and 34 of the Notarial Code; 67 of the Ley de Contratación de Contratación Administrativa; 116 and 173, paragraph 5, of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; articles 1, 3(4), and 61 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional; 163, paragraph 5, of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; b) In accordance with article 130(3) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the declaration of absolute nullity for substantial inconsistency with the legal system of article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in the Diario Oficial la Gaceta number 212 of November second, two thousand ten, issued by the Consejo Superior de Notarial, in session number 27, held on October 6, two thousand ten, has erga omnes effect, all without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations; c) In order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty or a serious disruption in the functioning of the Public Administrations that have institutional or external notaries for the authorization of protocolary or extraprotocolary acts or contracts related to the exercise of their ordinary activity, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of article 131(3) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, to modulate the effects of the partial declaration of absolute nullity of resolution D.R.L. 035-2009, as follows: i) All acts, proceedings, or protocolary or extraprotocolary contracts that have been authorized or are to be authorized by external notaries providing services to the public entities or bodies that have contracted them for that purpose, under the annulled norm, are maintained, during the period between the date on which article 3 of the Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, published in Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 212 of November second, two thousand ten—namely, November second, 2010—entered into force and until the publication of the operative part of this judgment; ii) In the case of the institutional notaries of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica appearing as plaintiffs in this proceeding, the effects of this judgment shall enter into force as of the date it becomes final; d) Once this judgment is final, and in application of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, let only a summary of its operative part be published in this specific case in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta, at the expense of the Dirección Nacional de Notariado.”

“IIIo.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. En ese sentido, este Tribunal considera lo siguiente: 1) Respecto a la naturaleza jurídica de la Dirección Nacional de Notariado y de las potestades reglamentarias que le otorga el Código Notarial. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 21 del Código Notarial, la Dirección Nacional de Notariado es un órgano de desconcentración máxima adscrito al Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, con autonomía administrativa, presupuestaria y funcional. En razón de lo anterior, cuenta con personalidad jurídica instrumental para realizar actividad contractual, administrar sus recursos y su patrimonio. Es por ello, que la Dirección Nacional de Notariado formulará su presupuesto y lo remitirá a la Contraloría General de la República y, posteriormente, le presentará el informe de ejecución presupuestaria. Dicho presupuesto estará constituido por los recursos dispuestos en el Código Notarial y no estará sujeto a las directrices en materia económica o presupuestaria que limiten en alguna forma su ejecución y funcionamiento. Ahora bien, la Dirección Nacional de Notariado será el órgano rector de la actividad notarial y tendrá competencia exclusiva para regular a todos los notarios públicos activos. El órgano encargado de dichas funciones de dirección y emisión de políticas y directrices es el Consejo Superior Notarial, que está conformado por cinco personas propietarias. En ese sentido y en lo que interesa al caso concreto, a l Consejo Superior Notarial le compete emitir los lineamientos y las directrices de acatamiento obligatorio para el ejercicio del notariado y todas las decisiones relativas a la organización, supervisión, control, ordenamiento y adecuación del notariado costarricense. Conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 22 del Código Notarial, dichos lineamientos, directrices y resoluciones tendrán fuerza ejecutiva y deberán publicarse en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta. En este punto cabe resaltar que, dada la naturaleza que el legislador le otorgó a la normativa emitida por el Consejo Superior Notarial de la Dirección Nacional de Notariado, el ejercicio de dicha potestad se encuentra sometido a los límites previstos en los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política; 29.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19 y 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y a los principios de reserva de ley, proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. Ello implica que la Dirección Nacional de Notariado en el ejercicio de dicha potestad, deberá respetar la jerarquía normativa; no podrá innovar el ordenamiento jurídico, lo cual implica, que no podrá reformar o derogar por esa vía, normas superiores o interpretar auténticamente las normas legales, por lo que, está imposibilitada para permitir lo que el Derecho de la Constitución o la Ley prohíben, para crear obligaciones, deberes o requisitos nuevos o suprimir derechos en las normas objeto de ejecución. Ello implica que no podrá imponer limitaciones en el reconocimiento y ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales, pues su régimen jurídico está reservado a la ley; en consecuencia, tampoco podrá establecer penas, ni imponer exacciones, tasas, multas ni otras cargas similares, pues estos aspectos también son objeto de reserva de ley. En caso contrario, las normas que emita la Dirección Nacional de Notariado en contravención a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política; 29.