Direct challenge to environmental viability in administrative courtImpugnabilidad directa de la viabilidad ambiental en sede contenciosa

III.- ON THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION JURISDICTION. Certainly, Article 49 of the Political Constitution establishes the litigation jurisdiction, whose purpose is to exercise plenary control over the administrative function; this control is bifurcated into two dimensions: an objective one and a subjective one. From the objective point of view, it exercises a control of legality over the administrative function, that is, over any form of manifestation of the exercise of the will of the public power, which includes actions, omissions, formal manifestations, or material manifestations. It is, therefore, a comparison with the legality imposed by the legal system, as a principle, in Article 11 of the Magna Carta and which is developed legislatively in numerals 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration. Furthermore, it protects the subjective dimension insofar as that Article 49 incorporates the safeguarding, at least, of the subjective rights and legitimate interests of the person. This finds an echo in the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, insofar as it protects the legal situation of the person. This complement of the objective and subjective dimensions allows for establishing a legislative development in the specific case of law number 8508, that is, the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, under a mixed control system that allows not only the control of formal legality but also material legality, and in addition, the protection of legal situations, independent of one another. From this plane, this dynamic thoroughly permeates the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, which underpins the current validity of a justice administration system in the administrative litigation venue, with a mixed connotation. Now then, despite that broad control framework, regarding the objective comparison, it is clear that the direct challengeability in the jurisdictional venue of a specific administrative conduct must be analyzed in the context of the specific typology and own characteristics of each formal conduct manifestation. Thus, in effect, it emerges from Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, by way of example, insofar as subsection c) indicates that the claim must be linked to "final, definitive or firm acts, or procedural acts with their own effect." It is evident that with the exception of municipal matters and administrative procurement, in which, according to Article 31 of the aforementioned Code – and provided that the exhaustion of the administrative channel is produced by the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, as an improper biphasic superior, or by the Comptroller General of the Republic – such a prerequisite is not required, that is, mandatory exhaustion of the administrative channel; as such, it would not be necessary to obtain a definitive or firm act to be able to resort to jurisdictional protection. This means that it is sufficient for the act to be final for it to be challengeable in the litigation venue, unlike those matters, municipal and procurement, in which, for such purposes, with the indicated particularities, it must be definitive and firm. Added to this, the direct challenge of procedural acts depends on them having their own effect, which derives from numerals 163.2 and 345.3 of the General Law of Public Administration; conversely, when they lack that own effect, it would not be viable for them to be the subject of a process of this administrative litigation nature. This is indicated in precept 163.2 of the General Law, as has been indicated; additionally, canon 141 of that same legal body stipulates that for the challenge of a specific act, it must be effective, which implies the possible generation of external and material effects. It is not sufficient, then, for the act to be communicated for it to be directly appealable. It must also be, at least, final. Excluded from this spectrum of coverage are acts referring to the public employment regime in accordance with Article 3, subsection a) of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, as well as relationships that are subject to the regulations proper to criminal law. With everything, numeral 43 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code allows the accumulation of claims referring to matters other than administrative, with the exception of criminal matters, provided they derive from the same administrative legal relationship that is being questioned. It is in the foregoing context that the scope of coverage of the administrative litigation jurisdiction must be understood, for the purposes of this resolution.

IV.- THE LEGAL NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSES, AS A DETERMINING ASPECT FOR ESTABLISHING THEIR CHALLENGEABILITY OR NOT IN THIS VENUE.- The environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) is constituted as a procedure that holds a complex convergence of legal-technical-administrative variables, whose purpose is none other than the measurement, identification, prediction, or projection of the impacts that a specific human activity will likely produce on the environment, should it be carried out or its material execution concretized. Said procedure is issued as a basis for a prior requirement of a subsequent authorization procedure and is formulated by the competent public administrations with expertise in environmental matters. Seen thus, in simpler terms, it is the procedure by virtue of which the effects and consequences that a project of work or human activity will generate on the environment are estimated. Given the transcendence of the protected legal interest, its sustenance is rooted in the doctrine of numeral 50 of the Political Constitution; therefore, it being a duty of the State to provide the due, efficient, and timely protection of the environment, both natural and landscape resources, it is an important mechanism for exercising environmental policy, which has a direct and immediate application in productive activities, in such a way that it achieves harmony and compatibility of those economic or social exploitations with the preservation of the environment, within a vision of sustainability or sustainable development. In the national context, the General Regulation on Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessments, the Executive Decree cited herein, number 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, defines environmental impact as follows: "Effect that an activity, work, or project, or some of its actions and components, has on the environment or its constituent elements. It can be of a positive or negative type, direct or indirect, cumulative or not, reversible or irreversible, extensive or limited, among other characteristics. It differs from environmental damage, in the measure and moment in which the environmental impact is evaluated in an ex-ante process, so that aspects of prevention, mitigation, and compensation can be considered to reduce its scope on the environment." Of course, this environmental impact must be subject to measurement, which materializes in different instruments that the same legal regulation establishes, among these the environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) and the environmental viability licenses (licencias de viabilidad ambiental). In this sense, the cited regulation, in numeral 3, in its subsection 37, conceptualizes the environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) as the scientific-technical administrative procedure that allows identifying and predicting which effects a specific activity, work, or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. In general, the environmental impact assessment (Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental) encompasses three essential constitutive phases: a) the first is the Initial Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Inicial), b) the second is the preparation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) or other corresponding environmental evaluation instruments, and c) a third refers to the Environmental Control and Monitoring of the activity, work, or project through the established environmental commitments. For its part, subsection 18 of Article 7 of the Biodiversity Law considers environmental impact studies as follows: "Scientific-technical procedure that allows identifying and predicting which effects a specific action or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. It includes the specific effects, their global evaluation, the alternatives of greatest environmental benefit, a program for controlling and minimizing negative effects, a monitoring program, a recovery program, as well as the guarantee of environmental compliance." From the foregoing, it follows that the license or environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), as indicated by subsection 63 of ordinal third of the aforementioned Regulation, represents the condition of harmony and acceptable balance between the development and execution of human work and its potential environmental impacts, and the environment of the geographic space where it is desired to be implemented. From the administrative and legal point of view, it corresponds to the act in which the environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) process is approved, whether in its initial evaluation phase, the study itself, or another impact document. Now then, the implications of human works on the environment justify and demand the evaluation of that impact on the environment. From this plane, this collegiate body must bring up what is established by canon 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which regarding the cited environmental assessment states: "Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, will require an environmental impact assessment by the National Technical Secretariat of the Environment created in this law. Its prior approval, by this body, will be an indispensable requirement to begin the activities, works, or projects. Laws and regulations will indicate which activities, works, or projects will require the environmental impact assessment." V.- The transcendence held by this instrument for measuring environmental impacts on human conduct is undeniable to this Tribunal. However, it is necessary, in view of the resolution of the present preliminary defense, to establish its real legal nature, since as has been pointed out, being a formal expression of the administrative will, its challengeability in the jurisdictional venue depends on its categorization as a final act or, at least, a procedural act with its own effect. For this Tribunal, it is clear that the environmental assessment, as conceived, constitutes an administrative procedure with sui generis and special characteristics by virtue of the regulated subject matter and the complexity of the topic addressed, which demands scientific and technical valuations and measurements. In effect, in itself, it is a procedure that allows measuring the impact on the environment of works, activities, or projects. As has been pointed out, the Biodiversity Law itself establishes in its numeral 7 that it is a scientific-technical procedure. The concatenation of analyses, internal acts, and technical and scientific valuations that usually converge in this viability examination determines that procedural nature. Added to this, the analysis of its structural elements supports such an assertion. The Legal System establishes a competent authority to issue it, fixes formal requirements that the petitioners of the viability must fulfill, establishes the framework of prior studies that determine the feasibility or not of the project, and culminates with a decision that reflects the administrative will regarding the harmony, compatibility, or not of the proposed activity with the environment. Thus, it is a procedure that can only be pursued before the environmental authorities, which implies an exclusive and excluding jurisdictional framework. Notwithstanding that apparently principal character, this environmental assessment procedure must be framed within the regulations that, in matters of activity development, impose other legal norms. This is indeed inferred from the same ordinal 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, insofar as it indicates that laws and regulations will be the instruments that define which activities and projects require, priorly, this valuation. Thus seen, in its correct dimension, the environmental procedure must be coordinated and interwoven with another subsequent procedure, which has an authorizing connotation, if it is understood that the development of the activity, per se, does not depend exclusively and autonomously and independently on the license or environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), but must be complemented with an authorization act issued by another public administration. Examples of this are amply found in the Costa Rican legal system, for instance, in concessions for the exploitation of public services, under Article 16 of the Regulatory Law of Public Services, number 7593, the environmental impact study is an unavoidable requirement for the granting of the concession. Another example of what has been indicated is found in the matter of buildability, in which, pursuant to the provisions of the Construction Law, the Urban Planning Law, and the Municipal Code, the public authority in charge of carrying out the works is the Local Corporation in the territorial constituency where the project will be carried out. In that sense, the environmental procedure interweaves and links, as a prior requirement, with the authorization procedure. This is characteristic of the transversality that characterizes environmental law, otherwise multidisciplinary. This is decisive in order to establish the possibility of the former producing its own legal effects or not, that is, the environmental procedure, because as has been stated above, only acts that have such an effectual dimension can be subject to possible challenge in the jurisdictional venue, either by their condition as final, or by their own effect, despite being procedural or preparatory acts. The understanding of this dilemma can generate, as is common in law, different positions depending on the legal hermeneutics with which it is approached. This Tribunal is not unaware of the different doctrinal positions issued regarding the direct challengeability or not of the environmental license. From this point of view, the solution will be different if the point is considered from the orientation of the environmental procedure itself, considered in its individual sphere, or from the authorization procedure by virtue of which the former is issued. In the first of the cases, the diverse variables that converge in the procedure would lead to determining that it is one within which a final decision is issued; therefore, it is challengeable in this venue. Specifically, within the framework of that position, the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) would constitute the formal manifestation of the administrative will, the culmination of that procedure, which would generate an act, final of that chain, that would express the convenience or not of carrying out a conduct, as well as the impact mitigation measures that must be adopted. However, this Tribunal shares the traditional thesis, that is, the one that visualizes the environmental procedure as a function of the authorization procedure. In effect, this collegiate body considers that the legislative orientation of the figure of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) in the national legal regime is clearly oriented toward the perspective of the authorization procedure.

