Partial annulment of DINADECO resolution on re-election to ADI boardNulidad parcial de resolución de DINADECO sobre reelección en junta directiva de ADI

III. VALIDITY ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT

This Tribunal considers that resolutions number DLR 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon of May twenty, two thousand nine; DND-013-2009 of one o'clock in the afternoon of June sixteenth of the same year and DND 022-2009 of ten thirty in the morning of August third of that year, by which the partial nullity of the General Assembly held on March 22, two thousand nine, was declared and confirmed, in the sense of not registering the appointments of President and Treasurer of the Integral Development Association of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, suffer from nullity defects for the following reasons:

• 1)Regarding the legal nature of the ADIs and the legal regime applicable to them. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 of the Community Development Law (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad, Ley 3859); 11 and 12 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 (Executive Decree No. 26935-G of March 26, 1998), it follows that Integral Development Associations “…are entities of public interest, although governed by the rules of private law, and as such, are authorized to promote or carry out a set of plans necessary for the social, economic and cultural development of the inhabitants of the area in which they coexist, collaborating for this purpose with the Government, municipalities and any public and private organizations…”. Consequently, the provisions and public law regime characteristic of the Public Administration would not be applicable to them –in principle–, since by virtue of their legal nature they are governed by the principles of Private Law, that is, the principle of freedom, and its two essential components, the principle of autonomy of will and the principle of equality of the contracting parties. Therefore, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Political Constitution, they may do anything that is not prohibited by the legal system. In that sense, the Community Development Law and its Regulation are limited to indicating the general purposes of such associations and establishing the rules under which they may be constituted. However, it is the internal bylaws that, ultimately – as an expression of the will of the associates gathered in General Assembly – govern the actions of the association (see Article 17 of Ley 3859). Now then, the declaration of public interest made in favor of the Community Development Associations, given the purposes they pursue, has the consequence of granting them a series of fiscal benefits and privileges, which are stipulated in law number 3859; however, this does not have the virtue of modifying their legal nature as subjects of private law. In that sense, the fact that there is oversight by the Comptroller General of the Republic (article 4 of its Organic Law) does not distort the private legal nature of the ADIs either, since the oversight occurs as a consequence of their being custodians or administrators by any title of public funds, or by the fact of receiving them, and not because they possess a public legal nature.
• 2)Regarding the fundamental right to elect and be elected. Scope and Limitations. The political rights, to elect and be elected and to hold public office (Articles 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), under conditions of equality and without discrimination are human rights, therefore, fundamental, that is to say, inherent to the intrinsic dignity of the human being. They are rights that do not derive from nor depend on the will of the State or any authority, which do not create them, but only discover them; they do not grant them, but only recognize them. Now then, this Tribunal shares the opinion that unlike fundamental rights of enjoyment, properly speaking, which produce immediate satisfaction of the needs or interests of the human being, fundamental political rights have, rather, an instrumental character, in the sense that they do not entail any tangible enjoyment by themselves; rights that, like other instrumental ones, are defined and conditioned, in general, based, on the one hand, on the enjoyment rights for which they are instruments, and, on the other, on the necessary balance they must guarantee with the equal or equivalent rights of others. Hence, in all Democratic States of Law, even in the most advanced and most respectful of fundamental rights, neither the right to elect nor the right to be elected are attributed unconditionally to all persons, without any distinction; rather they are restricted by considerations of nationality, age, mental, physical or legal capacity, criminal responsibility, etc. Although it is true that the exercise of political rights is not absolute, but rather their exercise and opportunities may be limited by the reasons previously indicated, it is also true that such limitations can only be introduced by law, given that the regime of fundamental rights is reserved to law – Articles 23.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration. In this sense, although in accordance with the democratic principle, of alternation in power, and of equality without discrimination, reasonable and proportional limits could be introduced to the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected, specifically to one of its manifestations, such as the possibility of reelection in office, it is insisted that such limits constitute a reservation of law.
• 3)On the possibility of reelection of the members of the Boards of Directors of the ADIs and the scope of the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859. In accordance with the legal nature and the legal regime applicable to the ADIs, Article 17 of Ley 3859 is limited to indicating that “…Community development associations shall be governed by bylaws that must necessarily state: a) The name of the association and its domicile; b) The special or general purposes it pursues; c) The qualifications that the members must have, their duties and rights and the modes of membership and withdrawal; d) The form and procedures for the creation of branches, as well as their functions; e) The resources the association will have; f) The procedures for approving, amending or repealing the bylaws; g) The forms of dissolution and the corresponding procedures; and h) Any other provisions required by the regulation…”. In that sense, even though Article 42 of that same regulatory body establishes that “By means of a regulation to this law, all details not provided for therein relating to organization, operation, sanctions and other details pertaining to these associations shall be determined…”, it is also true that by means of such an executive regulation, limitations cannot be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights of the members of an ADI, relating –in this specific case– to the possibility of electing and being elected to positions on the Board of Directors, even more so when law number 3859 does not contain a specific regulation relating to the exercise of that fundamental right, nor to one of its derivations, such as reelection. Based on the foregoing, the application of the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, in the sense that “…Board member may be reelected in the manner determined by the corresponding bylaws…”, must not cause a limitation on the exercise of that fundamental right, not only because that is a matter reserved to law, but also because, in application of the provisions of Article 28 of the Political Constitution –given the nature as subjects of private law of the ADIs–, no one may be disturbed or persecuted for any act that does not violate the law. Consequently, it is contrary to law to interpret the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, in the sense that “…if the reelection of the members of the board of directors is not expressly stipulated by means of an agreement approved within the General Assembly of Members, it shall not proceed…” (see folio 59 of the judicial file), since this implies conditioning the exercise of a fundamental right to a limitation introduced by an executive regulation that has no basis in law, which is contrary to the principle of reservation of law regarding the regulation of fundamental rights (Article 23.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration). Likewise, it implies a violation of Article 28 of the Political Constitution, because by reason of the legal nature of the ADIs –subjects of private law– their members would be prevented from exercising a fundamental right, without there being a prohibition at the legal level for this purpose, an aspect that is relevant because by reason of their legal nature and the legal regime applicable to them, they may do anything that is not prohibited by law. Consequently, the meaning of the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 is to refer to the bylaws of each ADI for the manner in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, but not to condition on that circumstance the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected. This is because in Ley 3859 there is no provision that regulates the matter of reelection, coupled with the fact that if the bylaws of each ADI do not expressly prohibit it, the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms under which they were elected the first time. For all the foregoing, sustaining the contrary implies a violation of the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution, 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Ley 3859; 11 and 12 of the Regulation to that Law.
• 4)Regarding the specific case of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea. As has already been indicated, the Community Development Law and its Regulation are limited to indicating the general purposes of such associations and establishing the rules under which they may be constituted. However, it is the internal bylaws that, ultimately –as an expression of the will of the associates gathered in General Assembly– govern the actions of the association (see Article 17 of Ley 3859). Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea regulate or not the figure of reelection and under what terms. In that sense, Article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea establishes: “The Board of Directors is the body responsible for directing and guiding the course of the Association in accordance with these Bylaws and the resolutions of the General Assembly. It shall consist of seven members: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, inspector (fiscal), first board member (vocal 1º) and second board member (vocal 2º). Their election shall be made individually, directly and secretly and they shall serve for two years.” For its part, Article 18 of said bylaws provides: “To be elected a member of the Board of Directors, the following is required: 1º Be a resident of the locality, with at least one year of residence therein; 2º Be of legal age or emancipated; 3º Be up to date in the payment of ordinary and extraordinary contributions; 4º Not have been convicted of a crime, nor have an arrest warrant or indictment against them, except if the statute of limitations for the penalty has run; 5º Be of the lay state; 6º Not have kinship by affinity to the second degree nor consanguinity to the third degree with any other member of the Board of Directors; 7º Not belong to any other board of directors of a Community Development Association; 8º Not be a municipal council member (regidor municipal), proprietary or substitute; 9º Not be a Municipal Executive; 10º Be present at the Assembly; and 11º Have been a member at least one month prior to the holding of the Assembly.” Although it is true that it follows from the transcribed norms that in the bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, the reelection procedure is not regulated; it is also true that said norms do not prohibit it, an aspect that in this case acquires relevance by virtue of the private legal nature of the ADIs and the legal regime applicable to them –private law–, so that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Political Constitution, everything that is not prohibited by the legal system is permitted. In that sense, this Tribunal considers that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit reelection, for two fundamental reasons: 4.a) Because Article 18 does not establish as a requirement to be elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate has not previously held a position on said board. This is consistent with the provisions of Article 37 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, which also does not establish among the requirements to be appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of an ADI, that one has not held a position on the Board of Directors in periods prior to the election; 4.b) Because the two-year term referred to in Article 17 of the Bylaws is related to the provisions of Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, in that “...the representation of the board of directors shall last two years...”. Consequently, the two-year term refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the idea that once those two years have elapsed, they are prevented from running again so that they may be reelected to occupy the same position, or to be designated in another post on the Board of Directors, since the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit it. At this point, it is necessary to insist that Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, refers to the bylaws of each ADI for the manner in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, but does not condition on that circumstance the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected. This is because in Ley 3859 there is no provision that regulates the matter of reelection, coupled with the fact that if the bylaws of each ADI do not expressly prohibit it –as in the case at hand–, the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms under which they were elected the first time, in application of the provisions of Articles 28 of the Political Constitution; 14 and 17 of Ley 3859; 11, 20 subsection k), 30 subsection a) and 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859. For all the foregoing, the fact that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate matters relating to the reelection procedure, this circumstance does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to occupy the same position for a second term, or to be designated in another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Ley 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it.