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19 y 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y a los principios de reserva de ley, proporcionalidad y razonabilidad, resultarán –en principio- sustancialmente contrarias al ordenamiento jurídico. 2) En cuanto al derecho al trabajo y al principio de igualdad salarial. Derivado lo anterior y atendiendo al objeto del proceso, cabe resaltar que el artículo 56 de la Constitución Política, establece que: "El trabajo es un derecho del individuo y una obligación con la sociedad. El Estado debe procurar que todos tengan ocupación honesta y útil, debidamente remunerada, e impedir que por causa de ella se establezcan condiciones que en alguna forma menoscaben la libertad o la dignidad del hombre o degraden su trabajo a la condición de simple mercancía. El Estado garantiza el derecho de libre elección de trabajo". Por su parte, el artículo 57 del mismo cuerpo normativo, establece que: “Todo trabajador tendrá derecho a un salario mínimo, de fijación periódica por jornada norma, que le procure bienestar y existencia digna. El salario será siempre igual para trabajo igual en idénticas condiciones de eficiencia…”; lo cual deriva del principio de igualdad y no discriminación contenido en el numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, conforme al cual: "Toda persona es igual ante la ley y no podrá hacerse discriminación alguna contraria a la dignidad humana". De conformidad con las normas transcritas, se desprende que no basta con que las personas tengan un trabajo, sino que además, éste debe revestir ciertas características esenciales que en última instancia se encuentran determinadas por el principio constitucional de dignidad humana. Desde esta perspectiva, el trabajo es uno de los mecanismos, mediante los cuales, las personas pueden tener acceso a las condiciones mínimas que les permitan desarrollarse plenamente y en libertad, en todos los ámbitos del quehacer humano. Es por ello que las actividades que realicen no deben ser de tal naturaleza que impliquen una negación de sus derechos fundamentales, todo lo contrario, el derecho al trabajo implica la oportunidad de tener acceso a actividades productivas honestas y útiles -como lo indica el Constituyente- no sólo para sí mismos, sino también para la sociedad. Dichas labores deben prestarse en condiciones sanitarias que salvaguarden la vida, la seguridad y la integridad física de los trabajadores; deben ser debida y oportunamente remuneradas de conformidad con parámetros objetivos aplicables a todos aquellos que se encuentren en una condición similar -véase lo dispuesto por el artículo 57 de la Constitución Política-, puesto que los seres humanos por el hecho de serlo, no pueden estar sometidos a una relación de servidumbre. Todo lo anterior, implica que aún y cuando las partes de una relación de empleo público o privado, pueden convenir en ciertos aspectos de los elementos esenciales anteriormente citados o en otros derivados de esas relaciones, lo cierto es que, dichas condiciones deben ser más beneficiosas a las establecidas como mínimo por el Derecho de la Constitución y por la normativa infraconstitucional -ello siempre dentro del marco jurídico que establecen los principios de no discriminación, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad-, pues en caso contrario, se estaría dando no sólo un trato discriminatorio y por ende, no razonable en perjuicio de los personas que realizan el trabajo o prestan el servicio, sino que en definitiva, se tornaría nugatorio el contenido esencial del derecho fundamental al trabajo, en menoscabo de la dignidad que le es inherente a todo ser humano, al imponerles condiciones de trabajo desfavorables, que les impida desarrollarse como personas, porque son insalubres, inseguras, degradantes, crueles, no remuneradas o bien, remuneradas de forma tardía o por montos inferiores a los objetivamente establecidos como mínimo por el legislador. En síntesis, el principio de dignidad humana -contenido en los artículos 33, 56 y 57 de la Constitución Política- tiene la virtud de permear y en consecuencia, de determinar los límites y alcances de los derechos fundamentales en general, que no pueden ser desconocidos ni por los entes u órganos que ejercen potestades legislativas o reglamentarias, ni por los sujetos de derecho público o privado que en ejercicio del principio de libertad de contratación, estén llamados a regular las relaciones de empleo o los contratos de servicios (ver en sentido similar, las sentencias número 798-08 de las quince horas del ocho de octubre de dos mil ocho y 671-09 de las dieciséis horas treinta minutos del trece de abril de dos mil nueve, ambas dictadas por la Sección Sexta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda); 3) Generalidades respecto a la naturaleza de la relación de empleo, y a los alcances y limitaciones de las funciones de los Notarios Institucionales o de Planta, conforme a lo dispuesto en el Código Notarial y la jurisprudencia constitucional. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código Notarial, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha considerado al respecto, que: “…Es importe (sic) recordar que la contratación de servicios profesionales de abogado y notario puede realizarla la Administración Pública por dos vías: como servidores de la institución mediante un contrato laboral cuya remuneración será un salario, y una compensación económica si se firma el contrato de dedicación exclusiva -supuesto que es el que interesa en esta acción-; y la contratación de profesionales en derecho -abogados y notarios- para que presten estos servicios en forma externa, mediante un contrato administrativo de servicios profesionales. En el primer supuesto, se crea una relación laboral, de subordinación del profesional a la institución, la cual es retribuida mediante el pago de un estipendio de naturaleza salarial establecido de previo, el cual no permite al servidor de ninguna otra remuneración por los servicios que presta. Nótese que si el profesional fue contratado en su condición de abogado y notario, le corresponde la confección y redacción de contratos, autenticación de firmas, la representación de los intereses o causas de la institución para la que labora en los tribunales de justicia, la cartulación, estudios