For this, it is sufficient to observe Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which in this respect indicates that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) is an indispensable requirement for the beginning of the activities. It is evident that if the beginning of those activities can only occur when another administration grants an authorizing title, in this context, the conceptual character and typology of the EIA must be observed from the understanding of the authorization procedure for the activity, since it is considered as an elementary prerequisite that must be valued in another subsequent procedure that determines the authorization for the development of a conduct that is potentially harmful to the environment.

VI.- Within this dynamic, it is therefore clear that the main process is the authorization process, since it is in this process that the act is issued that directly allows the exercise of the activity, work, or project. It is precisely the issuance of this authorization that justifies the valuation of environmental incidences in a specific project, since it is before the request to authorize the development of an activity that the need arises to weigh the effects it could generate within the framework of the environment, that is, the potential execution of activities that may be risky or will have an impact or effects on the environment. This is the factual cause that underlies the environmental procedure. More simply, whenever an activity is intended to be carried out that produces an alteration of the environment, prior to issuing the authorization, the evaluation of the proposal from the environmental point of view is necessary. At this point, it must be clear that the transversality of the environmental procedure does not detract from the relevance of its content, to the point that the authorization procedure is as decisive as the environmental one, the latter, due to the type of aspects it addresses and the incidence it has as its purpose within the protective framework of the environment. The environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) occurs within a procedure that produces a necessary and binding act emanating from a non-consultative authority in that specific field, namely SETENA. However, despite its high technical and scientific complexity and the essential nature of its nature by virtue of the protection it intrinsically seeks or intends, the truth of the matter is that in its individuality, the environmental decision cannot produce its own material and definitive effect. Such an effect can only materialize if the authorization act on which it depends for such purposes is issued. The environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) alone does not permit the exercise of the activity, work, or project, but rather translates, it is insisted, into a prior basis, as an elementary prerequisite, for the analysis of the feasibility of adopting the authorization. Note that even with its binding nature, the granting of environmental feasibility does not necessarily presuppose the granting of the work or conduct authorization, since it may well be the case that within the authorization procedure, the requirements that determine the pertinence of granting the authorization are not met, or, for other reasons, it is deemed improper. The binding nature of said procedure or pronouncement is not a criterion that alone allows sustaining direct challenge. That effect is produced by the specialty of the competence that allows the analysis of the environmental variable. It is the law that imposes that necessary and binding character, unlike other internal acts that, in principle, under numeral 303 of the General Law of Public Administration, are only optional and not binding. But in no way does it allow the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to deploy its effects, by itself and apart from the authorization procedure. Thus seen, it is an act that culminates the analysis in the environmental venue, which must be taken into account in the final decision, for the purposes of understanding that variable, but which does not limit the authorization act in the edges of its content. Even, this Tribunal considers, the authority issuing the authorization could impose additional conditions to those provided for in the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), provided they are reasonable, justified, and proportionate. This instrumental character regarding the main process that allows, as a final effect, the exercise of the activity or work, eliminates the possibility of it being considered a final act or, in the last case, a procedural act with its own effect (except if the environmental act were a denial, in which case its judicial challenge is fully feasible). This, coupled with the impossibility of it producing effects in the material reality, makes it impossible to consider it as a final, definitive resolution challengeable in the judicial venue. The fact that this act is the result of a procedure in which analyses, consultations, reports, etc., have taken place, does not lead to considering it as subject to direct jurisdictional appealability, since ultimately, it is a formal logical structure, necessary to determine the viability of the proposal in environmental terms, which only has meaning for the purposes of issuing the authorization in another procedure. On the other hand, the technical specialty of SETENA does not transmute that non-definitive or procedural nature, since it is not a criterion that autonomously allows considering an act as challengeable.

VII.- From the foregoing, it follows that it is an act that does not produce its own effects independently, whose direct challengeability in this venue is unfeasible. This is determined by the doctrine underlying Article 163.2 of the General Law of Public Administration, which advocates the impossibility of judicially appealing acts that do not have that own effect, an effect that only occurs when the act directly or indirectly resolves the merits of the matter, indefinitely suspends the procedure, or makes its continuation impossible, or when it substantially or directly alters subjective rights or legitimate interests (163.2 and 345.3 of the General Law of Public Administration), circumstances that, in the judgment of this collegiate body, do not converge in the species. This is confirmed in subsection c) of precept 36 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, which indicates, it is reiterated, that the claim must be deduced, among other manifestations of administrative function, against administrative acts, whether final, definitive, or procedural with their own effect. In the species, the challenged conducts, namely, resolutions number 1156-2007-SETENA, 1591-2007-SETENA, and official letter number CP-101-2007-SETENA, are manifestations of environmental viabilities regarding real estate projects in the area of Tamarindo, Guanacaste, Canton of Santa Cruz. From this plane, in accordance with the Construction Law, the Urban Planning Law, and the Municipal Code, the authorizing act to carry out such development corresponds to the Municipality of that locality, through the granting of the construction permit. It is precisely said "permit," the act that allows the exercise of the requested conduct, that is, the act that effectively creates a state and that, therefore, is amenable to jurisdictional challenge, as has been set forth. The foregoing in no way undermines the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment that derives from Article 50 of the Constitution, nor the protective purpose of the environmental viabilities, nor does it contravene the principles of protection of those rights, specifically, pro natura, precautionary, and preventive. Quite the contrary. This collegiate body is clear on and recognizes the relevance of safeguarding the environment at both a preventive and precautionary level. However, such safeguarding must be carried out in accordance with the legal and procedural parameters that permeate the administrative litigation jurisdiction, within which the possibility of challenging a procedural act is only viable when it produces its own effects, and in general, the challengeability of an act, regardless of its nature, would be viable when that direct own effect materializes.

Given this situation, in light of the impossibility that the environmental act produce immediate and direct effects, it becomes an act that cannot be challenged directly in this jurisdiction. This does not prevent oversight of the administrative function nor the possibility of challenging acts potentially harmful to the environment. What is established is when their appealability is pertinent and timely. It is within the contestation of the challengeable act that all allegations relating to the various variables that were weighed in the environmental venue may be raised, together with any deficiencies that might have existed in the authorization phase of the administrative procedure. Thus, harm to the environment by illegal acts may be protected through ordinary channels or through the preferential procedure, as has occurred here, with the caveats already set forth, and, in addition, with a protective framework that complements and links with a broad system of precautionary justice regulated from Article 19 through Article 30 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), so as to allow the survival of the object of the proceeding and the effectiveness of an eventual favorable judgment. In this proceeding, the construction permit has not been the subject of challenge, despite it being proven in the record that it has been challenged in the administrative venue. In fact, as additional information, it is evident that the representative of the plaintiff has challenged it at the municipal level, who also states that that permit is suspended. Added to this, as part of the legal arguments raised in that challenge, certain issues were presented that are now set forth in this judicial action. The foregoing demonstrates the probability of exercising the right of action for the alleged deficiencies now claimed, once the authorizing act is challenged, which also determines, for those reasons, the inadmissibility of the direct claim against the environmental licenses (licencias ambientales) now sought. Finally, this Court deems it pertinent to make an express statement regarding the following point. The fact that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has established in multiple rulings the possibility of challenging environmental licenses is not unknown. Specifically, as a final relevant point, such as the case of ruling number 18529-08, in which the annulment of the environmental approvals (viabilidades ambientales) within the Las Baulas National Marine Park (Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas) was ordered.

However, it must be made clear that this circumstance in no way imposes upon this jurisdiction the duty to enter into that same evaluative exercise, but taking as a parameter or reference point the review of legality and not the possible transgression of fundamental rights. The content of both jurisdictions, although they may be considered complementary to a system of justice administration that advocates for effective judicial protection and prompt and complete justice, is very different and diverse. The scope of action of this contentious-administrative jurisdiction is limited to the review of legality of the administrative function and protection of the legal situation, in a broad sense, but with the limitations already explained in the previous sections of this resolution. From that perspective, having determined that this is an act that does not produce an effect of its own per se and outside of an authorizing procedure, which in this case has not yet produced any effect of its own, its analysis is foreclosed, and thus, nothing decided in this ruling is modified.

VIII.- Therefore, given the indicated nature of the act of environmental approval (acto de viabilidad ambiental), there is no recourse but to accept the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge, provided for in subsection g) of Article 66 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, raised by the representation of the co-defendant companies.

Therefore, under the protection of ordinal 92.5 of the Procedural Code, the inadmissibility of the claim must be declared and the archiving of the case file ordered."", III.- ON THE EXTENSION AND LIMITS OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION. Certainly, article 49 of the Political Constitution establishes the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, whose object is to exercise plenary control of the administrative function; this control bifurcates into two dimensions. An objective one and a subjective one. From the objective point of view, it exercises a control of legality over the administrative function, that is, over any form of manifestation of the will of public power, which includes actions, omissions, formal manifestations, or material manifestations.