• 5)On the absolute nullity of resolutions number DLR 035-2009; DND-013-2009 and DND 022-2009. It has been accredited that by resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon of May twenty, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate of DINADECO, resolved: “…I. PARTIALLY GRANT THE ACTION FOR NULLITY, filed against the General Assembly of Members held by the Integral Development Association of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, San José, on March 22, 2009, initiated by Mr. Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora (…). II. The registration in the Registry Department of the following appointments of the Board of Directors is ordered: Vice President, Secretary, Inspector (Fiscal), Board Member (Vocal) 1, 2 and 3...”. Likewise, that in general terms, said pronouncement was based on the following considerations: “… the plaintiff did not attend the challenged assembly, in addition to the fact that the plaintiff does not raise any fact that occurred regarding the call to meeting or on the occasion of holding (sic) the assembly nor during its holding, so this Legal Department will not proceed to analyze the plaintiff's statements (…) community development organizations, which operate in accordance with the terms of that law and its regulation and the respective bylaws, are under a framework of control and surveillance, which the undersigned considers, must be exercised ex officio, in cases where a possible transgression of the norms is evident whose possible result creates harm to the organization and/or its members, so this Legal Department is empowered to attend to the Action for Nullity filed by the plaintiffs against the General Assembly held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine (…) Given that within the assembly of March twenty-second, two thousand nine, the election of a new Board of Directors was carried out and within it, Ms. Rose Mary Artavia González (…) are appointed, who held the status of Vice President and Treasurer correspondingly during the last board of directors, and in compliance with what is stipulated in article seventeen of the bylaws, which provides that the members shall be elected for periods of two years, without making reference (sic) to reelection and given that since the expiration of the board of directors, that is April twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, no new appointment of the board of directors was made, it follows that both ladies cannot be reelected during the present period…” (see folios 65 to 70 of the judicial file). In the first instance, the plaintiff argues that DINADECO could not hear and resolve the action for nullity filed by Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora against the General Assembly of March 22, 2009, because he was not present at it. In that sense and contrary to what the plaintiff alleges, although the member who filed the action for nullity against the general assembly held on March 22, two thousand nine, was not legitimated to do so, since he did not participate in said assembly, a sine qua non requirement in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 - \"...The action may be exercised by any associate of legal age, who was present at the assembly...\" - (see folios 26 to 28 of the judicial file; 148 and 147 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9;); it is also true that the National Directorate of Community Development is responsible for exercising the strictest vigilance over these associations for the purpose of ensuring that they operate in accordance with the terms of this law, its regulation and the respective bylaws (Article 25 of Ley 3859). By reason of the foregoing, it is that both in resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 and in D.L.R. 039-2009 of two o'clock in the afternoon of June second, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate of DINADECO resolved that even though the member who filed the action for nullity against the General Assembly held by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea was not legitimated in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 to file it, because he did not participate in said assembly (see folios 26 to 28 of the judicial file); the truth is that DINADECO, in exercise of the oversight powers granted by Article 25 of Law number 3859, could indeed review the alleged nullities raised by the member who filed the action for nullity, related to the impossibility of reelection of the members of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral de Goicoechea, in order to establish whether the election was held or not in accordance with the legal system. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that DINADECO has the competence to analyze possible pathologies of the resolutions adopted in the General Assemblies, or the validity of the latter, therefore, what was resolved in that sense by DINADECO, by means of resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon of May twenty, two thousand nine, is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 25 of Ley 3859 and 33 of the Regulation to Ley 3859. Regarding the reasons on which the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO bases its decision to order the non-registration of the appointment of the plaintiff, as President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the period 2009-2011, this Tribunal considers that they are contrary to law, for the reasons set forth below: 5.a) Although it is true that the plaintiff served as a member of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicochea, in the following positions and periods: Secretary from April 26, 1979 to April 26, 1981; Secretary from April 26, 1981 to April 26, 1983; Secretary from April 26, 1999 to April 26, 2001; Secretary from April 26, 2001 to April 26, 2003; Secretary from April 26, 2003; to April 26, 2005; Vice President from April 26, 2005 to April 26, 2007 (see folios 39, 99 of the judicial file; 1 to 15 of the administrative file numbered as folder 2 and corresponding to card number 801; 3 and 4 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9); it is also true that the position for which she was postulated and elected during the General Assembly held on March 22, 2009, was that of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea (see folios 26 to 29, 47 of the judicial file). Consequently, it cannot be maintained that the designation of the plaintiff as President for the period 2009-2011 fits within the factual assumption of reelection, since the position she held during the 2005-2007 period was that of vice president of the board of directors and, contrary to what DINADECO maintains, reelection occurs with respect to the position held on the Board of Directors, not with respect to the condition of being a member thereof (folio 62 of the judicial file). Now then, the fact that in accordance with Articles 46 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 and 23 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, the plaintiff substituted for the President of the ADI during part of the 2005-2007 period, given that the latter moved to live in the United States of America (see folios 03 and 04 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9), is not acceptable either to maintain that it configures the factual assumption of reelection, since the exercise of the functions inherent to that position occurred for a supervening reason and not by virtue of the designation by the general assembly of the plaintiff to that post. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to affirm that the plaintiff had already been elected as President of the Board of Directors for the period 2007-2009, since by resolution number 054-2007 issued at one o'clock in the afternoon of August twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, by the Legal and Registry Directorate of the National Directorate of Community Development (DINADECO), it was resolved to grant the action for nullity filed against the General Assembly of Members of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea, held on May nineteenth, two thousand seven and to decree the invalidity of the agreements reached in said assembly, among them, the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors for the period 2007-2009 (see folios 18 to 25, 181 of the judicial file; 16 to 14 of the administrative file numbered as folder 3). Consequently, this Tribunal considers that the fact that the plaintiff previously held other positions on the Board of Directors of the ADI does not have the virtue of configuring the factual prerequisite that gives rise to reelection, since this occurs in relation to the position held on the Board of Directors, not to the condition of being a member thereof; 5.b) It is also improper that resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 affirms that \"...in compliance with what is stipulated in article seventeen of the bylaws, which provides that the members shall be elected for periods of two years, without making reference (sic) to reelection and given that since the expiration of the board of directors, that is April twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, no new appointment of the board of directors was made, it follows that both ladies cannot be reelected during the present period…” (see folios 65 to 70 of the judicial file), not only because it starts from an erroneous factual assumption –that there was reelection in the case of the plaintiff–; but because as already analyzed in section 4 of this consideration, the circumstance that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate matters relating to the reelection procedure does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to occupy the same position for a second term, or to be designated in another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Ley 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it. In that sense, the two-year term alluded to both in Article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI and in Article 35, paragraph 2 of the Regulation to Ley 3859, refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the idea that once those two years have elapsed, they are prevented from running again in order to be reelected or to be designated in another post on the Board of Directors. Coupled with the fact that Articles 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and 37 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 do not establish as a requirement for being elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate has not previously held a position on said board. By reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the challenged resolutions are contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; 17 of Ley 3859; 35 paragraph 2, 37 of the Regulation to Ley 3859; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea; 19, 132, 133 and 136 of the General Law of Public Administration; 5.c) Finally, it is also contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution, 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Ley 3859; 11 and 12 of the Regulation to that Law, that in resolutions number DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009, DINADECO maintains that from Article 35 of the Regulation to Ley 3859 \"...it follows that if the reelection of the members of the board of directors is not expressly stipulated by means of an agreement approved within the General Assembly of Members, it shall not proceed...\" (folio 59 of the judicial file) and that \"...this matter is not about the consecutive reelection or not of persons who have held board positions in the past, but rather about the total absence via the bylaws of such a possibility as indicated on the second page of the resolution under review, contravening what is legally and regulatorily provided in the community regulations outlined...\" (folio 63 of the judicial file).

As already analyzed in section 3 of this recital, this implies conditioning the exercise of a fundamental right on a limitation introduced by an executive decree that has no basis in law, which is contrary to the principle of legal reserve in matters of regulating fundamental rights (Article 23.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the General Law on Public Administration). Likewise, it implies a violation of Article 28 of the Political Constitution, because, due to the legal nature of the ADIs – as subjects of private law – their members would be prevented from exercising a fundamental right without a legal prohibition to that effect, an aspect that is relevant because, due to their legal nature and the legal regime applicable to them, they can do anything that is not prohibited by law.