de registro, etc.; funciones en la que está implícitamente la de dar asesoría en el campo de su especialidad, es decir, a brindar el consejo técnico que se le solicite. Es por ello que para estos abogados -los de planta-, resulta improcedente el cobro de honorarios por los procesos judiciales que deban atender, toda vez que estas tareas no generan absolutamente ningún derecho al cobro de honorarios a favor de los abogados que sean funcionarios de la entidad, ya que las mismas ya son retribuidas en su salario; si se les pagaran estos honorarios, estos profesionales estarían percibiendo un salario y honorarios profesionales por el mismo trabajo para el que fueron contratados, lo cual a todas luces es improcedente e ilógico. Cabe concluir entonces, que independientemente de la denominación que se utilice en el manual descriptivo -sea como asesor o como abogado, o notario-, si el puesto tiene como parte de sus funciones la de atender la tramitación de los procesos tanto ejecutivos como ordinarios en lo que figure la institución pública para la que labora, la redacción de escrituras públicas, formalización de créditos, realización de estudios registrales y demás actos jurídicos en los que participe la institución en la y los actos institución pública para la que laboran, es evidente que el profesional no podría percibir los honorarios, pues esos servicios profesionales se entienden remunerados con el salario; por ello es necesario que el contenido de las obligaciones que asume el servidor contratado estén claramente especificadas, sea en el contrato laboral o en el manual descriptivo de puestos…” (ver la versión digital de la sentencia número 2000-444 de la Sala Constitucional, en la página web: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). Criterio que ha sido reiterado –entre otras-, en la sentencia número 2003-5417 de las catorce horas con cuarenta y ocho minutos del veinticinco de junio del dos mil tres, mediante la cual y en lo que interesa para este caso, consideró: “…En conclusión, es claro que los notarios que trabajan para y desde la Administración sí pueden recibir salario por la actividad notarial que realizan, pues lo que les está vedado es percibir honorarios por dicha función, salvo la excepción relativa a los fondos de ahorro y préstamo que funcionen adscritos a la institución y que no sean actividad ordinaria del ente patronal. Asimismo, a los notarios de planta les está vedado el ejercicio externo del notariado ya sea por recibir el pago de prohibición o dedicación exclusiva o por que haya superposición horaria, sin embargo, ello no obsta para que puedan realizar actos o contratos en que sea parte la institución de la cual forman parte, siempre que no cobren honorarios por ello, pues están recibiendo un salario que cubre la prestación de sus servicios. En consecuencia, al desconocerse en la parte dispositiva de la directriz impugnada la existencia del notario bajo salario, se vulnera en forma evidente el Derecho de la Constitución…” (ver la versión digital de la sentencia número 2003-5417 de la Sala Constitucional, en la página web: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/scij). En consecuencia, los notarios institucionales mantienen una relación de empleo público con el órgano o ente de la Administración Pública central o descentralizada, que los designe con base en los principios contenidos en los artículos 192 y siguientes de la Constitución Política, a fin de que se desempeñen en esa clase de puestos. En razón de lo anterior, los notarios institucionales no devengan honorarios con la excepción contenida en la parte final del inciso b) del artículo 7 del Código Notarial, sino que perciben un salario por las funciones que le son encomendadas. Asimismo, los notarios institucionales pueden realizar las actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares previstas en el numeral 34 del Código Notarial, con excepción de aquellas que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico le competen a la Notaría del Estado, y con la única condición de que esas actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares tengan relación con la actividad ordinaria del órgano o ente con el cual mantienen la relación de empleo público y por ende, se trate de actos o contratos en “…donde aparezcan como parte sus patronos o empresas subsidiarias…” o en las que “…sean parte el Estado, sus empresas, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas…”, y no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos, tal y como lo disponen los numerales 7 inciso b) y 8 párrafo 2º del Código Notarial. Por último, cabe indicar que las Administraciones Públicas tienen la competencia conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 7 inciso b) y 8 del Código Notarial, de decidir si los servicios de notariado que requieren y que se relacionan con su actividad ordinaria, serán suplidos por notarios externos o bien por notarios institucionales designados conforme a las reglas del empleo público, contenidas en los artículos 192 y siguientes de la Constitución Política; 67 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; 163 párrafo 4º del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. Muestra de ello, lo constituye el contenido del artículo 173 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica (ver la versión digital de la Ley 7558, en la página web: www.pgr.go.cr/scij) y el Reglamento para la Prestación de Servicios de Notarios Externos del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (folios 192 a 201 del expediente judicial) , en que se establecen los parámetros para la distribución interna del trabajo de notariado en los bancos comerciales del Estado. Por todo lo expuesto y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 inciso b), 8 párrafo 2º y 34 del Código Notarial; 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este Tribunal estima que las normas citadas del Código Notarial no establecen que determinados actos o contratos protocolares o extra protocolares de los previstos en el artículo 34 de ese cuerpo normativo, se encuentran reservados para el ejercicio exclusivo de notarios externos; motivo por el cual y a contrario sensu, tampoco