This is therefore a review against the legality imposed by the legal system, as a principle, enshrined in Article 11 of the Carta Magna and developed legislatively in numerals 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. In addition, it safeguards the subjective dimension insofar as that Article 49 incorporates the protection, at least, of the subjective rights and the legitimate interests of the person. This finds echo in the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as it protects the legal situation of the person. This complement of the objective and subjective dimension allows for a legislative development in the specific case of Law number 8508, that is, the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, under a mixed control system that allows not only the control of formal legality, but also material legality and, furthermore, the protection of legal situations, independent of one another. From this perspective, this dynamic thoroughly permeates the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which underpins the current validity of a justice administration system in the contentious-administrative venue, with a mixed connotation. Now, despite that broad framework of control, regarding the objective review, it is clear that the direct challengeability of a specific administrative conduct in the jurisdictional venue must be analyzed in the context of the specific typology and inherent characteristics of each formal conduct manifestation. This is thus derived from Article 36 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, by way of example, as subsection c) indicates that the claim must relate to "final, definitive, or firm acts, or interlocutory acts with their own effect." It is evident that, with the exception of municipal matters and administrative procurement, in which, according to Article 31 of the cited Code – and provided that the exhaustion of the administrative avenue occurs through the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, as an improper two-phase superior, or through the Contraloría General de la República, – such a prerequisite is not required, that is, the mandatory exhaustion of the administrative avenue. Therefore, it would not be necessary to obtain a definitive or firm act in order to be able to seek jurisdictional protection. This means that it is sufficient for the act to be final in order to be challengeable in the contentious venue, unlike those matters, municipal and procurement, in which, for such purposes, with the indicated particularities, it must be definitive and firm. Added to this, the direct challenge of interlocutory acts depends on whether they have their own effect, which is derived from numerals 163.2 and 345.3 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; conversely, when they lack that own effect, it would not be viable for them to be the subject of a contentious-administrative process of this nature. This is indicated in precept 163.2 of the Ley General, as has been indicated, and additionally canon 141 of that same legal body stipulates that for the challenge of a specific act, it must be effective, which implies the possible generation of external and material effects. It is not sufficient, then, for the act to be communicated in order for it to be directly appealable. It must also be, at least, final. Excluded from this coverage spectrum are acts referring to the public employment regime in accordance with Article 3, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as relationships subject to the specific regulations of criminal law. However, numeral 43 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo allows the joinder of claims that refer to matters other than administrative matters, except for criminal matters, provided they derive from the same legal-administrative relationship that is being challenged.

It is in the previous context that the object of coverage of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction must be understood, for the purposes of this resolution.

IV.- THE LEGAL NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSES, AS A DETERMINING ASPECT FOR ESTABLISHING THEIR APPEALABILITY OR NOT IN THIS VENUE.- The Environmental Impact Assessment is constituted as a procedure that involves a complex convergence of legal-technical-administrative variables, whose sole purpose is the measurement, identification, prediction, or projection of the impacts that a specific human activity will probably produce on the environment, should it be carried out or its material execution materialize. Said procedure is issued as a basis for a prior requirement of a subsequent authorizing procedure and is formulated by the competent public administrations, with expertise in environmental matters. Thus seen, in more simplistic terms, it is the procedure by virtue of which the effects and consequences that a works project or human activity will generate on the environment are estimated.

Given the significance of the protected legal interest, its foundation is rooted in the doctrine of numeral 50 of the Political Constitution, therefore, since the due, efficient, and timely protection of the environment, both natural and scenic resources, is a duty of the State, it is an important mechanism for exercising environmental policy, which has a direct and immediate application in productive activities, so as to achieve harmony and compatibility of those economic or social exploitations with the preservation of the environment, within a vision of sustainability or sustainable development. In the national context, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, the Executive Decree cited here, number 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, defines environmental impact in the following manner: "Effect that an activity, works, or project, or some of its actions and components has on the environment or its constituent elements. It can be of a positive or negative, direct or indirect, cumulative or non-cumulative, reversible or irreversible, extensive or limited type, among other characteristics. It differs from environmental damage, in the measure and moment in which the environmental impact is evaluated in an ex-ante process, in such a way that aspects of prevention, mitigation, and compensation can be considered to reduce its scope on the environment." Of course, this environmental impact must be subject to measurement, which is materialized in different instruments that the same legal regulation establishes, among these the environmental impact studies and the environmental viability licenses. In this sense, the cited regulation, in numeral 3, in its subsection 37 conceptualizes the Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) as the administrative scientific-technical procedure that allows identifying and predicting what effects an activity, works, or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. In general, the Environmental Impact Assessment encompasses three essential constitutive phases: a) a first is the Initial Environmental Assessment, b) the second is the preparation of the Environmental Impact Study or other corresponding environmental evaluation instruments, and c) a third refers to the Environmental Control and Monitoring of the activity, works, or project through the established environmental commitments. For its part, subsection 18 of Article 7 of the Biodiversity Law considers environmental impact studies in the following manner: "Scientific-technical procedure that allows identifying and predicting what effects a specific action or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making." Includes the specific effects, their global assessment, the alternatives offering the greatest environmental benefit, a program for the control and minimization of negative effects, a monitoring program, a recovery program, as well as the guarantee of environmental compliance." From the foregoing, it follows that the environmental license or feasibility (viabilidad) approval, as indicated in subsection 63 of Article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation, represents the condition of acceptable harmony and balance between development and execution, human works, and their potential environmental impacts, and the environment of the geographical area where it is intended to be implemented. From an administrative and legal standpoint, it corresponds to the act in which the environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) process is approved, whether in its initial evaluation phase, the study itself, or another impact document.

Now then, the implications of human works on the environment justifies and demands the assessment of that impact on the environment. From this perspective, this collegiate body must bring to bear the provisions of Canon 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), which regarding the aforementioned environmental assessment states: "Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, shall require an environmental impact assessment by the National Technical Secretariat of the Environment (Secretaría Técnica Nacional del Ambiente) created under this law. Its prior approval by this body shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works, or projects will require the environmental impact assessment." V.- The importance of this instrument for measuring the environmental impacts of human activities is undeniable for this Court. However, for the resolution of the present preliminary defense, it is necessary to establish its true legal nature, since, as has been pointed out, being a formal expression of administrative will, its reviewability (recurribilidad) in a jurisdictional venue depends on its categorization as a final act or, at least, an intermediate act with its own effect. For this Court, it is clear that the environmental assessment, as conceived in itself, constitutes an administrative procedure with sui generis and special characteristics by virtue of the regulated subject matter and the complexity of the topic addressed, which requires scientific and technical assessments and measurements. Indeed, in itself, it is a procedure that allows measuring the impact of works, activities, or projects on the environment. As has been noted, the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) itself establishes in its numeral 7 that it is a scientific-technical procedure. The concatenation of analyses, internal acts, and technical and scientific assessments that usually converge in this feasibility examination determines that procedural nature. Added to this, the analysis of its structural elements supports such an assertion. The Legal System establishes a competent authority to issue it, sets formal requirements that petitioners for the feasibility must meet, establishes the framework of prior studies that determine the feasibility or otherwise of the project, and culminates in a decision that reflects the administrative will regarding the harmony, compatibility, or otherwise of the proposed activity with the environment. Thus, it is a procedure that can only be pursued before the environmental authorities, which implies an exclusive and excluding jurisdictional framework. However, despite this apparently principal character of this environmental assessment procedure, it must be framed within the regulations regarding the development of activities imposed by other legal norms. Indeed, this is inferred from Ordinal 17 of the Organic Environmental Law itself, as it states that it will be the laws and regulations that define which activities and projects require, prior, this assessment.

Viewed in this manner, in its correct dimension, the environmental procedure must be coordinated and interwoven with another subsequent procedure, which has an authorizing connotation, if it is understood that the development of the activity, per se, does not depend exclusively and autonomously on the environmental license or environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), but must be complemented with an authorization act issued by another public administration. Examples of the foregoing are found extensively in the Costa Rican legal system; for instance, in concessions for the exploitation of public services, under Article 16 of the Public Services Regulatory Law, No. 7593, the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is an unavoidable requirement for the granting of the concession. Another example of the above is found in the area of building permits, in which, pursuant to the provisions of the Construction Law, the Urban Planning Law and the Municipal Code, the public authority responsible for carrying out the works is the Local Corporation in the territorial district where the project will take place. In that regard, the environmental procedure is interwoven and linked, as a prior requirement, with the authorizing procedure. This is inherent to the cross-cutting nature that characterizes environmental law, which is, moreover, multidisciplinary. This is decisive for determining the possibility of the former, that is, the environmental procedure, of producing its own legal effects or not, since, as established above, only acts that have such an effectual dimension can be subject to challenge in the jurisdictional venue, whether due to their condition as final acts, or due to their own effect, despite being procedural or preparatory acts. The understanding of this dilemma can generate, as is frequent in law, different positions depending on the legal hermeneutics with which it is approached. This Tribunal is not unaware of the various doctrinal positions that are issued regarding the direct challengeability of the environmental license (licencia ambiental). From this point of view, the solution will be different if the point is considered from the orientation of the environmental procedure itself, considered in its individual sphere, or of the authorizing procedure by virtue of which the former is issued. In the first case, the various variables that converge in the procedure would lead to the determination that it is one within which a final decision is issued; therefore, subject to judicial review in this venue. Specifically, within the framework of that position, the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) would constitute the formal manifestation of administrative will, the culmination of that procedure, which would generate a final act in that chain, expressing the advisability or not of carrying out an activity, as well as the impact mitigation measures to be adopted. However, this Tribunal subscribes to the traditional thesis, that is, the one that views the environmental procedure as a function of the authorizing procedure. Indeed, this collegiate body considers that the legislative orientation of the figure of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) in the national legal regime is clearly oriented toward the perspective of the authorizing procedure. For this, it suffices to observe Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which in this regard indicates that environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) is an indispensable requirement for the commencement of activities.

It is evident that if the start of those activities can only occur when another administration grants an authorizing title, in that context, the conceptual nature and the typology of the EIA (environmental impact assessment, EIA) must be observed from the understanding of the authorizing procedure of the activity, since it is considered an elementary prerequisite that must be assessed in another subsequent procedure that determines the authorization for the development of a conduct that is potentially harmful to the environment.