Consequently, the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859 is limited to referring to the bylaws of each ADI the manner in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, but does not condition the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI on that circumstance, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected. Therefore, the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms in which they were first elected, that is, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and Article 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859.

5.d) Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that the reason – that the plaintiff could not be reelected to the position of President of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 term, because she had already held the position of Vice President for the 2005-2007 term and because she had previously held other positions on the Board of Directors of that ADI – ; the content – that in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859, the reelection does not proceed if it is not regulated in the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, coupled with the fact that Article 17 of the Bylaws of that association establishes that the members of the Board of Directors shall serve in their positions for two years – ; and the reasoning that supports resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registration Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine – solely regarding the matter of reelection that is the object of the proceeding – , as well as resolutions DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009 issued by the National Director of Community Development at one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteen, two thousand nine, and at ten thirty in the morning on August three, two thousand nine, are non-conforming with the legal system, being contrary to the provisions set forth in Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 19, 132, 133, 136, and 158 of the General Law on Public Administration; Article 17 of Law 3859; Articles 11, 12, 35 last paragraph, and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; Articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.

• 6)Regarding the current situation of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 term. Contrary to what the State Representative states, this Court has deemed it accredited that, in accordance with the certification of legal capacity issued by the Registration Department of DINADECO on January twenty-one, two thousand ten (folio 115 of the judicial file), the appointments to designate the persons who will hold the positions of President and Treasurer for the 2009-2011 term are still pending, such that only the persons designated at the General Assembly held on March 22, 2009, by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea to hold the positions of Vice President, Secretary, Board Member 1, 2, and 3, and Auditor 1 and 2 are registered.

Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that the declaration of partial nullity of resolution D.R.L. 035-2009, through which it was ordered not to register the appointment of the plaintiff to the position of President of said ADI, does not have the power to affect the person who, according to the State Representative, holds that position, since, according to the documents visible at folios 114 and 115 of the judicial file, the position of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea is still vacant. In any case, and so that the declaration of nullity contained in this judgment does not cause serious dislocations to the functioning of the Association – as highlighted by the state representative – , this Court will dimension its effects in time and space, in accordance with the provisions of Article 131, subsection 3) of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code.

• 7)For all the reasons stated, this Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 122, subsections a) and b) of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, orders: a) The partial nullity of resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registration Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, solely insofar as it partially upholds the nullity action filed against the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 term, at the General Assembly held on March twenty-two, two thousand nine, and therefore, insofar as it orders the call for a new general assembly of members by ten percent thereof for the election of the remaining members of the Board of Directors and the presentation of an updated registry of members, the aforementioned aspects being substantially contrary to the provisions set forth in Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 19, 132, 133, 136, and 158 of the General Law on Public Administration; Article 17 of Law 3859; Articles 11, 12, 35 last paragraph, and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; Articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 164, subsection 2 of the General Law on Public Administration, the declaration of partial invalidity of resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registration Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, does not affect the other points resolved in said ruling, related to the following aspects: the registration in the Registration Department of the appointments of the Board of Directors for the 2009-2011 term of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, relating to vice president, auditor, board member 1, 2, and 3, adopted at the General Assembly of March 22, 2009; the declaration of validity of all agreements made at the general assembly of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, held on March 22, 2009.

As a consequence of the declaration of partial nullity of D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registration Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, and in order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty or a serious dislocation in the functioning of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of Article 131 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, to dimension the effects of the declaration of partial absolute nullity, as follows: i) register in the Registration Department of DINADECO the designation of the plaintiff as President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, for the 2009-2011 term, as of the finality of this judgment; ii) concerning the foregoing, the representative of the State must inform the Executing Judge of this Court within a period of five business days counted from the finality of this judgment; iii) maintain all acts or agreements that have been adopted or may be adopted by the current members of the Board of Directors of that Association who are registered for the 2009-2011 term, in the period between the date of their registration in the Registration Department of DINADECO and the date on which this judgment becomes final; 2) The nullity of resolutions number DND-013-2009 of one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteen of the same year and DND 022-2009 of ten thirty in the morning on August three of that year, by which the National Director of Community Development confirmed the partial nullity of the General Assembly held on March twenty-two, two thousand nine, agreed upon in resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registration Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, in the sense of not registering the appointments of President and Treasurer of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, the aforementioned aspects being substantially contrary to the provisions set forth in Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 19, 132, 133, 136, and 158 of the General Law on Public Administration; Article 17 of Law 3859; Articles 11, 12, 35 last paragraph, and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; Articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea." Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether the Bylaws (Estatuto) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea regulate or not the concept of reelection and in what terms.

In that regard, Article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea establishes: *“The Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) is the body responsible for directing and guiding the operation of the Association (Asociación) in accordance with these Bylaws and with the agreements of the General Assembly (Asamblea General). It shall consist of seven members: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller, first member and second member. Their election shall be conducted individually, directly, and by secret ballot and they shall serve for two years.”* For its part, Article 18 of said bylaws provides: *“To be elected as a member of the Board of Directors, the following is required: 1. To be a resident of the locality, with at least one year of residence therein; 2. To be of legal age or emancipated; 3. To be current in the payment of ordinary and extraordinary contributions; 4.

Not to have been convicted of a crime, nor to have an order of imprisonment or prosecution against them, except if the statute of limitations for the sentence has run; 5. To be of the lay state; 6. Not to have a relationship of second-degree affinity or third-degree consanguinity with any other member of the Board of Directors; 7. Not to belong to any other board of a Community Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo de la Comunidad); 8. Not to be a municipal councilor, proprietary or alternate; 9. Not to be a Municipal Executive; 10. To be present at the Assembly; and 11. To have been a member at least one month in advance of the holding of the Assembly.”* While it is true that from the transcribed norms it follows that the bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea do not regulate the procedure for reelection; it is also true that said norms do not prohibit it, an aspect that in this case gains relevance by virtue of the private legal nature of the ADIs and the legal regime applicable to them –private law–, such that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), everything that is not prohibited to them by the legal system is permitted.

In that sense, this Tribunal considers that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit reelection, for two fundamental reasons: 4.a) Because Article 18 does not establish as a requirement to be elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate must not have previously held a position on said board. This is consistent with the provisions of Article 37 of the Regulation (Reglamento) to Law (Ley) 3859, which also does not establish among the requirements to be appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of an ADI that they have not, in periods prior to the election, held a position on the Board of Directors; 4.b) Because the two-year term referenced in Article 17 of the Bylaws is related to the provisions of Article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859, in that *"...the representation of the board of directors shall last two years..."*. Consequently, the two-year term refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the fact that once those two years have elapsed, they are unable to run again in order to be reelected to the same position, or to be designated to another post on the Board of Directors, since the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit it.

On this point, it is necessary to insist that Article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859 refers, as to the manner in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, to the bylaws of each ADI, but it does not condition the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI on that circumstance, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected. This is because, in Law 3859 there is no provision that regulates the issue of reelection, coupled with the fact that if the bylaws of each ADI do not expressly prohibit it –as in the case at hand–, the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms in which they were elected the first time, in application of the provisions of Articles 28 of the Political Constitution; 14 and 17 of Law 3859; 11, 20 subsection k), 30 subsection a) and 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859. For all the foregoing, *the fact that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate the matter related to the reelection procedure does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to occupy the same position for a second term, or to be designated to another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Law 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it.* 5) Regarding the absolute nullity of resolutions number DLR 035-2009; DND-013-2009 and DND 022-2009.

It has been established as proven that by resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate (Dirección Legal y de Registro) of DINADECO, resolved: *“…I. TO PARTIALLY ACCEPT THE NULLITY ACTION (ACCIÓN DE NULIDAD), filed against the General Assembly of Members held by the Integral Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral) of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, San José, on March 22, 2009, brought by Mr. Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora (…). II. The registration in the Registry Department of the following appointments of the Board of Directors is ordered: Vice President, Secretary, Comptroller, Members 1, 2, and 3...”*. Likewise, that in general terms, said pronouncement was based on the following considerations: *“… the plaintiff did not attend the challenged assembly, besides the fact that the plaintiff does not raise any fact that occurred regarding the call to meeting or on the occasion of the holding (sic) of the assembly nor during the holding of the same, therefore this Legal Department will not proceed to carry out an analysis of the plaintiff's affirmations (…) the community development organizations, that operate in accordance with the terms of that law and its regulation and the respective bylaws, are under a framework of control and supervision, which the undersigned considers must be exercised ex officio, in cases where a possible transgression of the norms is evidenced whose possible result creates harm to the organization and/or its members, therefore this Legal Department is empowered to hear the Nullity Action brought by the plaintiffs against the General Assembly held on March twenty-two, two thousand nine (…) Given that within the assembly of March twenty-two, two thousand nine, the election of a new Board of Directors was carried out and within the same the ladies Rose Mary Artavia González are appointed (…) who held the status of Vice President and Treasurer correspondingly during the last board of directors, and in compliance with what is stipulated in article seventeen of the bylaws, in which it is provided that the members will be elected for periods of two years, without making allusion (sic) to reelection and given that since the expiration of the board of directors on April twenty-six, two thousand seven no new appointment of the board of directors has been made, it follows that both ladies cannot be reelected during the present period…” (see folios 65 a 70 of the judicial file).* In the first instance, the plaintiff party argues that DINADECO could not hear and resolve the nullity action filed by Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora against the General Assembly of March 22, 2009, because he was not present at it.