limitan o circunscriben el ejercicio de las actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares que pueden realizar los notarios institucionales, con excepción de aquellos que deba otorgar la Notaría del Estado y con la única condición de que esas actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares tengan relación con la actividad ordinaria del órgano o ente con el cual mantienen la relación de empleo público y por ende, se trate de actos o contratos en “…donde aparezcan como parte sus patronos o empresas subsidiarias…” o en las que “…sean parte el Estado, sus empresas, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas…” , y no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos ; 4) Con relación a los criterios vertidos sobre el tema por la Procuraduría General de la República y los alcances de los parámetros que sobre el particular contienen los dictámenes emitidos por ésta. En ese sentido, cabe señalar que mediante Dictamen número C-016-2007 del veintinueve de enero del dos mil siete, la Procuraduría General de la República ante la solicitud de aclaración de varios aspectos del Dictamen C-477-2006, que planteó la Dirección Nacional de Notariado mediante oficio 1163-DNN-2006 del 22 de diciembre del dos mil seis, concluyó –en lo que interesa para este caso- que: “… 4. En aplicación de los principios que informan y rigen el régimen de los Derechos Fundamentales, corresponde al legislador establecer las condiciones y requisitos para que una persona pueda ejercer el notariado en el país (…) 16. El Código Notarial no prohíbe al notario de planta desempeñar labores de abogacía para la Administración que lo emplea. Es decir, el notario puede ser abogado-notario de la entidad empleadora, decisión que es del resorte de la organización administrativa. 17. El notario de planta puede realizar la actividad notarial que interesa a la Administración con que labora. No obstante, ese ámbito es limitado por la competencia de la Notaría del Estado. 18. En consecuencia, el notario de planta puede realizar los actos extraprotocolarios, así como los documentos protocolarios distintos de las escrituras públicas que deben ser formalizadas por la Notaría del Estado (…) 20. Escapa a la Notaría del Estado la realización de las escrituras que conciernan la actividad ordinaria, en particular la crediticia, de la Administración Pública descentralizada y empresas públicas. Estas escrituras podrán ser realizados por el notario de planta, en el entendido de que le está prohibido cobrar honorarios…” (ver folios 127 a 155 del expediente judicial). Criterio que reiteró en Dictamen número C-026-2008 del 30 de enero del dos mil ocho, mediante el cual, la Procuraduría General de la República se refirió a la consulta planteada por los Bancos de Costa Rica, Nacional de Costa Rica, Bancrédito, y Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, en cuanto a si la resolución número 1159-2007 emitida por la Dirección Nacional de Notariado el treinta y uno de agosto del dos mil siete, restringía el ejercicio profesional de los notarios institucionales, limitándolos a ciertos actos y contratos, lo que a su juicio impediría que se utilicen sus servicios en la actividad ordinaria propia de las entidades bancarias consultantes. En ese sentido, la Procuraduría General de la República concluyó –en lo que interesa- que: “…5. Al disponer sobre los actos notariales, el Código Notarial no circunscribe su realización a un determinado tipo de ejercicio del notariado, verbi gratia el notario externo. De sus disposiciones no es posible concluir que el notario de planta nombrado dentro del marco establecido por el propio Código tenga restringido su ejercicio notarial a determinados actos de los dispuestos por el Código. Es decir, que existan actuaciones notariales que solo puedan ser autorizadas por notarios externos. 6. Consecuentemente, no puede concluirse que el Código limite las actuaciones que los notarios de planta de los bancos públicos pueden realizar el orden a los servicios notariales que requiere la entidad con que laboran. En ese sentido, de los artículos 7 y 8 no puede extraerse una prohibición para que los notarios de planta de los bancos públicos participen en la formalización de contratos que desarrollen la actividad ordinaria del banco, dentro de la cual se encuentran todas las operaciones de crédito. Lo que sí le está prohibido al notario de planta es el ejercicio privado de la función notarial y la percepción de honorarios (…) 7. Es parte esencial de la operación normal y ordinaria de una entidad bancaria incluidos los bancos públicos, la realización de operaciones de crédito. Por lo que al prohibir la autorización de escrituras de crédito propias de la actividad ordinaria del banco, la Dirección Nacional de Notariado desconoce el objeto del artículo 7, inciso b) del Código Notarial…” (folios 102 a 126 del expediente judicial). Ahora bien, en este punto cabe resaltar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República, los dictámenes y pronunciamientos emitidos por la Procuraduría General, constituyen jurisprudencia administrativa, y son de acatamiento obligatorio para la Administración Pública. En consecuencia, aún y cuando las normas o aspectos consultados por la Dirección Nacional de Notariado o por los Bancos Comerciales del Estado, no se refieren a la disposición contenida en el artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional que aquí se cuestiona; también lo es, que en los dictámenes antes citados, se establecen una serie de parámetros o líneas generales con relación tanto a la naturaleza pública de la relación de empleo de los notarios institucionales, como a los alcances y limitaciones de sus funciones, que encuentran fundamento no sólo en el propio Código Notarial, sino en la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia . P arámetros o líneas generales que en consecuencia son vinculantes y de acatamiento obligatorio para la Dirección Nacional de Notariado, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política; 6 y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y 2 de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República; 5) Breves consideraciones sobre los alcances de la actividad ordinaria de los bancos comerciales del Estado y su incidencia en los actos protocolares o extra protocolares que pueden realizar sus notarios institucionales. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 116 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, únicamente pueden realizar intermediación financiera en el país las entidades públicas o privadas, expresamente autorizadas por ley para ello, previo cumplimiento de los requisitos que la respectiva ley establezca y previa autorización de la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, cuando se cumplan los requisitos legales. Cabe recordar que por intermediación financiera se entiende la captación de recursos financieros del público, en forma habitual, con el fin de destinarlos, por cuenta y riesgo del intermediario, a cualquier forma de crédito o inversión en valores, independientemente de la figura contractual o jurídica que se utilice y del tipo de documento, registro electrónico u otro análogo en el que se formalicen las transacciones. En ese sentido, los Bancos Comerciales del Estado –ver artículo 1 de la Ley del Sistema Bancario Nacional- tienen como actividad ordinaria efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, entre los que destacan –en lo que interesa para el caso concreto- los siguientes: “…1) Para financiar operaciones relacionadas con la producción agrícola, ganadera e industrial. 2) Para financiar empresas nacionales de servicios de turismo, transporte y medios de información. 3) Para la financiación de operaciones originadas en la importación, exportación, compra, venta o transporte de productos y mercaderías de fácil realización. 4) Para financiar el almacenamiento de productos agrícolas, ganaderos o industriales o de mercaderías de importación o exportación, siempre que dichos productos o mercaderías estén asegurados a satisfacción del Banco y que no sean bienes suntuarios (…) 8) Para realizar operaciones de crédito que fueren compatibles con la naturaleza técnica de los bancos comerciales y que no estén instancia, a las funciones esenciales que les encomienda el legislador a las entidades bancarias del Estado, en el inciso 4) del artículo 3 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, en cuanto a “…Evitar que haya en el país medios de producción inactivos, buscando al productor para poner a su servicio los medios económicos y técnicos de que dispone el Sistema…”. En razón de lo por la Representante del Estado, en el sentido de que “…el otorgamiento de crédito, en tanto operación esencial de la intermediación financiera, es parte de la actividad ordinaria propia de los bancos consultantes. Esa operación de crédito no está referida a la real transferencia de la propiedad sobre el dinero, a la manera de un contrato de préstamo, sino que por operación de crédito debe considerarse el negocio que faculte al cliente a disponer de una suma de dinero, (sic) el otorgamiento de avales y garantías…” (folio 119 del Ahora bien, dado que los Bancos Comerciales del Estado tienen como actividad ordinaria, efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, es que el párrafo 5º del artículo 173 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, establece que “…Las entidades financieras de derecho público, reguladas por la Superintendencia, que utilicen los servicios de más de un notario público, sean de planta o externos, establecerán un único "rol" para todas las escrituras en que figure esa entidad como acreedora. Dicho "rol" deberá cumplirse permanentemente y por estricto orden, a efecto de garantizar una asignación equitativa y justa de las labores de notariado…”. Dicha norma resulta conteste con lo dispuesto en el Código Notarial y en la jurisprudencia constitucional, en sentido de que los notarios institucionales pueden realizar las actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares previstas en el numeral 34 del Código Notarial, con excepción de aquellas que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico le competen a la Notaría del Estado, y con la única condición de que esas actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares tengan relación con la actividad ordinaria del órgano o ente con el cual mantienen la relación de empleo público y por ende, se trate –en este caso- de actuaciones de intermediación financiera en “…donde aparezcan como parte sus patronos o empresas subsidiarias…” o en las que “…sean parte el Estado, sus empresas, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas…” , y no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos, tal y como lo disponen los numerales 7 inciso b) y 8 párrafo 2º del Código Notarial. Cabe destacar que esa era la intención del legislador que dictó el Código Notarial, tal y como se desprende de la discusión legislativa del proyecto original de ese cuerpo normativo , tramitado bajo caso- que: “… tan es así la buena fe de la comisión redactora, que por ejemplo, en el artículo 9 establecemos la posibilidad de que el Estado, las instituciones descentralizadas y las empresas públicas tituladas como sociedades anónimas puedan nombrar notarios externos, por decirlo así, del Sistema Bancario Nacional. Eso a quién va a beneficiar? Al cliente del banco, al cliente de la institución (…) La intención de nosotros en esta disposición es que el Banco Nacional tenga un cuerpo de cincuenta notarios a sueldo fijo, así el cliente no paga honorarios de notario (…) La intención era abaratarle el costo al cliente, al agricultor que llega al Banco Nacional a hipotecar su finca para que le financie la cosecha de arroz. Ahí, si el Banco tiene un abogado a sueldo, el costo del notario va a ser por cuenta del banco, y se le abarata tal vez en más de un 1% el costo de su escritura. Habría aquí que sugerir que se elimine ese último párrafo de que los honorarios corresponden a la institución, porque no tendría razón de ser, sobre todo cuando son asuntos del banco…” (ver folios 117, 121, 122 y 149 del artículos 173 párrafo 5º de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código Notarial, no establecen que determinados actos o contratos protocolares o extra protocolares de los previstos en el artículo 34 en el Código