VI.- Within this dynamic, it is then clear that the main process is the authorizing one, since it is in this one that the act is issued which directly permits the exercise of the activity, work, or project. It is precisely the issuance of this authorization that justifies the assessment of the environmental impacts in a given project, since it is before the request to authorize the development of an activity that the need arises to weigh the effects it could generate within the framework of the environment, that is, the potential execution of activities that may be risky or will have an impact or effects on the environment. This is the factual cause that grounds the environmental procedure. More simply, whenever one wants to carry out an activity that produces alteration of the environment, prior to issuing the authorization, the evaluation of the proposal from an environmental point of view is necessary. At this point, it must be clear that the cross-cutting nature of the environmental procedure does not diminish the relevance of its content, to the point that the authorizing procedure is as determinant as the environmental one, the latter, due to the type of aspects it addresses and the impact it has, by its object, on the protective framework of the environment. Environmental viability occurs within a procedure that produces a necessary and binding act emanating from a non-consultative authority in that specific field, namely SETENA. However, despite its high technical and scientific complexity and the essential nature of its purpose by virtue of the protection it intrinsically seeks or intends, the truth is that in its individuality, the environmental decision cannot produce its own and definitive material effect. Such effect can only materialize if the authorization act upon which it depends for such purposes is issued. Environmental viability alone does not permit the exercise of the activity, work, or project, but rather translates, it is reiterated, into a prior basis, by way of an elementary prerequisite, for the analysis of the feasibility of adopting the authorization. Note that despite its binding nature, the granting of environmental feasibility does not necessarily presuppose the granting of the authorization of the work or conduct, since it may well be the case that within the authorizing procedure, the requirements that determine the pertinence of granting the authorization are not met, or that, for other reasons, it is deemed inadmissible. The binding nature of said procedure or pronouncement is not a criterion that by itself can sustain a direct challenge. That effect is produced by the specialty of the competence that allows the analysis of the environmental variable. It is the law that imposes that necessary and binding character, unlike other internal acts that in principle, under Article 303 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), are only optional and not binding. But that in no way allows the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to deploy its effects, by itself and outside the authorizing procedure.

Thus seen, it is an act that concludes the analysis in the environmental venue, which must be taken into account in the final decision, for purposes of understanding that variable, but which does not limit the authorizing act in the facets of its content.

Even so, this Court considers that the authority issuing the authorization could impose additional conditions beyond those provided for in the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), provided they are reasonable, justified, and proportionate. This instrumental nature with respect to the main process that ultimately allows the exercise of the activity or work eliminates the possibility of it being considered a final act or, in the last instance, a procedural step with its own effect (unless the environmental act were a denial, in which case its judicial challenge is fully feasible). This, coupled with the impossibility of it producing effects in the material reality, makes it impossible to consider it a final, definitive resolution challengeable in court. The fact that this act is the result of a procedure in which analyses, consultations, reports, etc., have taken place does not lead to it being considered as having direct jurisdictional appealability, since ultimately it is a formal logical structure necessary to determine the viability of the proposal in environmental terms, which only has meaning for the purpose of issuing the authorization in another procedure.

On the other hand, the technical specialty of SETENA does not transmute that non-definitive or procedural-step nature, as it is not a criterion that autonomously allows an act to be considered appealable (preleable).

VII.- From the foregoing, it follows that this is an act that does not produce its own effects independently, whose direct challengeability in this venue is unfeasible. This is determined by the doctrine underlying article 163.2 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), which advocates the impossibility of judicially appealing acts that do not have that own effect, an effect that is produced only when the act directly or indirectly resolves the substance of the matter, indefinitely suspends the procedure, or makes its continuation impossible, or when it substantially or directly alters subjective rights or legitimate interests (163.2 and 345.3 of the General Law of Public Administration), circumstances that, in the judgment of this collegiate body, do not converge in this case. This is confirmed in subparagraph c) of Article 36 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), which indicates, it is reiterated, that the claim must be brought, among other manifestations of administrative function, against administrative acts, whether final, definitive, or procedural steps with their own effect. In this case, the challenged conduct, namely, resolutions number 1156-2007-SETENA, 1591-2007-SETENA, and official communication number CP-101-2007-SETENA, are manifestations of environmental viabilities (viabilidades ambientales) regarding real estate projects in the Tamarindo area, Guanacaste, Canton of Santa Cruz. From this perspective, pursuant to the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), and the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the authorizing act to carry out such development corresponds to the Municipality of that locality, through the granting of the construction permit. It is precisely that "permit," the act that allows the exercise of the requested conduct, that is, the act that effectively creates a legal situation and that, therefore, is subject to jurisdictional challenge, as has been set forth. The foregoing in no way undermines the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment derived from Article 50 of the Constitution, nor the protective purpose of environmental viabilities, nor does it oppose the principles protecting those rights, specifically, pro natura, precautionary (precautorio), and preventive (preventivo). Quite the contrary.

This collegiate body is clear on and recognizes the relevance of protecting the environment at both a preventive and a precautionary level. However, such protection must be carried out in accordance with the legal and procedural parameters that permeate the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within which the possibility of challenging a procedural act (acto de trámite) is only viable when it produces its own effects, and in general, the challengeability of an act, regardless of its nature, would be viable when that direct own effect comes to be produced. Given this situation, in light of the impossibility of the environmental act generating immediate and direct effects, it makes it an act that cannot be challenged directly in this jurisdiction. This does not prevent control of the administrative function nor the possibility of challenging acts potentially harmful to the environment. What is established is when its reviewability (recurribilidad) is pertinent and timely. It is within the contestation of the challengeable act that all allegations relating to the various variables that were weighed in the environmental venue (sede ambiental) can be raised, together with the possible deficiencies that might exist in the authorizing (autorizatorio) administrative procedure phase. Thus, harm to the environment from illegal acts can be protected through ordinary channels or through the preferential procedure, as has occurred here, with the warnings already set forth, and moreover, with a protective framework that is complemented and interwoven with a broad system of precautionary justice regulated from Article 19 through 30 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, so as to allow the survival of the object of the process and the effectiveness of a potential favorable judgment. In this process, the construction permit has not been the object of challenge, even though it has been accredited in the case file that it has been challenged in the administrative venue. In fact, as additional data, the challenge that the attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff has made in the municipal venue, who also states that this permit is suspended, is evident. In addition to this, as part of the legal arguments raised in that challenge, some questions were presented that are now expressed in the judicial action. The foregoing demonstrates the probability of exercising the right of action for the alleged deficiencies now being accused, once the authorizing (autorizatorio) act is challenged, which also determines, for those reasons, the impropriety of the direct claim against the environmental licenses (licencias ambientales) now sought. Finally, this Tribunal deems it pertinent to make an observation regarding the following point. The fact that the Sala Constitucional has established in multiple resolutions the possibility of challenging environmental licenses (licencias ambientales) is not unknown. Specifically, as a last relevant piece of information, such is the case of Resolution number 18529-08, in which the annulment of the environmental viabilities (viabilidades ambientales) within the Las Baulas National Marine Park was ordered. However, it must be made clear that this circumstance does not in any way impose upon this jurisdiction the duty to enter into that same evaluative exercise, but taking as a reference parameter or comparison the control of legality and not the possible transgression of fundamental rights. The content of both jurisdictions, while they may be considered complementary to a justice administration system that advocates for effective judicial protection and prompt and complete justice, is very different and diverse. The scope of action of this contentious-administrative jurisdiction is limited to the control of legality of the administrative function and the protection of the legal situation, in a broad sense, but with the limitations already explained in the previous sections of this resolution.

From that perspective, having determined that we are dealing with an act that does not generate an effect of its own per se and outside of an authorization (autorizatorio) proceeding, which in this case has not yet produced any effect of its own, its analysis is barred, and therefore nothing decided in this judgment is altered.

VIII.— Therefore, given the indicated nature of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) act, there is no alternative but to uphold the defense of an act not subject to challenge (acto no susceptible de impugnación), provided for in subsection g) of Article 66 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), filed by the representation of the co-defendant companies.

Therefore, under the protection of ordinal 92.5 of the Code of Procedure (Código de rito), the inadmissibility of the claim must be declared and the archiving of the case file ordered.” **III.– ON THE EXTENT AND LIMITS OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.** Certainly, Article 49 of the Political Constitution establishes the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, whose purpose is to exercise plenary control over the administrative function; this control is bifurcated into two dimensions.

One objective and one subjective. From the objective point of view, it exercises a control of legality over the administrative function, that is, over any form of manifestation of the will of the public power, which includes actions, omissions, formal manifestations, or material manifestations. It is therefore a comparison with the legality imposed by the legal system, as a principle, in Article 11 of la Carta Magna and which is developed legislatively in numerals 11 and 13 of la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Furthermore, it safeguards the subjective dimension insofar as that Article 49 incorporates the protection, at least, of the subjective rights and legitimate interests of the person. This finds an echo in the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, insofar as it protects the legal situation of the person. This complement of the objective and subjective dimension allows for establishing a legislative development in the specific case of Law number 8508, that is, the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, under a mixed control system that permits not only the control of formal legality, but also material legality and, moreover, the protection of legal situations, independent of one another. From this perspective, this dynamic thoroughly permeates the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which sustains the bases for the current validity of a system of administration of justice in the contentious-administrative venue, with a mixed connotation. Now then, despite that broad framework of control, as far as objective comparison is concerned, it is clear that the direct challengeability in the jurisdictional venue of a specific administrative conduct must be analyzed in the context of the specific typology and characteristics inherent to each manifestation of formal conduct. Thus, in effect, it is inferred from Article 36 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, by way of example, insofar as subparagraph c) indicates that the claim must be linked to “final, definitive or firm acts or procedural acts with their own effect.” It is evident that with the exception of municipal matters and administrative contracting, in which, according to Article 31 of the cited Code —and provided that the exhaustion of the administrative channel occurs through the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, as an improper biphasic superior, or through la Contraloría General de la República— such a prerequisite is not required, that is, mandatory exhaustion of the administrative channel; as such, it would not be necessary to obtain a definitive or firm act in order to be able to resort to jurisdictional protection. This means that it is sufficient for the act to be final in order for it to be challengeable in the contentious-administrative venue, unlike those matters, municipal and contracting, in which, for such purposes, with the indicated particularities, it must be definitive and firm. In addition to this, the direct challenge of procedural acts depends on their having their own effect, which is derived from numerals 163.2 and 345.3 of la Ley General de la Administración Pública, conversely, when they lack that own effect, it would not be viable for them to be the object of a process of this contentious-administrative nature. This is indicated in precept 163.2 of la Ley General, as has been noted, and additionally canon 141 of that same legal body stipulates that for the challenge of a specific act, it must be effective, which implies, capable of generating external and material effects. It is not enough, then, for the act to be communicated in order for it to be directly appealable. It must also be, at least, final.