In that sense and contrary to what the plaintiff party alleges, although the member who filed the nullity action against the general assembly held on March twenty-two, two thousand nine, did not have standing to do so, because he did not participate in said assembly, a sine qua non requirement in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859 - *"...The action may be exercised by any member of legal age, who has been present at the assembly..."* - (see folios 26 a 28 of the judicial file; 148 and 147 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9); it is also true that the National Directorate for Community Development (Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad) is responsible for exercising the strictest oversight over these associations for the purpose of ensuring they operate in accordance with the terms of this law, its regulation, and the respective bylaws *(Article 25 of Law 3859).* For this reason, both in resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 and in D.L.R. 039-2009 of two o'clock in the afternoon on June two, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate of DINADECO resolved that even though the member who filed the nullity action against the General Assembly held by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea did not have standing according to the provisions of Article 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859 to file it, because he did not participate in said assembly *(see folios 26 a 28 of the judicial file);* the truth is that DINADECO, in exercise of the oversight powers granted to it by Article 25 of Law number 3859, could review the alleged nullities asserted by the member who filed the nullity action, related to the impossibility of reelection of the members of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral de Goicoechea, in order to establish whether the election was carried out in accordance with the legal system or not. *For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that DINADECO has the competence to analyze possible pathologies of the agreements adopted in the General Assemblies, or the validity of the latter, therefore, the decision made in that sense by DINADECO, through resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 25 of Law 3859 and 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859.* As for the reasons on which the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO bases its order not to register the appointment of the plaintiff, as President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period, this Tribunal considers that they are contrary to law, for the reasons set forth below: 5.a) While it is true, the plaintiff served as a member of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicochea, in the following positions and periods: Secretary from April 26, 1979 to April 26, 1981; Secretary from April 26, 1981 to April 26, 1983; Secretary from April 26, 1999 to April 26, 2001; Secretary from April 26, 2001 to April 26, 2003; Secretary from April 26, 2003, to April 26, 2005; Vice President from April 26, 2005 to April 26, 2007 *(see folios 39, 99 of the judicial file; 1 a 15 of the administrative file numbered as folder 2 and which corresponds to card number 801; 3 and 4 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9)*; it is also true, that the position for which she was nominated and elected during the General Assembly held on March 22, 2009, was that of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea *(see folios 26 a 29, 47 of the judicial file).* Consequently, *it cannot be maintained that the designation of the plaintiff as President for the 2009-2011 period fits the factual scenario of reelection, since the position she held during the 2005-2007 period was that of vice president of the board of directors and, contrary to what DINADECO maintains, reelection occurs with respect to the position held on the Board of Directors, not the status of being a member thereof* *(folio 62 of the judicial file).* Now, the fact that in accordance with Articles 46 of the Regulation to Law 3859 and 23 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, the plaintiff substituted the President of the ADI during a part of the 2005-2007 period, given that the latter moved to live in the United States of America *(see folios 03 and 04 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9)*, *is also not admissible to argue that it configures the factual scenario of reelection, since the exercise of the functions inherent to that position occurred for a supervening reason and not by virtue of the designation by the general assembly of the plaintiff to that post.* On the other hand, it is also not appropriate to affirm that the plaintiff had already been elected as President of the Board of Directors for the 2007-2009 period, since by resolution number 054-2007 issued at one o'clock in the afternoon on August twenty-seven, two thousand seven, by the Legal and Registry Directorate of the National Directorate for Community Development (DINADECO), it was resolved to accept the nullity action filed against the General Assembly of Members of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea, held on May nineteen, two thousand seven and to decree the invalidity of the agreements reached in said assembly, among them, the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors for the 2007-2009 period *(see folios 18 a 25, 181 of the judicial file; 16 a 14 of the administrative file numbered as folder 3)*. *Consequently, this Tribunal considers that the fact that the plaintiff previously held other positions on the Board of Directors of the ADI does not have the virtue of configuring the factual prerequisite that gives rise to reelection, since this occurs in relation to the position held on the Board of Directors, not the status of being a member thereof.* ; 5.b) It is also improper for resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 to affirm that *"...in compliance with what is stipulated in article seventeen of the bylaws, in which it is provided that the members will be elected for periods of two years, without making allusion (sic) to reelection and given that since the expiration of the board of directors on April twenty-six, two thousand seven no new appointment of the board of directors has been made, it follows that both ladies cannot be reelected during the present period…” (see folios 65 a 70 of the judicial file)*, not only because it starts from an erroneous factual premise –that there was reelection in the case of the plaintiff–; but because as already analyzed in section 4 of this whereas clause, the circumstance that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate the matter related to the reelection procedure does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to occupy the same position for a second term, or to be designated to another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Law 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it.

In that sense, the two-year term alluded to both in Article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI and in Article 35, paragraph 2 of the Regulation to Law 3859, refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the fact that once those two years have elapsed, they are unable to run again in order to be reelected or designated to another post on the Board of Directors. Added to the fact that Articles 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859 do not establish as a requirement to be elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate must not have previously held a position on said board.

In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the challenged decisions are contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 17 of Law (Ley) 3859; 35 paragraph 2, 37 of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) 3859; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws (Estatutos) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea; 19, 132, 133 and 136 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 5.c) Finally, it is also contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos), 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 17 of Law (Ley) 3859; 11 and 12 of the Regulation to that Law, that in decisions number DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009, DINADECO maintains that from Article 35 of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) 3859 "...it follows that if the reelection of the members of the board of directors (junta directiva) is not expressly stipulated by an agreement approved within the General Assembly of Affiliates, it shall not proceed..." (folio 59 of the judicial file) and that "...this matter does not concern the consecutive reelection or not of persons who have held directive positions in the past, but rather the total absence via the bylaws of such a possibility as indicated on the second page of the decision under review, contravening what is provided legally and regulatorily in the communal regulations cited..." (folio 63 of the judicial file).

As already analyzed in section 3 of this considerando, this implies conditioning the exercise of a fundamental right to a limitation introduced by an executive regulation that has no basis in law, which is contrary to the principle of legal reserve (reserva de legal) in matters of regulation of fundamental rights (Article 23.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos) and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)). Likewise, it implies a violation of Article 28 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), since due to the legal nature of the ADIs –subjects of private law– their affiliates would be prevented from exercising a fundamental right, without there being a prohibition at the legal level for that purpose, an aspect that is relevant because, due to their legal nature and the legal regime applicable to them, they may do everything that is not prohibited by law.

Consequently, the last paragraph of Article 35 of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) 3859, is limited to referring to the bylaws of each ADI, the way in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, but does not condition on that circumstance the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors (junta directiva) of an ADI, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected, for which reason, the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms in which they were first elected, that is, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws (Estatutos) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and 37 of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) 3859. 5.d) In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the motive – that the plaintiff could not be reelected to the position of President of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period, because she had already held the position of vice-president for the 2005-2007 period and because she had previously held other positions on the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of that ADI -; the content – that in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, last paragraph, of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) 3859, reelection does not proceed if it is not regulated in the Bylaws (Estatutos) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, coupled with the fact that Article 17 of the Bylaws of that association establishes that the members of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) shall hold their positions for two years -; and the reasoning that support the decision D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine – solely regarding the issue of reelection that is the object of the process -, as well as the decisions DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009 issued by the National Director of Community Development (Directora Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad), at one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, and at ten thirty in the morning on August third, two thousand nine, are inconsistent with the legal system, for being contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos), 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); 19, 132, 133, 136 and 158 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 17 of Law (Ley) 3859; 11, 12, 35 last paragraph and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws (Estatutos) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea. 6) Regarding the current situation of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period.

Contrary to what the Representative of the State states, this Tribunal has had it proven that in accordance with the certification of legal personality issued by the Registry Department of DINADECO on January twenty-first, two thousand ten (folio 115 of the judicial file), the appointments to designate the persons who will occupy the positions of President and Treasurer for the 2009-2011 period are still pending, so that only the persons who were designated in the General Assembly (Asamblea General) held on March 22, 2009 by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea are registered, to occupy the positions of Vice-President, Secretary, Vocal 1, 2 and 3, Fiscal 1 and 2. In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the declaration of partial nullity of decision D.R.L. 035-2009, by which it was ordered not to register the plaintiff's appointment to the position of President of said ADI, does not have the virtue of affecting the person who, according to the statement of the Representative of the State, occupies that position, since in accordance with the documents visible at folios 114 and 115 of the judicial file, the position of President of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea is still vacant.