Notarial, se encuentren reservados para el ejercicio exclusivo de notarios externos; motivo por el cual y a contrario sensu, tampoco prohíben que los notarios institucionales de los bancos comerciales del Estado, realicen actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares que desarrollen la actividad ordinaria del banco, que consiste en efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, con excepción de aquellos que deba otorgar la Notaría del Estado , siempre y cuando no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos ; 6) Respecto a la violación sustancial del ordenamiento jurídico de lo dispuesto en el artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional dictado por el Consejo Superior Notarial. Se ha tenido por demostrado que en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 212 del dos de noviembre del dos mil diez, se publicó el “Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional” dictado por el Consejo Superior Notarial , en sesión número 27 celebrada el seis de octubre del dos mil diez, el cual, en su artículo 3 dispone: “…Artículo 3º- Notario Externo. En aquellos instrumentos en donde se autoricen otros actos en los que su patrono no es parte directa, éstos deberán ser autorizados por los notarios externos de la institución. Si la institución tiene una nómina de notarios externos deberá seguirse el “rol” a que se refiere el artículo 173 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica Nº 7558 del 3 de setiembre de 1995. Quedan excluidos de esta disposición los instrumentos que deban ser autorizados por la Notaría del Estado…” (folio 101 del Dicha norma tiene el efecto de derogar los artículos 25 a 30 de los Lineamientos para el Ejercicio y Control del servicio Notarial, publicados en el Boletín Judicial número 99 del veinticuatro de mayo del dos mil siete (ver artículo 10 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control de Notario Institucional, visible a folio 101 del expediente judicial). Cabe resaltar que -en lo que interesa- los artículos 25, 26 y 28 establecían que: “…Artículo 25. Concepto. Notario autorizado para brindar el servicio únicamente para el Estado, con remuneración fija, dedicación exclusiva y sujeto al régimen de empleo público. Está expuesto a control, publicidad, requisitos, prohibiciones, impedimentos y régimen disciplinario (…) // Artículo 26. Prohibiciones, impedimentos y limitaciones. El notario institucional está obligado a brindar el servicio, protocolar y extraprotocolar, desde una oficina pública, con obligación de ejercer el notariado privadamente y cobrar honorarios al Estado, autorizando actos ajustados a estos lineamientos y referidos en forma exclusiva a la Institución para la cual laboran. // Artículo 28. Requisitos. Para ser autorizado como notario institucional, el fedetario, además de contar con los requerimientos y criterios que establece la Ley, debe cumplir con las siguientes disposiciones: a. Indicar las funciones del cargo que ocupa en la Administración Pública. b. Comprobar la existencia o no de regímenes de ahorro y préstamo adscritos a la institución pública que no correspondan a su función ordinaria. c. Describir sus funciones como notario institucional según el manual de puestos, así como los rubros de dedicación exclusiva o prohibición, los cuales deberán ser certificados por la autoridad correspondiente (…) f. Establecer el tipo de actos o contratos en que participa la institución para la cual labora. g. Identificar las funciones de asesoría especializada que requiere la Institución…” (folios 66 a 100 del expediente judicial) . Dichas normas -actualmente derogadas- tenían a su vez como antecedente la resolución número 1817-2003 de las quince horas del veinticuatro de setiembre del dos mil tres, mediante la cual, la Dirección Nacional de Notariado –en lo que interesa- dispuso: “…En apego a lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en los votos 00-444 y 03-5417 del 12 de enero del 2000 y 25 de junio del 2003, en su orden, se dispone: (…) 2) El solicitante que se autorizado para ejercer bajo la figura de “Notario de planta”, se regirá bajo las siguientes condiciones: a) Podrá realizar actos notariales protocolares y extra protocolares únicamente para la Institución en que labora, b) sin derecho a cobrar honorarios, c) solamente podrá cobrar los honorarios a particulares, cuando se trata de formalización de escrituras relacionadas con los fondos de ahorro y préstamo que funcionan adscritos a la institución y que no corresponden a la actividad ordinaria del ente patronal, d) si recibe pago de prohibición o dedicación exclusiva, o el horario y jornada laboral genera superposición horaria, no se le autorizará el ejercicio externo del notariado…” (folios 58 a 65 del expediente judicial) . Cabe resaltar, que tanto la resolución número 1817-2003, como los artículos 25, 26 y 28 de los Lineamientos para el Ejercicio y Control del Servicio Notarial, eran contestes con la legislación aplicable; la jurisprudencia constitucional y los dictámenes vinculantes de la Procuraduría General de la República, respecto a que los numerales 173 párrafo 5º de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código Notarial, no establecen que determinados actos o contratos protocolares o extra protocolares de los previstos en el numeral 34 de ese cuerpo normativo , se encuentren reservados para el ejercicio exclusivo de notarios externos; motivo por el cual y a contrario sensu, tampoco prohíben que los notarios institucionales de los bancos comerciales del Estado, realicen actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares que desarrollen la actividad ordinaria del banco, que consiste en efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, con excepción de aquellos que deba otorgar la Notaría del Estado y siempre y cuando, no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos o contratos. No obstante, lo anterior el artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, contraviene de manera sustancial lo dispuesto en los artículos 11, 33 y 56 de la Constitución Política; 29.