Excluded from this scope of coverage are acts referring to the public employment regime in accordance with Article 3(a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as relationships that are subject to the specific regulations of criminal law. Nevertheless, Article 43 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo allows the joinder of claims that refer to matters other than administrative matters, with the exception of criminal matters, provided they derive from the same administrative legal relationship that is being challenged. It is in the foregoing context that the object of coverage of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction must be understood, for the purposes of this resolution.

IV.- THE LEGAL NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSES, AS A DETERMINING FACTOR TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CHALLENGEABLE IN THIS FORUM.- The environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) constitutes a procedure that displays a complex convergence of legal-technical-administrative variables, the purpose of which is none other than the measurement, identification, prediction, or projection of the impacts that a specific human activity will probably produce on the environment, should it be carried out or its material execution be realized. This procedure is issued as the basis for a prior requirement of a subsequent authorization (autorizatorio) procedure and is formulated by the competent public administrations with expertise in environmental matters. Seen this way, in simpler terms, it is the procedure by virtue of which the effects and consequences that a work project or human activity will generate on the environment are estimated. Given the importance of the protected legal interest, its support is rooted in the doctrine of Article 50 of the Constitución Política; therefore, since it is a duty of the State to provide due, efficient, and timely protection of the environment, both natural and landscape resources, it constitutes an important mechanism for exercising environmental policy, which has a direct and immediate application in productive activities, so as to achieve harmony and compatibility of those economic or social exploitations with the preservation of the environment, within a vision of sustainability or sustainable development. In the domestic context, the Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluaciones de Impactos Ambientales, the Decreto Ejecutivo cited herein, number 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, defines environmental impact as follows: “The effect that an activity, work, or project, or some of its actions and components, has on the environment or its constituent elements. It may be positive or negative, direct or indirect, cumulative or not, reversible or irreversible, extensive or limited, among other characteristics. It differs from environmental damage, in the measure and moment that the environmental impact is evaluated in an ex-ante process, so that aspects of prevention, mitigation, and compensation may be considered to reduce its scope on the environment.” Naturally, this environmental impact must be measured, which is materialized in different instruments that the legal regulation itself establishes, among these, the environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) and the environmental feasibility licenses (licencias de viabilidad ambiental). In this sense, the cited regulation, in Article 3, subsection 37, conceptualizes the EIA as the scientific-technical administrative procedure that allows identification and prediction of what effects an activity, work, or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making.

In general terms, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación del impacto ambiental, EIA) encompasses three essential constitutive phases: a) a first is the Initial Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Inicial), b) the second is the preparation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) or other environmental assessment instruments that may correspond, and c) a third refers to the environmental control and monitoring (Control y Seguimiento ambiental) of the activity, work or project through the established environmental commitments (compromisos ambientales). For its part, subsection 18 of article 7 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) considers environmental impact studies in the following manner: “Scientific-technical procedure that allows identifying and predicting which effects a specific action or project will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. It includes the specific effects, their global assessment, the alternatives of greatest environmental benefit, a program for the control and minimization of negative effects, a monitoring program, a recovery program, as well as the guarantee of environmental compliance.” From the foregoing it follows that the environmental license (licencia) or environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), as indicated by subsection 63 of the third section of the aforementioned Regulation (Reglamento), represents the condition of acceptable harmony and balance between human development and execution of a work and its potential environmental impacts, and the environment of the geographical space where it is intended to be implemented. From an administrative and legal standpoint, it corresponds to the act by which the EIA process is approved, whether in its initial assessment phase, the study itself, or another impact document.

Now, the implications of human works on the environment justifies and demands the assessment of that impact on the environment. From this perspective, this collegiate body must bring up what is established by canon 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), which regarding the aforementioned environmental assessment states: “Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, shall require an environmental impact assessment by the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional del Ambiente) created in this law. Its prior approval, by this agency, shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment.” V.- The importance that this instrument for measuring environmental impacts in human conduct holds is undeniable for this Court. However, it is necessary, for the resolution of this preliminary defense (defensa previa), to establish its true legal nature, since, as has been pointed out, being a formal expression of administrative will, its challengeability (recurribilidad) in the jurisdictional venue depends on its categorization as a final act or at least a procedural act (acto de trámite) with its own effect. For this Court, it is clear that the environmental assessment, as conceived, constitutes an administrative procedure with sui generis and special characteristics by virtue of the regulated matter and the complexity of the topic addressed, which demands scientific and technical assessments and measurements. In effect, in itself, it is a procedure that allows measuring the impact on the environment of works, activities or projects. As has been indicated, the Biodiversity Law itself establishes in its article 7 that it is a scientific-technical procedure. The concatenation of analysis, internal acts, and technical and scientific assessments that usually converge in this viability examination determines that procedural nature. Added to this, the analysis of its structural elements supports such affirmation.

Legal System establishes a competent authority to issue it, sets formal requirements that petitioners of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) must fulfill, establishes the framework of prior studies that determine the feasibility (factibilidad) or not of the project and culminates with a decision that reflects the administrative will regarding the harmony, compatibility or not of the proposed activity with the environment. Thus, it is a procedure (procedimiento) that can only be pursued before environmental authorities, which implies an exclusive and excluding jurisdictional framework. However, that seemingly principal nature of this environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) procedure, must be framed within the regulations that, in matters of activity developments, other legal norms impose. Thus, in effect, it is inferred from section 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), in that it indicates that it will be the laws and regulations, the instruments that define which activities and projects require, in a prior manner, this evaluation. Seen this way, in its correct dimension, the environmental procedure must be coordinated and intertwined with another subsequent procedure, which has an authorizing connotation, if it is understood that the development of the activity, per se, does not depend exclusively and in an autonomous and independent manner on the environmental license or feasibility (viabilidad ambiental), but must be complemented with an authorization act issued by another public administration. Examples of the foregoing are widely found in the Costa Rican legal system, for instance, in concessions for the exploitation of a public service, under Article 16 of the Regulatory Law of Public Services, number 7593, the environmental impact study is an unpostponable requirement for the granting of the concession. Another example of the indicated is found in the matter of buildability, in which, pursuant to the provisions of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) and the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the public authority responsible for carrying out the works is the Local Corporation (Corporación Local) in the territorial jurisdiction where the project will be executed. In that regard, the environmental procedure intersects and links, as a prior requirement, with the authorizing procedure. This is characteristic of the transversality (transversalidad) that characterizes environmental law, moreover, multidisciplinary. This is decisive in terms of establishing the possibility of the former producing its own legal effects or not, that is, the environmental procedure, since, as established above, only the acts that have such an effectual dimension can be subject to possible challenge (impugnación) in the jurisdictional venue, either due to their condition as final, or due to their own effect, despite being procedural or preparatory acts. The understanding of this dilemma can generate, as is frequent in law, different positions depending on the legal hermeneutics (hermenéutica jurídica) with which it is approached. This Tribunal does not ignore the different doctrinary positions that are issued regarding the direct challengeability (impugnabilidad) or not of the environmental license. From this point of view, the solution will be different if the point is considered from the orientation of the environmental procedure itself, considered in its individual sphere, or from the authorizing procedure by virtue of which the former is issued. In the first case, the various variables that converge in the procedure would lead to determining that it is one within which a final decision is issued, therefore, challengeable in this venue. Specifically, within the framework of that position, the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) would constitute the formal manifestation of the administrative will, the culmination of that procedure, which would generate an act, final in that chain, that would express the advisability or not of carrying out a conduct, as well as the mitigation measures for impact that must be adopted.

However, this Court shares the traditional thesis, that is, the one that views the environmental procedure in terms of the authorization (autorizatorio) procedure. Indeed, this collegiate body considers that the legislative orientation of the figure of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) in the national legal regime is clearly directed toward the perspective of the authorization procedure.

For this, it suffices to observe Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which to that effect indicates that environmental viability is an indispensable requirement for the start of activities. It is evident that if the start of these activities can only occur when another administration grants an authorization title (título autorizatorio), in that context, the conceptual nature and typology of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) must be observed from the understanding of the authorization procedure of the activity, since it is considered an elementary prerequisite that must be assessed in a subsequent procedure that determines the authorization for the development of conduct that is potentially harmful to the environment.

VI.- Within this dynamic, it is then clear that the main process is the authorization procedure, since it is in this that the act is issued that directly permits the exercise of the activity, work, or project. It is precisely the issuance of this authorization that justifies the assessment of environmental impacts (incidencias ambientales) in a given project, since it is upon the request to authorize the development of an activity that the need arises to weigh the effects it could generate within the framework of the environment, that is, the potential execution of activities that may be risky or will have an impact or effects on the environment. This is the factual cause that underlies the environmental procedure. More simply, whenever an activity that produces environmental alteration is to be carried out, prior to issuing the authorization, the evaluation of the proposal from an environmental point of view is necessary. At this point, it must be clear that the cross-cutting nature (transversalidad) of the environmental procedure does not diminish the relevance of its content, to the point that the authorization procedure is as decisive as the environmental one, the latter, because of the type of aspects it addresses and the impact it has on the protective framework of the environment as its object. Environmental viability occurs within a procedure that produces a necessary and binding act emanating from a non-consultative authority in that specific field, namely SETENA. However, despite its high technical and scientific complexity and the essential nature of its character by virtue of the protection it intrinsically seeks or intends, the truth of the matter is that, in its individuality, the environmental decision cannot produce its own material and definitive effect. Such an effect can only materialize if the authorization act on which it depends for these purposes is issued. The environmental viability alone does not allow the exercise of the activity, work, or project, but rather translates, it is insisted, into a prior basis, as an elementary prerequisite, for the analysis of the feasibility of adopting the authorization. Note that even with its binding nature (vinculatoriedad), the granting of environmental feasibility does not necessarily presuppose the granting of the work or conduct authorization, since it may well be the case that within the authorization procedure, the requirements that determine the pertinence of granting the authorization are not met, or, for issues of another nature, it is deemed inappropriate. The binding nature (vinculatoriedad) of said procedure or pronouncement is not a criterion that by itself allows supporting a direct challenge. That effect is produced by the specialty of the competence that allows the analysis of the environmental variable.