In any case, and so that the declaration of nullity contained in this judgment does not cause serious dislocations to the functioning of the Association (Asociación) - as highlighted by the state representative -, this Tribunal will dimension its effects in time and space, in accordance with the provisions of Article 131 section 3) of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo); 7) For all the reasons set forth, this Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 sections a) and b) of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), orders: a) The partial nullity of decision D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, only insofar as it partially upholds the nullity action filed against the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period, in the General Assembly (Asamblea General) held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine and therefore, insofar as it orders the convening of a new general assembly of affiliates by ten percent of them, for the election of the remaining members of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) and the presentation of an updated list of affiliates, this because in the indicated aspects, it is substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos), 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); 19, 132, 133, 136 and 158 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 17 of Law (Ley) 3859; 11, 12, 35 last paragraph and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws (Estatutos) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 164 section 2 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the declaration of partial invalidity of decision D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, does not affect the other aspects resolved in that pronouncement, related to the following aspects: the registration in the Registry Department of the appointments of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) for the 2009-2011 period of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, relating to vice-president, fiscal, vocal 1, 2 and 3, adopted in the General Assembly (Asamblea General) of March 22, 2009; the declaration of validity of all the agreements adopted in the general assembly of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, held on March 22, 2009. As a consequence of the declaration of partial nullity of D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, and in order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) or a serious dislocation in the functioning of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of section 3) of Article 131 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), to dimension the effects of the declaration of partial absolute nullity, in the following manner: i) register in the Registry Department of DINADECO, the designation of the plaintiff, as President of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, for the 2009-2011 period, from the date this judgment becomes final; ii) of the foregoing, the representative of the State must inform the Executing Judge (Jueza Ejecutora) of this Tribunal, within a period of five business days counted from the date this judgment becomes final; iii) maintain all acts or agreements that have been adopted or will be adopted by the current members of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of that Association who are registered for the 2009-2011 period, in the period between the date of their registration in the Registry Department of DINADECO, and until the date on which this judgment becomes final; 2) The nullity of decisions number DND-013-2009 of one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteenth of the same year and DND 022-2009 of ten thirty in the morning on August third of that year, by which, the National Director of Community Development (Directora Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad), confirmed the partial nullity of the General Assembly (Asamblea General) held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine, agreed upon in decision number D.L.R.

035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO, issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, <span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language: ES-CR'>in the sense of not registering the appointments of President and Treasurer of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea</span>,<span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'> this because in the aspects indicated, they are substantially contrary to the provisions set forth in Articles</span> 28 and 33 <span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>of the Constitución Política; 22 of the Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19</span>, <span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language: ES-CR'>132, 133, 136 and 158 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 of the Ley 3859; 11</span>, <span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>12</span>, 35 last paragraph and 37<span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'> of the Regulation to that Law</span>; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea<span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>.”</span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> For all the foregoing, to maintain the contrary implies a violation of the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos), 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 17 of Law 3859; 11 and 12 of the Regulation to that Law. 4) Regarding the specific case of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.

As has already been indicated, the Law on Community Development (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad) and its Regulation merely state the general purposes of such associations and set the rules under which they may be constituted. However, it is the internal bylaws (estatuto) that ultimately—as an expression of the will of the associates gathered in the General Assembly (Asamblea General)—govern the actions of the association *(see article 17 of Law 3859)*. Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea regulate the figure of re-election and in what terms. In this regard, article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea establishes: *“The Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) is the body responsible for directing and guiding the operation of the Association in accordance with these Bylaws and the resolutions of the General Assembly.

It shall consist of seven members: president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller (fiscal), first member-at-large (vocal 1º), and second member-at-large (vocal 2º). Their election shall be individual, direct, and secret and they shall serve for two years.”* For its part, article 18 of said bylaws provides: *“To be elected a member of the Board of Directors, the following is required: 1º To be a resident of the locality, with at least one year of residence therein; 2º To be of legal age or emancipated; 3º To be current in the payment of ordinary and extraordinary contributions; 4º Not to have been convicted of a crime, nor to have an order of imprisonment or prosecution against them, except where the statute of limitations for the penalty has run; 5º To be of the lay state; 6º Not to have a relationship of second degree of affinity or third degree of consanguinity with any other member of the Board of Directors; 7º Not to belong to any other board of directors of a Community Development Association; 8º Not to be a municipal council member (regidor), proprietor or alternate; 9º Not to be a Municipal Executive; 10º To be present at the Assembly; and 11º To have been a member for at least one month prior to the holding of the Assembly.”* While it is true that the transcribed norms indicate that the bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea do not regulate the re-election procedure, it is also true that said norms do not prohibit it, an aspect that is relevant in this case by virtue of the private legal nature of the ADIs and the legal regime applicable to them—private law—such that, in accordance with the provisions of article 28 of the Political Constitution, everything that is not prohibited by the legal system is permitted to them.

In this sense, this Court considers that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit re-election, for two fundamental reasons: 4.a) Because article 18 does not establish as a requirement to be elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate have not previously held a position on said board. This is consistent with the provisions of article 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859, which also does not establish among the requirements for being appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of an ADI that the person not have held a position on the Board of Directors in periods prior to the election; 4.b) Because the two-year term referenced in article 17 of the Bylaws is related to the provisions of article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859, in that *"...the representation of the board of directors shall last two years..."*. Consequently, the two-year term refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the fact that once those two years have elapsed, they are ineligible to run again for re-election to the same position, or to be appointed to another post on the Board of Directors, since the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea do not prohibit it.

On this point, it is necessary to insist that article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859 refers to the bylaws of each ADI for the manner in which the re-election procedure will be regulated, but does not condition the possibility of being re-elected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI on that circumstance, as a manifestation of the exercise of the fundamental right to elect and be elected. This is because there is no provision in Law 3859 that regulates the subject of re-election, coupled with the fact that if the bylaws of each ADI do not expressly prohibit it—as in the case at hand—the interested parties could be re-elected under the same terms as they were first elected, in application of the provisions of articles 28 of the Political Constitution; 14 and 17 of Law 3859; 11, 20 subsection k), 30 subsection a), and 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859. For all the foregoing, the fact that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate the re-election procedure does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to hold the same position for a second term, or from being appointed to another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Law 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it. 5) Regarding the absolute nullity of resolutions number DLR 035-2009; DND-013-2009 and DND 022-2009.

It has been established that by resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate (Dirección Legal y de Registro) of DINADECO, resolved: *“…I. TO PARTIALLY GRANT THE NULLITY ACTION (ACCIÓN DE NULIDAD), filed against the General Assembly of Members held by the Integral Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral) of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, San José, on March 22, 2009, brought by Mr. Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora (…). II. The registration in the Registry Department of the following Board of Directors appointments is ordered: Vice-President, Secretary, Comptroller, First Member-at-Large, Second Member-at-Large, and Third Member-at-Large...”*. Likewise, that, in general terms, said pronouncement was based on the following considerations: *“… the plaintiff (accionante) did not attend the contested assembly, in addition to the fact that the plaintiff does not raise any event that occurred for the call to assembly or on the occasion of holding (sic) the assembly or during its holding, therefore this Legal Department will not proceed to conduct an analysis of the plaintiff’s affirmations (...) community development organizations, operating in accordance with the terms of that law and its regulation and the respective bylaws, are under a framework of control and oversight, which the undersigned considers must be exercised on an ex officio basis, in cases where a possible transgression of the norms is evidenced, the possible result of which creates harm to the organization and/or its members, whereby this Legal Department has the authority to hear the Nullity Action brought by the plaintiffs against the General Assembly held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine (...) Since within the assembly of March twenty-second, two thousand nine, the election of the new Board of Directors was carried out and among the appointments are Mrs.

Rose Mary Artavia González (...) who held during the last board of directors the positions of Vice-President and Treasurer correspondingly, and in compliance with the stipulations of article seventeen of the bylaws, which provides that members shall be elected for periods of two years, without making any illusion (sic) to re-election, and since from the expiration of the board of directors on April twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, no new appointment of the board of directors was made, it follows that both ladies cannot be re-elected during the present period…”* (see folios 65 to 70 of the judicial file). In the first instance, the plaintiff party alleges that DINADECO could not hear and resolve the nullity action filed by Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora against the General Assembly of March 22, 2009, since he was not present thereat. In that sense and contrary to what the plaintiff party alleges, although the member who filed the nullity action against the general assembly held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine, lacked standing to do so, as he did not participate in said assembly—a sine qua non requirement in accordance with the provisions of article 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859—*“...The action may be exercised by any member of legal age, who was present at the assembly...”*—(see folios 26 to 28 of the judicial file; 148 and 147 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9); it is also true that the National Directorate of Community Development (Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad) is responsible for exercising the strictest oversight over these associations for the purpose of ensuring they operate in accordance with the terms of this law, its regulation, and the respective bylaws *(article 25 of Law 3859).* For this reason, both in resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 and in D.L.R. 039-2009 of two o'clock in the afternoon on June second, two thousand nine, the Legal and Registry Directorate of DINADECO resolved that even though the member who filed the nullity action against the General Assembly held by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea lacked standing under the provisions of article 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859 to file it, because he did not participate in said assembly *(see folios 26 to 28 of the judicial file);* the fact is that DINADECO, in exercise of the oversight powers granted to it by article 25 of Law number 3859, could review the alleged nullities raised by the member who brought the nullity action, related to the impossibility of re-election of the members of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral de Goicoechea, in order to determine whether the election occurred or not in conformity with the legal system.