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59 inciso 1) y 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ; 2 de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República ; 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código de Notariado; 67 de la Ley de Contratación de Contratación Administrativa; 116 y 173 párrafo 5º de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; artículos 1, 3 inciso 4) y 61 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional ; 163 párrafo 5º del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, pues al establecer que " En aquellos instrumentos en donde se autoricen otros actos en los que su patrono no es parte directa, éstos deberán ser autorizados por los notarios externos de la institución. Si la institución tiene una nómina de notarios externos deberá seguirse el “rol” a que se refiere el artículo 173 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica Nº 7558 del 3 de setiembre de 1995. Quedan excluidos de esta disposición los instrumentos que deban ser autorizados por la Notaría del Estado…” (folio 101 del expediente judicial) ; impone una restricción ilegítima, irrazonable y desproporcionada, tanto al disfrute del derecho al trabajo de los notarios institucionales, como al ejercicio de la competencia otorgada a las Administraciones Públicas por los numerales 7 inciso b) y 8 del Código Notarial, de decidir si los servicios de notariado que requieren y que se relacionan con su actividad ordinaria, serán suplidos por notarios externos o bien por notarios institucionales designados conforme a las reglas del empleo público, contenidas en los artículos 192 y siguientes de la Constitución Política; 67 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y 163 párrafo 4º del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. En ese sentido, la norma cuestionada circunscribe la actividad de los notarios institucionales a aquellos actos o contratos en los que directamente deban aparecer como parte, el órgano o ente con que mantienen una relación de empleo público, con excepción de aquellos que deba otorgar la Notaría del Estado . Ahora bien, a contrario de lo que sostiene la Dirección Nacional de Notariado, la norma cuestionada no complementa lo dispuesto los artículos 7 inciso b) y 8 del Código de Notariado, sino que más bien impone un requisito que no está contemplado en dichas disposiciones, pues tal y como ya se ha analizado supra, los numerales 173 párrafo 5º de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica; 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código Notarial, no establecen que determinados actos o contratos protocolares o extra protocolares de los previstos en el artículo 34 en el Código Notarial, se encuentr a n reservados para el ejercicio exclusivo de notarios externos; motivo por el cual y a contrario sensu, tampoco prohíben que los notarios institucionales de los bancos comerciales del Estado, realicen actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares que desarrollen la actividad ordinaria del banco, que consiste en efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, con excepción de aquellos que deba otorgar la Notaría del Estado , siempre y cuando no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos. En consecuencia, imponer vía reglamentaria un requisito que la ley no establece para que los notarios institucionales ejerzan las funciones que le encomiendan las normas antes señaladas, implica una violación al principio de reserva de ley en materia de derechos fundamentales, pues limita el ejercicio del derecho al trabajo de los notarios institucionales, por vía reglamentaria, cuando la propia ley únicamente se limita a indicar que los notarios institucionales pueden realizar las actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares previstas en el numeral 34 del Código Notarial, con excepción de aquellas que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico le competen a la Notaría del Estado, y con la única condición de que esas actuaciones protocolares o extra protocolares tengan relación con la actividad ordinaria del órgano o ente con el cual mantienen la relación de empleo público -siempre y cuando no cobren honorarios por la autorización de dichos actos actos o contratos- y por ende, se trate –en este caso- de actuaciones de intermediación financiera en “…donde aparezcan como parte sus patronos o empresas subsidiarias…” o en las que “…sean parte el Estado, sus empresas, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas…” ( numerales 7 inciso b) y 8 párrafo 2º del Código Notarial ) . Dicha limitación también resulta irrazonable y desproporcionada, no sólo al fin que persiguió el legislador al dictar los artículos 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código de Notariado, sino también, a la misma naturaleza de la intermediación financiera, que constituye la actividad ordinaria del Bancos Comerciales del Estado, conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 1, 43 inciso 4 y 61 de la Ley Orgánica el Sistema Bancario Nacional y 116 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica. En ese sentido, cabe recordar -tal y como se indicó supra- que la intención del legislador que dictó el Código Notarial, era que: “… tan es así la buena fe de la comisión redactora, que por ejemplo, en el artículo 9 establecemos la posibilidad de que el Estado, las instituciones descentralizadas y las empresas públicas tituladas como sociedades anónimas puedan nombrar notarios externos, por decirlo así, del Sistema Bancario Nacional. Eso a quién va a beneficiar? Al cliente del banco, al cliente de la institución (…) La intención de nosotros en esta disposición es que el Banco Nacional tenga un cuerpo de cincuenta notarios a sueldo fijo, así el cliente no paga honorarios de notario (…) La intención era abaratarle el costo al cliente, al agricultor que llega al Banco Nacional a hipotecar su finca para que le financie la cosecha de arroz. Ahí, si el Banco tiene un abogado a sueldo, el costo del notario va a ser por cuenta del banco, y se le abarata tal vez en más de un 1% el costo de su escritura. Habría aquí que sugerir que se elimine ese último párrafo de que los honorarios corresponden a la institución, porque no tendría razón de ser, sobre todo cuando son asuntos del