It is the law that imposes that necessary and binding nature, unlike other internal acts which, in principle, under the protection of numeral 303 of the General Law of Public Administration, are merely optional and not binding. But which in no way allows the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to deploy its effects, by itself and outside of the authorization procedure.

Thus viewed, it is an act that concludes the analysis at the environmental level, which must be taken into account in the final decision, for purposes of understanding that variable, but which does not limit the authorization act in the facets of its content. Indeed, this Court considers that the authority issuing the authorization could impose additional conditions to those provided for in the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), provided they are reasonable, justified, and proportionate.

This instrumental nature with respect to the main process that ultimately permits the exercise of the activity or work eliminates the possibility of it being considered a final act or, in the last case, a procedural act with its own effect (unless the environmental act were a denial, in which case its judicial challenge is fully feasible). This, coupled with the impossibility of it producing effects in the material reality, makes it impossible to consider it as a definitive final resolution challengeable in judicial proceedings. The fact that this act is the result of a procedure in which analyses, consultations, reports, etc., have occurred does not lead to it being deemed as having the possibility of direct jurisdictional challenge, since, in the end, it is a formal logical structure, necessary to determine the viability of the proposal in environmental terms, which only has meaning for purposes of issuing the authorization in another procedure.

On the other hand, the technical specialty of SETENA does not transmute that non-definitive or procedural nature, since it is not a criterion that autonomously allows an act to be considered challengeable.

VII.- From the foregoing, it follows that this is an act that does not produce its own effects independently, whose direct challengeability in this venue is unfeasible. This is determined by the doctrine underlying Article 163.2 of the General Law of Public Administration, which advocates the impossibility of judicially challenging acts that do not have that own effect, an effect that is only produced when the act directly or indirectly resolves the merits of the matter, indefinitely suspends the procedure, or makes its continuation impossible, or when it substantially or directly alters subjective rights or legitimate interests (163.2 and 345.3 of the General Law of Public Administration), circumstances that, in the judgment of this collegiate body, do not converge in the present case. This is confirmed in subsection c) of precept 36 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, which indicates, it is insisted, that the claim must be deduced, among other manifestations of administrative function, against administrative acts, whether they are final, definitive, or procedural with their own effect. In the present case, the contested conducts, that is, resolutions number 1156-2007-SETENA, 1591-2007-SETENA, and official letter number CP-101-2007-SETENA, are manifestations of environmental viabilities regarding real estate projects in the Tamarindo area, Guanacaste, Santa Cruz Canton. From this perspective, in accordance with the Construction Law, Urban Planning Law, and the Municipal Code, the authorization act to carry out such development corresponds to the Municipality of that locality, through the granting of the construction permit. It is precisely said “permit” that is the act allowing the exercise of the requested conduct, that is, the act that effectively creates status and therefore is susceptible to jurisdictional challenge, as has been stated.

The foregoing in no way undermines the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment that derives from Article 50 of the Constitution, nor the protective purpose of environmental feasibility determinations (viabilidades ambientales), nor does it contradict the principles of protection of those rights, specifically, pro natura, precautionary (precautorio), and preventive (preventivo). Quite the contrary. This collegiate body clearly understands and recognizes the relevance of safeguarding the environment at both the preventive and precautionary levels. However, such safeguarding must be carried out in accordance with the legal and procedural parameters that permeate the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within which the possibility of challenging (impugnar) a preliminary act (acto de trámite) is only viable when it produces its own effects, and in general, the challengeability (impugnabilidad) of an act, regardless of its nature, would be viable when that direct, own effect comes to be produced. Given this situation, the impossibility of the environmental act generating immediate and direct effects makes it an act that cannot be directly challenged in this jurisdiction. This does not prevent control of the administrative function nor the possibility of challenging acts potentially harmful to the environment. What is established is when its reviewability (recurribilidad) is pertinent and timely. It is within the challenge of the appealable act that all allegations related to the various variables weighed in the environmental venue may be raised, along with any possible deficiencies that may exist in the authorization (autorizatorio) administrative procedure phase. Thus, damage to the environment caused by illegal acts can be protected through ordinary channels or through the preferential procedure, as has happened here, with the warnings already set forth, and, furthermore, with a protective framework that is complemented and interwoven with a broad system of interim relief (justicia cautelar) regulated from Article 19 through Article 30 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), so as to permit the survival of the object of the proceeding and the effectiveness of an eventual favorable judgment. In this proceeding, the construction permit has not been the subject of challenge, despite it being proven in the record that it has been in the administrative channel. In fact, as additional data, it emerges that the challenge at the municipal level has been made by the legal representative of the plaintiff, who also states that said permit is suspended. Added to this, as part of the legal arguments raised in that challenge, certain issues were presented that are now set forth in the judicial action. The foregoing demonstrates the likelihood of exercising the right of action for the alleged deficiencies now claimed, once the authorizing act (acto autorizatorio) is challenged, which also determines, for those reasons, the inadmissibility of the direct claim against the environmental licenses (licencias ambientales) now sought. Lastly, this Tribunal deems it pertinent to express an opinion regarding the following point. It does not ignore the fact that the Constitutional Chamber (la Sala Constitucional) has established in multiple resolutions the possibility of challenging environmental licenses. Specifically, as a final relevant data point, such is the case of resolution number 18529-08, in which the annulment of the environmental feasibility determinations within the Las Baulas National Marine Park (Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas) was ordered. However, it must be made clear that this circumstance in no way imposes upon this jurisdiction the duty to enter into that same evaluative exercise, but rather taking as a parameter or reference point the control of legality and not the possible transgression of fundamental rights. The content of both jurisdictions, although they may be considered a complement to a system of administration of justice that advocates for effective judicial protection and swift, full justice, is very different and diverse.

The framework of action of this contentious-administrative jurisdiction is limited to the legality control of the administrative function and the protection of the legal situation, in a broad sense, but with the limitations already set forth in the prior sections of this resolution. From that perspective, having determined that this is an act that does not generate its own effect per se and apart from an authorizing procedure, which in this case has not come to produce any effect of its own, its analysis is foreclosed, and thus, nothing decided in this judgment is modified in any way.

VIII.- Therefore, given the indicated nature of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) act, there is no alternative but to accept the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge (impugnación), provided for in subsection g) of article 66 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), raised by the representation of the co-defendant companies. Consequently, under the protection of ordinal 92.5 of said procedural Code, the inadmissibility of the complaint must be declared and the archiving of the case file (expediente) ordered.”

“III.- SOBRE LA EXTENSIÓN Y LÍMITES DE LA JURISDICCIÓN CONTENCIOSA ADMINISTRATIVA. Ciertamente el artículo 49 de la Constitución Política establece la jurisdicción contenciosa, cuyo objeto es ejercer un control plenario de la función administrativa, este control se bifurca en dos dimensiones. Una objetiva y una subjetiva. Desde el punto de vista objetivo ejerce un control de legalidad de la función administrativa, esto es, de cualquier forma de manifestación del ejercicio de la voluntad del poder público, lo que incluye acciones, omisiones, manifestaciones formales o manifestaciones materiales. Se trata entonces de un cotejo con la legalidad que impone el ordenamiento, a modo de principio, en el artículo 11 de la Carta Magna y que se desarrolla legislativamente en los numerales 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Además, tutela la dimensión subjetiva en tanto incorpora, ese artículo 49, el resguardo, al menos, de los derechos subjetivos y de los intereses legítimos de la persona. Esto encuentra eco en el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en cuanto tutela la situación jurídica de la persona. Este complemento de la dimensión objetiva y subjetiva permite establecer un desarrollo legislativo en el caso concreto de la ley número 8508, esto es el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, bajo un sistema de control mixto que permite no solamente el control de la legalidad formal, sino el material y además, la tutela de situaciones jurídicas, independiente una de la otra. Desde este plano, esta dinámica impregna por demás el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, que sustenta las bases para la vigencia actual de un sistema de administración de justicia en sede contencioso administrativa, con una connotación mixta. Ahora bien, pese a ese amplio marco de control, en lo que al cotejo objetivo se refiere, es claro que la impugnabilidad directa en sede jurisdiccional de una determinada conducta administrativa, debe analizarse en el contexto de la tipología especifica y características propias de cada manifestación de conducta formal. Así en efecto se desprende del artículo 36 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, a modo de ejemplo, en cuanto al inciso c) indica que la pretensión debe vincularse con “actos finales, definitivos o firmes o de trámite con efecto propio.” Es evidente que con la salvedad de la materia municipal y de la contratación administrativa, en las que según el artículo 31 del citado Código, - y siempre que el agotamiento de la vía se produzca por parte del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, como jerarca impropio bifásico o de la Contraloría General de la República,- no se requiere de tal presupuesto, esto es, agotamiento preceptivo de la vía administrativa, por tal, no sería necesario obtener un acto definitivo o firme para poder acudir a la tutela jurisdiccional. Esto supone que basta que el acto sea final para que pueda ser impugnable en sede contenciosa, a diferencia de aquellas materias, municipal y contratación, en la que para tales efectos, con las particularidades indicadas, ha de ser definitivo y firme. Aunado a ello, la impugnación directa de los actos de trámite pende de que tengan un efecto propio, lo que se deriva de los numerales 163.2 y 345.3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, contrario sensu, cuando carezcan de ese efecto propio, no sería viable que sean objeto de un proceso de esta naturaleza contencioso administrativa. Esto viene indicado en el precepto 163.2 de la Ley General, como se ha indicado, adicionalmente el canon 141 de ese mismo cuerpo legal, estatuye que para la impugnación de un determinado acto, este debe ser eficaz, lo que implica, de posible generación de efectos externos y materiales. No basta entonces que el acto sea comunicado para que pueda ser recurrible de manera directa. Debe además, ser, al menos, final. De este espectro de cobertura se encuentran excluidos los actos que se refieran al régimen de empleo público de conformidad con el artículo 3 inciso a) Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, así como las relaciones que se encuentren sujetas a las regulaciones propias del derecho penal. Con todo, el numeral 43 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, permite la acumulación de pretensiones que se refieran a materias diferentes a la administrativa, excepción hecha de la materia penal, siempre que deriven de la misma relación jurídico administrativa que es objeto de cuestionamiento. Es en el anterior contexto que debe entenderse el objeto de cobertura de la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, para los fines de la presente resolución.