For all the foregoing, this Court considers that DINADECO has the competence to analyze possible pathologies in the resolutions adopted in the General Assemblies, or the validity of the latter; therefore, the decision in that sense by DINADECO, through resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of three o'clock in the afternoon on May twenty, two thousand nine, is not contrary to the provisions of articles 25 of Law 3859 and 33 of the Regulation to Law 3859. Regarding the reasons on which the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO bases its decision to order the non-registration of the plaintiff’s appointment as President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period, this Court considers that they are contrary to law, for the reasons set forth below: 5.a) While it is true that the plaintiff served as a member of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicochea, in the following positions and periods: Secretary from April 26, 1979, to April 26, 1981; Secretary from April 26, 1981, to April 26, 1983; Secretary from April 26, 1999, to April 26, 2001; Secretary from April 2001 to April 26, 2003; Secretary from April 26, 2003, to April 26, 2005; Vice-President from April 26, 2005, to April 26, 2007 *(see folios 39, 99 of the judicial file; 1 to 15 of the administrative file numbered as folder 2 and corresponding to card number 801; 3 and 4 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9)*; it is also true that the position for which she was nominated and elected during the General Assembly held on March 22, 2009, was that of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea *(see folios 26 to 29, 47 of the judicial file).* Consequently, it cannot be sustained that the plaintiff’s appointment as President for the 2009-2011 period fits the factual scenario of re-election, since the position she held during the 2005-2007 period was that of vice-president of the board of directors and, contrary to what DINADECO maintains, re-election occurs with respect to the position held on the Board of Directors, not the status of being a member thereof *(folio 62 of the judicial file).* Now, the fact that, in accordance with articles 46 of the Regulation to Law 3859 and 23 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, the plaintiff substituted for the President of the ADI during a part of the 2005-2007 period, given that the latter moved to live in the United States of America *(see folios 03 and 04 of the administrative file numbered as folder 9)*, is also not admissible to sustain that it constitutes the factual scenario of re-election, since the exercise of the functions inherent to that position occurred due to a supervening reason and not by virtue of the plaintiff’s appointment by the general assembly to that post.

On the other hand, it is also not appropriate to state that the plaintiff had already been elected as President of the Board of Directors for the 2007-2009 period, since by resolution number 054-2007 issued at one o'clock in the afternoon on August twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, by the Legal and Registry Directorate of the National Directorate of Community Development (DINADECO), it was resolved to grant the nullity action filed against the General Assembly of Members of the ADI of Purral Debajo de Goicoechea, held on May nineteenth, two thousand seven, and to declare the invalidity of the resolutions reached in said assembly, among them, the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors for the 2007-2009 period *(see folios 18 to 25, 181 of the judicial file; 16 to 14 of the administrative file numbered as folder 3).* Consequently, this Court considers that the fact that the plaintiff previously held other positions on the Board of Directors of the ADI does not have the virtue of constituting the factual presupposition that gives rise to re-election, since re-election occurs in relation to the position held on the Board of Directors, not the status of being a member thereof.; 5.b) It is also inappropriate for resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 to state that *“...in compliance with the stipulations of article seventeen of the bylaws, which provides that members shall be elected for periods of two years, without making any illusion (sic) to re-election and since from the expiration of the board of directors on April twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, no new appointment of the board of directors was made, it follows that both ladies cannot be re-elected during the present period…”* (see folios 65 to 70 of the judicial file), not only because it starts from an erroneous factual scenario—that there was re-election in the plaintiff’s case—; but because, as already analyzed in section 4 of this Considering, the circumstance that the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoecha do not expressly regulate the re-election procedure does not prevent a member of the Board of Directors from running again to hold the same position for a second term, or from being appointed to another post on the Board of Directors, since neither Law 3859, nor the Regulation to that Law, nor the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea prohibit it.

In this sense, the two-year term alluded to in article 17 of the Bylaws of the ADI and article 35, paragraph 2 of the Regulation to Law 3859, refers to the period for which the members of the Board of Directors of an ADI are appointed, and not to the fact that once those two years have elapsed, they are ineligible to run again for re-election or to be appointed to another post on the Board of Directors. Coupled with the fact that articles 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859 do not establish as a requirement for being elected as a member of the Board of Directors that the candidate not have previously held a position on said board.

In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal finds that the contested resolutions are contrary to the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; 17 of Law 3859; 35 paragraph 2, 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea; 19, 132, 133 and 136 of the General Law of Public Administration; 5.c) Finally, it is also contrary to the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution, 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Law 3859; 11 and 12 of the Regulation to that Law, that in resolutions number DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009, DINADECO maintains that from article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859 "...it is inferred that if the reelection of board of directors members is not expressly stipulated by an agreement approved within the General Assembly of Affiliates, it shall not proceed..." (folio 59 of the judicial file) and that "...this matter does not concern the consecutive or non-consecutive reelection of persons who have held leadership positions in the past, but the complete absence via the bylaws of such a possibility as indicated on the second page of the resolution subject to review, contravening the legal and regulatory provisions in the referenced communal regulations..." (folio 63 of the judicial file).

As already analyzed in section 3 of this considerando, this implies conditioning the exercise of a fundamental right on a limitation introduced by an executive regulation that has no basis in the law, which is contrary to the principle of legal reserve (reserva de legal) in the regulation of fundamental rights (article 23.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration). Likewise, it implies a violation of article 28 of the Political Constitution, since, due to the legal nature of the ADIs—subjects of private law—their affiliates would be prevented from exercising a fundamental right, without a prohibition existing at the legal level for that effect, an aspect that is relevant because, due to their legal nature and the legal regime applicable to them, they may do everything that is not prohibited by law. Consequently, the last paragraph of article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859, merely defers to the bylaws of each ADI the manner in which the reelection procedure will be regulated, but does not condition the possibility of being reelected to a position on the board of directors of an ADI on that circumstance, as an expression of the exercise of the fundamental right to vote and to be elected, which is why the interested parties could be reelected under the same terms in which they were first elected, that is, in accordance with the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea and 37 of the Regulation to Law 3859. 5.d) In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal finds that the grounds (motivo) – that the plaintiff could not be reelected to the position of President of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the 2009-2011 period, because she had already held the vice-presidency for the 2005-2007 period and because she had previously held other positions on the Board of Directors of that ADI -; the content – that in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of article 35 of the Regulation to Law 3859, reelection does not proceed if it is not regulated in the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, coupled with the fact that article 17 of the bylaws of that association establishes that members of the Board of Directors shall serve terms of two years -; and the reasoning (motivación) supporting resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine - solely regarding the matter of reelection under consideration in this proceeding -, as well as resolutions DND 13-2009 and DND 22-2009 issued by the National Director of Community Development, at one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, and at ten thirty in the morning on August third, two thousand nine, are non-conforming with the legal system, for being contrary to the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19, 132, 133, 136 and 158 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Law 3859; 11, 12, 35 last paragraph and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea. 6) Regarding the current situation of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the period 2009-2011.

Contrary to what the State Representative states, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that, in accordance with the legal status certification issued by the Registry Department of DINADECO on January twenty-first, two thousand ten (folio 115 of the judicial file), the appointments to designate the persons who will occupy the positions of President and Treasurer for the 2009-2011 period are still pending, therefore, only the persons designated at the General Assembly held on March 22, 2009, by the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea to occupy the positions of Vice President, Secretary, Board Member 1, 2, and 3, and Fiscal 1 and 2, are registered. In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal finds that the partial annulment of resolution D.R.L. 035-2009, through which it was ordered not to register the appointment of the plaintiff to the position of President of said ADI, does not have the capacity to affect the person who, according to the State Representative's statement, occupies that position, since in accordance with the documents visible at folios 114 and 115 of the judicial file, the position of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea is still vacant.

In any case, and so that the declaration of nullity contained in this judgment does not cause serious disruptions to the functioning of the Association - as the state representative highlights -, this Tribunal will scale its effects in time and space, in accordance with the provisions of article 131 subsection 3) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code; 7) For all the foregoing, this Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of article 122 subsections a) and b) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, orders: a) The partial annulment of resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, solely in so far as it partially upholds the annulment action filed against the election of the plaintiff to the position of President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea for the period 2009-2011, at the General Assembly held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine, and consequently, in so far as it orders the convening of a new general assembly of affiliates by ten percent thereof, for the election of the remaining members of the Board of Directors and the presentation of an updated affiliates register, this because in the indicated aspects, it is substantially contrary to the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19, 132, 133, 136 and 158 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Law 3859; 11, 12, 35 last paragraph and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.