banco…” (ver folios 117, 121, 122 y 149 del Estado como actividad ordinaria, el efectuar operaciones de crédito y hacer inversiones para los diversos fines que establece el numeral 61 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, “…el otorgamiento de crédito (...) no está referida a la real transferencia de la propiedad sobre el dinero, a la manera de un contrato de préstamo, sino que por operación de crédito debe considerarse el negocio que faculte al cliente a disponer de una suma de dinero, (sic) el otorgamiento de avales y garantías…” (folio 119 del En virtud de lo expuesto, resulta irrazonable y desproporcionado que se limite el ejercicio de los notarios institucionales -en este caso de los bancos comerciales del Estado-, únicamente en aquellos actos o contratos en que sus patronos públicos directamente deban aparecer como parte ; ya que precisamente lo que pretendía el legislador, era que los bancos comerciales del Estado, nombraron notarios institucionales, a fin de que se encargaran -entre otros aspectos- de autorizar los actos protocolares o extraprotocolares, relacionados con la actividad ordinaria de intermediación financiera de dichas instituciones bancarias, a fin de facilitar el acceso del sector productivo a las fuentes de crédito (artículo 3 inciso 4 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), dado que no tendrían que pagar honorarios por los actos relacionados con dichas operaciones crediticias. Lo anterior, también incide en el ejercicio efectivo de la competencia otorgada por el legislador a través de los artículos 7 inciso b) y 8 del Código Notarial, a fin de que las Administraciones Públicas, decidan si los servicios de notariado que requieren y que se relacionan con su actividad ordinaria, serán suplidos por notarios externos o bien por notarios institucionales designados conforme a las reglas del empleo público, contenidas en los artículos 192 y siguientes de la Constitución Política; 67 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y 163 párrafo 4º del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; ello por cuanto, lo dispuesto en el artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notario Institucional, implica una limitación en el ejercicio de la competencia otorgada al efecto por los artículos 7 inciso b) y 8 del Código Notarial, mediante una norma de menor rango, en el tanto limita el ejercicio de los notarios institucionales -en este caso de los bancos comerciales del Estado, únicamente a aquellos actos o contratos en que sus patronos públicos directamente deban aparecer como parte , lo cual, resulta sustancialmente disconforme con lo dispuesto en el numeral 59 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. 7) Corolario. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal declara: a) La Nulidad Absoluta del artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta número 212 del dos de noviembre del dos mil diez, dictado por el Consejo Superior de Notarial, en sesión número 27, celebrada el 6 de octubre del dos mil diez, por resultar sustancialmente contrario al ordenamiento jurídico, específicamente a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11, 33 y 56 de la Constitución Política; 29.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 6, 11, 19, 59 inciso 1), 158 inciso 2) y 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ; 2 de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República ; 7 inciso b), 8 y 34 del Código de Notariado; 67 de la Ley de Contratación de Contratación Administrativa; 116 y 173 párrafo 5º de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; artículos 1, 3 inciso 4) y 61 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional ; 163 párrafo 5º del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; b) De conformidad con el numeral 130 inciso 3) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, la declaratoria nulidad absoluta por disconformidad sustancial con el ordenamiento jurídico del artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, publicado en el Diario oficial la Gaceta número 212 del dos de noviembre del dos mil diez, dictado por el Consejo Superior de Notarial, en sesión número 27, celebrada el 6 de octubre del dos mil diez, es con efecto erga omnes, todo sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos de buena fe y de situaciones jurídicas consolidadas; c) A fin de no provocar una violación al principio de seguridad jurídica o una grave dislocación en el funcionamiento de las Administraciones Públicas que cuenten con notarios institucionales o externos para la autorización de actos o contratos protocolares o extraprotocolares relacionados con el ejercicio de su actividad ordinaria, se dispone de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en el inciso 3) del artículo 131 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, dimensionar los efectos de la declaratoria parcial de nulidad absoluta de la resolución D.R.L. 035-2009, de la siguiente manera: i) Se mantienen todos los actos, actuaciones o contratos protocolares o extra protocolares que hayan sido autorizados o vayan a ser autorizados por los notarios externos que prestan servicios a los entes u órganos públicos que los han contratado al efecto, al amparo de la norma anulada , durante el lapso comprendido entre la fecha en que entró a regir el artículo 3 del Lineamiento para el Ejercicio y Control del Notariado Institucional, publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta número 212 del dos de noviembre del dos mil diez -a saber: el dos de noviembre del 2010-, y hasta la publicación de la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia; ii) En el caso de los notarios institucionales del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica que figuran como parte actora en este proceso, los efectos de esta sentencia entrarán a regir, a partir de la fecha en que adquiera firmeza; d) Una vez firme esta sentencia y en aplicación de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad , publíquese en este caso concreto, únicamente una reseña de su parte dispositiva en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, con cargo a la Dirección Nacional de Notariado.”