IV.- LA NATURALEZA JURÍDICA DE LAS LICENCIAS AMBIENTALES, COMO ASPECTO DETERMINANTE PARA ESTABLECER SU IMPUGNABILIDAD O NO ES ESTA SEDE.- La Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental se constituye como un procedimiento que ostenta una compleja convergencia de variables jurídico-técnico-administrativas, cuya finalidad no es otra que la medición, identificación, predicción o proyección de los impactos que una determinada actividad humana producirá, con probabilidad, en el ambiente, caso de que sea llevado a cabo o se concretice su ejecución material. Dicho procedimiento se emite como base a un requerimiento previo de un procedimiento autorizatorio posterior y se formula por parte de las administraciones públicas competentes, con experticia en los menesteres ambientales. Así visto, en términos más simplistas, es el procedimiento en virtud del cual, se estiman los efectos y consecuencias que un proyecto de obra o actividad humana va a generar en el ambiente.

Dada la trascendencia del bien jurídico tutelado, su sustento se afinca en la doctrina del numeral 50 de la Constitución Política, por tanto, siendo un deber del Estado la tutela debida, eficiente y oportuna del ambiente, tanto los recursos naturales como paisajísticos, se trata de un importante mecanismo de ejercicio de política ambiental, que tiene una aplicación directa e inmediata en las actividades productivas, de manera que logre la armonía y compatibilidad de esas explotaciones económicas o sociales, con la preservación del medio, dentro de una visión de sostenibilidad o desarrollo sostenible. En el contexto patrio, el Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluaciones de Impactos Ambientales, Decreto Ejecutivo que aquí ha sido citado, número 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, define el impacto ambiental de la siguiente manera: “Efecto que una actividad, obra o proyecto, o alguna de sus acciones y componentes tiene sobre el ambiente o sus elementos constituyentes. Puede ser de tipo positivo o negativo, directo o indirecto, acumulativo o no, reversible o irreversible, extenso o limitado, entre otras características. Se diferencia del daño ambiental, en la medida y el momento en que el impacto ambiental es evaluado en un proceso ex – ante, de forma tal que puedan considerarse aspectos de prevención, mitigación y compensación para disminuir su alcance en el ambiente.” Desde luego que este impacto ambiental debe ser objeto de medición, lo que se materializa en distintos instrumentos que la misma regulación jurídica establece entre estos los estudios de impacto ambiental y las licencias de viabilidad ambiental. En este sentido, el citado reglamento, en el numeral 3, en su inciso 37 conceptualiza la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) como el procedimiento administrativo científico-técnico que permite identificar y predecir cuáles efectos ejercerá sobre el ambiente, una actividad, obra o proyecto, cuantificándolos y ponderándolos para conducir a la toma de decisiones. De forma general, la Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental, abarca tres fases constitutivas esenciales: a) una primera es la Evaluación Ambiental Inicial, b) la segunda es la confección del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental o de otros instrumentos de evaluación ambiental que corresponda, y c) un tercero se refiere al Control y Seguimiento ambiental de la actividad, obra o proyecto a través de los compromisos ambientales establecidos. Por su parte, el inciso 18 del artículo 7 de la Ley de Biodiversidad considera los estudios de impacto ambiental de la siguiente manera: “Procedimiento científico-técnico que permite identificar y predecir cuáles efectos ejercerá sobre el ambiente una acción o proyecto específico, cuantificándolos y ponderándolos para conducir a la toma de decisiones. Incluye los efectos específicos, su evaluación global, las alternativas de mayor beneficio ambiental un programa de control y minimización de los efectos negativos, un programa de monitoreo, un programa de recuperación, así como la garantía de cumplimiento ambiental.” De lo anterior se desprende que la licencia o viabilidad ambiental, tal y como lo señala el inciso 63 del ordinal tercero del Reglamento previa cita, representa la condición de armonía y equilibrio medio y aceptable, entre el desarrollo y ejecución, obra humana y sus impactos ambientales potenciales, y el ambiente del espacio geográfico donde se desea implementar. Desde el punto de vista administrativo y jurídico, corresponde al acto en que se aprueba el proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, ya sea en su fase de evaluación inicial, estudio propiamente o de otro documento del impacto.

Ahora bien, las implicaciones de las obras humanas en el ambiente justifica y exige la evaluación de ese impacto en el medio. Desde este plano, este órgano colegiado debe traer a colación lo estatuido por el canon 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, que sobre la citada evaluación ambiental señala: “Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional del Ambiente creada en esta ley. Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental.” V.- Es innegable para este Tribunal la trascendencia que ostenta este instrumento de medición de los impactos ambientales en las conductas humanas. Empero, es preciso, de cara a la resolución de la presente defensa previa, establecer su real naturaleza jurídica, pues como se ha señalado, siendo una expresión formal de la voluntad administrativa, su recurribilidad en sede jurisdiccional pende de su categorización como acto final o al menos, uno de trámite con efecto propio. Para este Tribunal, es claro que la evaluación ambiental, en sí concebida, constituye un procedimiento administrativo con características sui generis y especiales en virtud de la materia regulada y la complejidad del tema tratado que exige valoraciones y mediciones científicas y técnicas. En efecto, en sí mismo, se trata de un procedimiento que permite medir el impacto en el ambiente de obras, actividades o proyectos. Según se ha señalado, la misma Ley de Biodiversidad establece en su numeral 7, que se trata de un procedimiento científico-técnico. La concatenación de análisis, actos internos y valoraciones técnicas y científicas que usualmente convergen en este examen de viabilidad, determina esa naturaleza procedimental. Aunado a ello, el análisis de sus elementos estructurales permite soportar tal afirmación. El Ordenamiento Jurídico establece una autoridad competente para emitirlo, fija exigencias formales que deben llenar los peticionarios de la viabilidad, establece el marco de estudios previos que determinan la factibilidad o no del proyecto y culmina con una decisión que refleja la voluntad administrativa respecto de la armonía, compatibilidad o no de la propuesta de actividad con el ambiente. Así las cosas, se trata de un procedimiento que solo puede cursarse ante las autoridades ambientales, lo que supone un marco competencial exclusivo y excluyente. No obstante ese carácter aparentemente principal este procedimiento, de evaluación ambiental, debe enmarcarse dentro de las regulaciones que en materia de desarrollos de actividades, imponen las demás normas jurídicas. Así en efecto se colige del mismo ordinal 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, en cuanto señala que serán las leyes y reglamentos, los instrumentos que definan cuales son las actividades y proyectos que requieren, de manera previa, de esta valoración. Así visto, en su correcta dimensión, el procedimiento ambiental debe coordinarse y entrecruzarse con otro procedimiento posterior, que tienen una connotación autorizatoria, si se entiende que el desarrollo de la actividad, per se, no pende con exclusividad y de manera autónoma e independiente de la licencia o viabilidad ambiental, sino que debe complementarse con un acto de autorización que emite, otra administración pública. Ejemplos de lo dicho se dan con amplitud en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, verbigracia, en las concesiones para la explotación de servicio público, al amparo del artículo16 de la Ley de Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, número 7593, el estudio de impacto ambiental es un requisito impostergable para el otorgamiento de la concesión. Otro ejemplo de lo indicado se encuentra en la materia de edificabilidad, en la cual, al tenor de lo preceptuado en la Ley de Construcciones, Ley de Planificación Urbana y el Código Municipal, la autoridad pública encargada de llevar a cabo las obras, es la Corporación Local en la circunscripción territorial en la que se llevará a cabo el proyecto. En ese tanto el procedimiento ambiental se entrecruza y enlaza, a modo de exigencia previa, con el procedimiento autorizatorio. Esto es propio de la transversalidad que caracteriza al derecho ambiental, por demás, multidisciplinario. Esto es determinante de cara a fijar la posibilidad de aquel primero de producir efectos jurídicos propios o no, esto es el procedimiento ambiental, pues como se ha sentado arriba, solo los actos que tengan tal dimensión efectual pueden llegar a ser de posible impugnación en la sede jurisdiccional, sea por su condición de finales, o bien por su efecto propio, pese a ser actos de trámite o preparatorios. La comprensión de este dilema puede generar, como es frecuente en el derecho distintas posiciones dependiendo de la hermenéutica jurídica con la cual se aborde. Este Tribunal no desconoce las distintas posiciones doctrinarias que se emiten respecto a la impugnabilidad directa o no de la licencia ambiental. Desde este punto de vista, la solución será distinta si se considera el punto desde la orientación del procedimiento ambiental propiamente, considerado en su esfera individual, o del procedimiento autorizatorio en virtud del cual se emite el primero. En el primero de los casos, las diversas variables que convergen en el procedimiento, llevaría a determinar que es uno dentro del cual, se emite una decisión final, por tanto, preleable en esta sede. En concreto, en el marco de esa posición, la viabilidad ambiental constituiría la manifestación formal de la voluntad administrativa, culminación de ese procedimiento, lo que generaría un acto, final de esa cadena, que expresaría la conveniencia o no de llevar a cabo una conducta, así como de las medidas de mitigación de impacto que deben adoptarse. Sin embargo, este Tribunal, es partícipe de la tesis tradicional, esta es, la que visualiza el procedimiento ambiental en función del procedimiento autorizatorio. En efecto, estima este órgano colegiado que la orientación legislativa de la figura de la viabilidad ambiental en el régimen jurídico nacional, se encuentra claramente orientada hacia la óptica del procedimiento autorizatorio.

Para esto, basta observar el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, que al efecto indica que la viabilidad ambiental es un requisito indispensable para el inicio las actividades. Es evidente que si el inicio de esas actividades solo puede llegar a producirse cuando otra administración otorga un título autorizatorio, en ese contexto, el carácter conceptual y la tipología de la EIA, debe observarse desde la comprensión del procedimiento autorizatorio de la actividad, pues se le considera como un presupuesto elemental que debe ser valorado en otro procedimiento ulterior que determina la autorización para el desarrollo de una conducta que potencialmente es lesiva al ambiente.

VI.- Dentro de esta dinámica, resulta entonces claro que el proceso principal es el autorizatorio, toda vez que es en éste en el que se emite el acto que de manera directa llega a permitir el ejercicio de la actividad, obra o proyecto. Es precisamente la emisión de esta autorización el motivo que justifica la valoración de las incidencias ambientales en un determinado proyecto, toda vez que es ante la solicitud de autorizar el desarrollo de una actividad que surge la necesidad de ponderar los efectos que podría llegar a generar en el marco del medio ambiente, es decir, la potencial ejecución de actividades que puedan llegar a ser riesgosas o van a tener impacto o efectos en el ambiente. Es esta la causa fáctica que fundamenta el procedimiento ambiental. Más simple, siempre que se quiera realizar una actividad que produzca alteración del ambiente, de previo a emitir la autorización, es menester la evaluación de la propuesta desde el punto de vista ambiental. En este punto, ha de tenerse claro que la transversalidad del procedimiento ambiental, no demerita lo relevante de su contenido, al punto que tan determinante es el procedimiento autorizatorio, como el ambiental, este último, por el tipo de aspectos que aborda y la incidencia que en el marco tutelar del ambiente tiene por objeto. La viabilidad ambiental se da dentro de un procedimiento que llega a producir un acto necesario y vinculante que dimana de una autoridad no consultiva en ese campo específico, a saber SETENA. No obstante, pese a su alta complejidad técnica y científica y a lo esencial de su naturaleza por virtud de la tutela que intrínsecamente busca o pretende, lo cierto del caso es que en su individualidad, la decisión ambiental no puede llegar a producir un efecto material propio y definitivo. Tal efecto solo puede llegar a concretarse si se emite el acto de autorización del cual para tales efectos depende. La sola viabilidad ambiental no permite el ejercicio de la actividad, obra o proyecto, sino que se traduce, se insiste, en una base previa, a modo de presupuesto elemental, para el análisis de la factibilidad de adoptar la autorización. Nótese que aún su vinculatoriedad, el otorgamiento de la factibilidad ambiental no presupone, necesariamente, el otorgamiento de la autorización de obra o conducta, pues bien puede darse el caso de que dentro del procedimiento autorizatorio, no lleguen a cumplirse las exigencias que determinen la pertinencia de otorgar la autorización, o bien, por cuestiones de otra índole, se estime improcedente. La vinculatoriedad de dicho procedimiento o pronunciamiento, no es un criterio que por sí solo permita sustentar la impugnación directa. Ese efecto se produce por la especialidad de la competencia que permite el análisis de la variable ambiental. Es la ley la que impone ese carácter necesario y vinculante, a diferencia de otros actos internos que en tesis de principio, al amparo del numeral 303 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, son solo facultativos y no vinculantes. Pero que en modo alguno permite que el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental despliegue sus efectos, por si solo y al margen del procedimiento autorizatorio.

Así visto, se trata de un acto que culmina el análisis en sede ambiental, que debe ser tomado en cuenta en la decisión final, para efectos de la comprensión de esa variable, pero que no lo limita el acto autorizatorio en las aristas de su contenido. Incluso, considera este Tribunal, la autoridad que emite la autorización podría imponer condiciones adicionales a las previstas en el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, siempre que fueren razonables, justificadas y proporcionadas.

Este carácter instrumental respecto del proceso principal que permite, como efecto final, el ejercicio de la actividad u obra, suprime la posibilidad de que sea considerado un acto final o bien, en último caso, uno de trámite con efecto propio (salvo que el acto ambiental fuese denegatorio, caso en el cual, es plenamente factible su impugnación judicial). Ello aunado a la imposibilidad de que surta efectos en la realidad material, hacen que sea imposible considerarle como una resolución final definitiva impugnable en sede judicial. El hecho de que ese acto sea el resultado de un procedimiento en el cual se han dado análisis, consultas, informes, etc., no lleva a tenerle como de posible recurribilidad jurisdiccional directa, pues a fin de cuentas, se trata de una estructura lógica formal, necesaria para llegar a determinar la viabilidad de la propuesta en términos ambientales, que solo tiene sentido para efectos de la emitir la autorización en otro procedimiento.

Por otro lado, la especialidad técnica de la SETENA no transmuta esa naturaleza no definitiva o de trámite, pues no es un criterio que de manera autónoma permita tener un acto como preleable.

VII.- De lo anterior se desprende que se trata de un acto que no produce efectos propios de manera independiente, cuya impugnabilidad directa en esta sede resulta inviable. Esto viene determinado por la doctrina que subyace en el artículo 163.2 de la Ley General de la administración Pública, que propugna la imposibilidad de recurrir judicialmente los actos que no tengan ese efecto propio, efecto que solo se llega a producir cuando el acto resuelva directa o indirectamente el fondo del asunto, suspenda indefinidamente el procedimiento, o haga imposible su continuación, o bien, cuando altere de manera sustancial o de forma directa derechos subjetivos o intereses legítimos (163.2 y 345.3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), circunstancias que a juicio de este órgano colegiado no convergen en la especie. Esto se confirma en el inciso c) del precepto 36 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo que indica, se insiste, que la pretensión deberá deducirse, entre otras manifestaciones de función administrativa contra los actos administrativos, ya sea finales, definitivos o de trámite con efecto propio. En la especie, las conductas impugnadas, sea, resoluciones número 1156-2007-SETENA, 1591-2007-SETENA, y el oficio número CP-101-2007-SETENA, son manifestaciones de viabilidades ambientales respecto de proyectos inmobiliarios en la zona de Tamarindo, Guanacaste, Cantón de Santa Cruz. Desde este plano, conforme a la Ley de Construcciones, Ley de Planificación Urbana y al Código Municipal, el acto autorizatorio para llevar a cabo tal desarrollo, corresponde a la Municipalidad de esa localidad, mediante el otorgamiento del permiso de construcción. Es precisamente dicho “permiso”, el acto que permite el ejercicio de la conducta solicitada, es decir, el acto que efectivamente crea estado y que por ende, es pasible de impugnación jurisdiccional, según se ha defensa del derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado que deriva del artículo 50 constitucional ni con la finalidad tutelar de las viabilidades ambientales, como tampoco se contrapone a los principios de protección de esos derechos, en concreto, pro natura, precautorio y preventivo. Todo lo contrario. Este órgano colegiado tiene en claro y reconoce relevancia del resguardo del ambiente tanto a nivel preventivo como precautorio. Empero, tal resguardo debe realizarse conforme a los parámetros legales y procesales que impregnan la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, dentro de la cual, la posibilidad de impugnar un acto de trámite, solo es viable cuando produzca efectos propios, y en general, la impugnabilidad de un acto, al margen de su naturaleza, sería viable cuando ese efecto propio directo, llegue a producirse. Dada esta situación, ante la imposibilidad de que el acto ambiental genere efectos inmediatos y directos, le hace un acto que no puede llegar a impugnarse de manera directa en esta jurisdicción. Esto no impide control de la función administrativa ni la posibilidad de impugnar actos potencialmente lesivos al ambiente. Lo que se establece es cuando es pertinente y oportuna su recurribilidad. Es dentro del combate del acto impugnable, que podrán deducirse todas las alegaciones que se relacionen con las diversas variables que fueron ponderadas en sede ambiental, junto con las posibles deficiencias que pudieran existir en la fase del procedimiento administrativo autorizatorio. Así, el daño al ambiente por actos ilegales puede tutelarse por vía común o por el trámite preferente, como aquí ha sucedido, con las advertencias ya además, con un marco tutelar que se complementa y engarza con un amplio sistema de justicia cautelar regulado a partir del artículo 19 y hasta el 30 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, de modo que se permita la pervivencia del objeto del proceso y la efectividad de una eventual sentencia estimatoria. En este proceso el permiso de construcción no ha sido objeto de impugnación, pese que se acreditado en autos que en vía administrativa si lo ha sido.

De hecho, como dato adicional, se desprende la impugnación que en vía municipal que ha hecho el apoderado de la parte actora quien además manifiesta se encuentra suspendido ese permiso. Aunado a ello, como parte de los alegatos jurídicos que en esa impugnación fueron planteados, se acción judicial. Lo anterior evidencia la probabilidad de ejercer el derecho de acción por las supuestas deficiencias que ahora se acusan, una vez que se impugne el acto autorizatorio, lo que determina, también por esas razones, la improcedencia del reclamo directo contra las licencias ambientales que ahora se pretende. Por último, este Tribunal estima pertinente hacer expresión respecto del siguiente punto. No se desconoce el hecho de que la Sala Constitucional haya establecido en múltiples resoluciones la posibilidad de impugnar las licencias ambientales. En concreto, como último dato relevante, como es el caso de la resolución número 18529-08, en la cual se dispuso la anulación de las viabilidades ambientales dentro del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas.

Sin embargo, debe ponerse de manifiesto que esa circunstancia no impone en modo alguno el deber de esta jurisdicción de ingresar a ese mismo ejercicio valorativo, pero tomando como parámetro o cotejo de referencia, el control de legalidad y no la posible transgresión a los derechos fundamentales. El contenido de ambas jurisdicciones, si bien, pueden considerarse complemento de un sistema de administración de justicia que propugna por una tutela judicial efectiva y una justicia pronta y cumplida, es muy diferente y diverso. El marco de acción de esta jurisdicción contencioso administrativa se circunscribe al control de legalidad de la función administrativa y tutela de la situación jurídica, en sentido amplio, pero con las limitaciones ya explicitadas en los apartes previos de esta resolución. Desde esa perspectiva, habiéndose determinado que se está frente a un acto que no genera un efecto propio per se y al margen de un procedimiento autorizatorio, que en este caso no ha llegado a producir efecto propio alguno, su análisis se encuentra vedado, con lo cual, no se modifica en nada lo decidido en este fallo.

VIII.- Por ende, ante la naturaleza indicada del acto de viabilidad ambiental, no queda más que acoger la defensa de acto no susceptible de impugnación, prevista en el inciso g) del artículo 66 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, formulada por la representación de las empresas co-demandadas. Por ende, al amparo del ordinal 92.5 del Código de rito, debe declararse la inadmisibilidad de la demanda y disponer el archivo del expediente.”