In accordance with the provisions of article 164 subsection 2 of the General Law of Public Administration, the declaration of partial invalidity of resolution D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, does not affect the other points resolved in said pronouncement, related to the following aspects: the registration in the Registry Department of the appointments to the Board of Directors for the 2009-2011 period of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, regarding vice president, fiscal, board member 1, 2 and 3, adopted at the General Assembly of March 22, 2009; the declaration of validity of all agreements reached at the general assembly of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, held on March 22, 2009. As a consequence of the partial annulment of D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, and in order not to cause a violation of the principle of legal certainty or a serious disruption in the functioning of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, it is ordered, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of article 131 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, to scale the effects of the partial declaration of absolute nullity, as follows: i) register in the Registry Department of DINADECO, the designation of the plaintiff, as President of the Board of Directors of the ADI of Purral de Abajo de Goicoechea, for the period 2009-2011, as of the finality of this judgment; ii) from the foregoing, the State Representative must inform the Executing Judge of this Tribunal, within a period of five business days counted from the finality of this judgment; iii) maintain all acts or agreements that the current members of the Board of Directors of that Association who are registered for the 2009-2011 period have adopted or may adopt, in the period between the date of their registration in the Registry Department of DINADECO, and up to the date on which this judgment becomes final; 2) The annulment of resolutions number DND-013-2009 of one o'clock in the afternoon on June sixteenth of the same year and DND 022-2009 of ten thirty in the morning on August third of that year, through which, the National Director of Community Development, confirmed the partial annulment of the General Assembly held on March twenty-second, two thousand nine, agreed upon in resolution number D.L.R. 035-2009 of the Legal and Registry Department of DINADECO issued at three o'clock in the afternoon on May twentieth, two thousand nine, in the sense of not registering the appointments of President and Treasurer of the Integral Development Association of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, this because in the indicated aspects, they are substantially contrary to the provisions of articles 28 and 33 of the Political Constitution; 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 19, 132, 133, 136 and 158 of the General Law of Public Administration; 17 of Law 3859; 11, 12, 35 last paragraph and 37 of the Regulation to that Law; 17 and 18 of the Bylaws of the ADI of Purral Abajo de Goicoechea."

“IIIo.- ANÁLISIS DE VALIDEZ DE LAS CONDUCTAS IMPUGNADAS. Este Tribunal considera que las resoluciones número DLR 035-2009 de las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve; DND-013-2009 de las trece horas del dieciséis de junio del mismo año y DND 022-2009 de las diez horas treinta minutos del tres de agosto de ese año, mediante las cuales, se declaró y se confirmó la nulidad parcial de la Asamblea General realizada el 22 de marzo del dos mil nueve, en el sentido, de no inscribir los nombramientos de Presidente y Tesorero de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, adolecen de vicios de nulidad por las siguientes razones:

• 1)Respecto a la naturaleza jurídica de las ADI y el régimen jurídico que les es aplicable. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 17 de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Ley 3859); 11 y 12 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859 (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26935-G del 26 de marzo de 1998), se desprende, las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral “…son entidades de interés público, aunque regidas por las normas del derecho privado, y como tales, están autorizadas para promover o realizar un conjunto de planes necesarios para desarrollar social, económica y culturalmente a los habitantes del área en que conviven, colaborando para ello con el Gobierno, las municipalidades y cualesquiera organismos públicos y privados…”. En consecuencia, no les sería aplicables –en principio- las disposiciones y régimen de derecho público propio de la Administración Pública, ya que en virtud de su naturaleza jurídica se rigen por los principios del Derecho Privado, sea el principio de libertad, y sus dos componentes esenciales, el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad y el principio de la igualdad de las partes contratantes. Por ende, y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 28 de la Constitución Política, pueden realizar todo aquello que no les esté prohibido por el ordenamiento jurídico. En ese sentido, la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad y su Reglamento, se limitan a señalar los fines generales de tales asociaciones y a fijar las reglas bajo las cuales pueden constituirse. No obstante es el estatuto interno el que, en definitiva - como expresión de la voluntad de los asociados reunidos en Asamblea General- rige el accionar de la asociación (ver artículo 17 de la Ley 3859). Ahora bien, la declaratoria de interés público que se hace a favor de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal, dado los fines que persiguen, tiene la consecuencia de otorgarles una serie de beneficios de carácter fiscal y de privilegios, lo cuales se encuentran estipulados en la ley número 3859, sin embargo, ello no tiene la virtud de modificar su naturaleza jurídica de sujetos de derecho privado. En ese sentido, el hecho de que exista una fiscalización por parte de la Contraloría General de la República (artículo 4 de su Ley Orgánica), tampoco desvirtúa la naturaleza jurídica privada de las ADI, ya que la fiscalización se da como consecuencia de que sean custodios o administradores por cualquier título de fondos públicos, o por el hecho de recibirlos, y no por el hecho de que posean una naturaleza jurídica pública.
• 2)En cuanto al derecho fundamental a elegir y ser electo. Alcances y Limitaciones. Los derechos políticos, de elegir y ser electo y desempeñar los cargos públicos (artículos 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 21 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos), en condiciones de igualdad y sin discriminación son derechos humanos, por ende, fundamentales, valga decir, inherentes a la intrínseca dignidad del ser humano. Son derechos que no derivan ni dependen de la voluntad del Estado ni de ninguna autoridad, los cuales no los crean, sino sólo los descubren; no los otorgan, sino sólo los reconocen. Ahora bien, este Tribunal comparte el criterio de que a diferencia de los derechos fundamentales de goce, propiamente dichos, que producen una satisfacción inmediata de las necesidades o intereses del ser humano, los derechos políticos fundamentales tienen, más bien, un carácter instrumental, en el sentido de que ningún goce tangible suponen por sí mismos; derechos que, como los demás instrumentales, se definen y están condicionados, en general, en función, por una parte, de los derechos de goce de los que son instrumentos, y, por la otra, del necesario equilibrio que deben garantizar con los derechos iguales o equivalentes de los demás. De ahí que en todos los Estados Democráticos de Derecho, incluso en los más avanzados y más respetuosos de los derechos fundamentales, ni el derecho de elegir ni el de ser electo se atribuyen sin más, incondicionalmente, a todas las personas, sin distinción alguna; sino que se restringen por consideraciones de nacionalidad, de edad, de capacidad mental, física o legal, de responsabilidad penal, etc. Si bien es cierto, el ejercicio de los derechos políticos no es absoluto, sino que su ejercicio y oportunidades puede ser limitado por los motivos antes indicados, también lo es, que dichas limitaciones sólo pueden introducirse mediante ley, dado que el régimen de los derechos fundamentales se encuentra reservado a la ley –artículos 23.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública-. En ese sentido, aunque de conformidad con los principios democrático, de alternabilidad en el poder, y de igualdad sin discriminación, podrían introducirse límites razonables y proporcionados al ejercicio del derecho fundamental a elegir y ser electo, específicamente a una de sus manifestaciones, como lo es, la posibilidad de reelección en el cargo, se insiste que dichos límites constituyen reserva de ley.
• 3)Sobre la posibilidad de reelección de los miembros de las Juntas Directivas de las ADI y los alcances del párrafo último del artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859. Conforme a la naturaleza jurídica y al régimen jurídico aplicable a las ADI, el artículo 17 de la Ley 3859 se limita a indicar que “…Las asociaciones de desarrollo comunal se regirán por un estatuto que necesariamente deberá o generales que persigue; c) Las calidades que deberán tener los afiliados, sus deberes y derechos y las modalidades de afiliación y desafiliación; d) La forma y procedimientos para la creación de filiales, lo mismo que las funciones de ésta; e) Los recursos con que contará la asociación; f) Los procedimientos para aprobar, reformar o derogar los estatutos; g) Las formas de extinción y los procedimientos correspondientes; y h) Cualesquiera otras disposiciones exigidas por el reglamento…”. En ese sentido, aún y cuando el artículo 42 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo establece que “Mediante un reglamento a la presente ley, se determinará todos los detalles no previstos en ella relativos a organización, funcionamiento, sanciones y demás detalles atinentes a estas asociaciones…”, también lo es, que mediante dicho reglamento ejecutivo no podrán imponerse limitaciones al ejercicio de derechos fundamentales de los afiliados a una ADI, relativos –en este caso específico- a la posibilidad de elegir y ser electos en los cargos de la Junta Directiva, más aún cuando la ley número 3859 no contiene una regulación específica relativa al ejercicio de ese derecho fundamental, ni a una de sus derivaciones, como lo es, la reelección. Con base en lo “…Los miembros directivos podrán ser reelectos en la forma en que lo determine el estatuto correspondiente…”, no debe provocar una limitación al ejercicio de ese derecho fundamental, no sólo porque ello es reserva de ley, sino también, porque en aplicación de lo dispuesto en el artículo 28 de la Constitución Política –dada la naturaleza de sujetos de derecho privado de las ADI-, nadie puede ser inquietado ni perseguido por acto alguno que no infrinja la ley. En consecuencia, resulta contrario a derecho interpretar el último párrafo del artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, en el sentido de que “…de no estar la reelección de los miembros de la junta directiva, expresamente estipulado mediante acuerdo aprobado en el seno de la Asamblea General de Afiliados, la misma no procederá…” (ver folio 59 del expediente judicial), toda vez que ello implica condicionar el ejercicio de un derecho fundamental a una limitación introducida por un reglamento ejecutivo que no tiene asidero en la ley, lo cual, resulta contrario al principio de reserva de ley en materia de regulación de derechos fundamentales (artículo 23.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 19 del la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Asimismo, implica una violación al artículo 28 de la Constitución Política, pues en razón de la naturaleza jurídica de las ADI –sujetos de derecho privado- se les impediría a sus afiliados el ejercicio de un derecho fundamental, sin que exista una prohibición a nivel legal, para tal efecto, aspecto que resulta relevante pues en razón de su naturaleza jurídica y del régimen jurídico que les es aplicable, pueden realizar todo lo que no les esté prohibido por ley. En consecuencia, el sentido del párrafo último del artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, es remitir a los estatutos de cada ADI, la forma en que se regulará el procedimiento de reelección, pero no condicionar a esa circunstancia, la posibilidad de reelegirse en un cargo de la junta directiva de una ADI, como una manifestación del ejercicio del derecho fundamental a elegir y ser electo. Ello por cuanto, en la Ley 3859 no existe disposición alguna que regule el tema de la reelección, aunado a que si los estatutos de cada ADI no la prohíben expresamente, los interesados podrían reelegirse en los mismo términos en que fueron electos por primera vez. Por todo lo expuesto, sostener lo contrario, implica una violación a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política, 22 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 de la Ley 3859; 11 y 12 del Reglamento a esa Ley.
• 4)Respecto al caso concreto de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea. Tal y como ya se ha indicado, la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad y su Reglamento, se limitan a señalar los fines generales de tales asociaciones y a fijar las reglas bajo las cuales pueden constituirse. No obstante es el estatuto interno el que, en definitiva -como expresión de la voluntad de los asociados reunidos en Asamblea General- rige el accionar de la asociación (ver artículo 17 de la Ley 3859). En consecuencia, es necesario determinar si el Estatuto de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, regula o no la figura de la reelección y en qué términos. En ese sentido, el artículo 17 del Estatuto de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, establece: “La Junta Directiva es el órgano encargado de dirigir y orientar la marcha de la Asociación de acuerdo con este Estatuto y con los acuerdos de la Asamblea General. Constará de siete miembros: presidente, vicepresidente, secretario, tesorero, fiscal, vocal 1º y vocal 2º. La elección de ellos se hará en forma individual, directa y secreta y durarán dos años”. Por su parte, el artículo 18 de dichos estatutos, dispone: “Para ser elegido miembro de la Junta Directiva, se requiere: 1º Ser vecino de la localidad, con un año al menos de residencia en ella; 2º Ser mayor de edad o emancipado; 3º Estar al día en el pago de las contribuciones ordinarias y extraordinarias; 4º No haber sido condenado por delito, ni haber en su contra auto de prisión o enjuiciamiento, excepto si se ha operado prescripción de la pena; 5º Ser del estado seglar; 6º No tener parentesco de segundo grado de afinidad ni tercero de consanguinidad con ningún otro miembro de la Junta Directiva; 7º No pertenecer a ninguna otra directiva de una Asociación de Desarrollo de la Comunidad; 8º No ser regidor municipal, propietario o suplente; 9º No ser Ejecutivo Municipal; 10º Estar presente en la Asamblea; y 11º Haber sido afiliado por lo menos con un mes de anticipación la celebración de la Asamblea.” Si bien es cierto, de las normas transcritas se desprende que en los estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, no está regulado el procedimiento de reelección; también lo es, que dichas normas no la prohíben, aspecto que en este caso adquiere relevancia en virtud de la naturaleza jurídica privada de las ADI y del régimen jurídico que les es aplicable –el derecho privado-, por lo que, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 28 de la Constitución Política, todo lo que no les esté prohibido por el ordenamiento jurídico les está permitido. En ese sentido, este Tribunal considera que los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Debajo de Goicoechea no prohíben la reelección, por dos razones fundamentales: 4.a) Porque el artículo 18 no establece como requisito para ser elegido como miembro de la Junta Directiva, que el postulante no haya ocupado con anterioridad un cargo en dicha junta. Ello es conteste con lo dispuesto en el artículo 37 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, que tampoco establece entre los requisitos para ser nombrado como miembro de Junta de Directiva de una ADI, el que no haya ocupado en períodos anteriores a la elección, un cargo en la Junta Directiva; 4.b) Porque el plazo de dos años al que hace referencia el artículo 17 de los Estatutos, está relacionado con lo dispuesto en el artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, en cuanto a que "...la representación de la junta directiva durará dos años...". En consecuencia, el plazo de dos años se refiere al período por el cual se nombra a los miembros de la Junta Directiva de una ADI, y no a que una vez transcurridos esos dos años, estén imposibilitados para postularse nuevamente a fin de que se les reelija para ocupar el mismo cargo, o bien, para ser designados en otro puesto de la Junta Directiva, toda vez que los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea no lo prohíben. En este punto, es necesario insistir en que el artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, lo que hace es remitir a los estatutos de cada ADI, la forma en que se regulará el procedimiento de reelección, pero no condiciona a esa circunstancia, la posibilidad de reelegirse en un cargo de la junta directiva de una ADI, como una manifestación del ejercicio del derecho fundamental a elegir y ser electo. Ello por cuanto, en la Ley 3859 no existe disposición alguna que regule el tema de la reelección, aunado a que si los estatutos de cada ADI no la prohíben expresamente -como en el caso que nos ocupa-, los interesados podrían reelegirse en los mismo términos en que fueron electos por primera vez, en aplicación de lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 de la Constitución Política; 14 y 17 de la Ley 3859; 11, 20 inciso k), 30 inciso a) y 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859. Por todo lo expuesto, el hecho de que los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoecha, no regulen expresamente lo relativo al procedimiento de reelección, dicha circunstancia no obsta para que un miembro de la Junta Directiva pueda postularse nuevamente para ocupar por un segundo período el mismo cargo, o bien, para ser designados en otro puesto de la Junta Directiva, toda vez que ni la Ley 3859, ni el Reglamento a esa Ley, ni los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, lo prohíben.
• 5)Sobre la nulidad absoluta de la resoluciones número DLR 035-2009; DND-013-2009 y DND 022-2009. Se ha tenido por acreditado que por resolución número D.L.R. 035-2009 de las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve, la Dirección Legal y de Registro de DINADECO, resolvió: “…I. ACOGER PARCIALMENTE LA ACCIÓN DE NULIDAD, interpuesta en contra la Asamblea General de Afiliados celebrada por la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, San José, el día 22 de marzo del 2009, incoada por el señor Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora (…). II. Se ordena la inscripción en el Departamento de Registro de los siguientes nombramientos de Junta Directiva: Vicepresidente, Secretario, Fiscal, Vocal 1, 2 y 3...”. Asimismo, que en términos generales, dicho pronunciamiento se basó en las siguientes consideraciones: “… el accionante no asistió a la asamblea impugnada, además de que el accionante no plantea ningún hecho acontecido para la convocatoria o con ocasión de la realización (sic) asamblea ni durante la realización de la misma, por lo que este Departamento Legal no procederá a realizar un análisis de las afirmaciones del accionante (…) las organizaciones de desarrollo comunal, que funcionen conforme a los términos de esa ley y su reglamento los respectivos estatutos, se encuentran bajo un marco de control y vigilancia, que considera la suscrita, deben de ser ejercidos de manera oficiosa, en los casos donde evidencie una posible transgresión de las normas cuyo posible resultado cree un daño a la organización y/o a sus afiliados, por lo que este Departamento de Legal, se encuentra en la facultad para atender la Acción de Nulidad incoada por los accionantes en contra de la Asamblea General realizada el día veintidós de marzo del 2009 (…) Siendo que dentro de la asamblea del veintidós de marzo del 2009, se llevó a cabo la elección de nueva Junta Directiva y dentro de la misma se encuentran nombradas las señoras Rose Mary Artavia González (…) las cuales ostentaron durante la última junta directiva la calidad de Vicepresidenta y Tesorera correspondientemente, y en acatamiento de lo estipulado dentro del artículo diecisiete del estatuto, en el que se dispone que los miembros serán electos por períodos de dos años, sin hacer ilusión (sic) a la reelección y siendo que desde el vencimiento de la junta directiva sea el veintiséis de abril del 2007 no se realiza nuevo nombramiento de junta directiva, se desprende que ambas señoras no puedan ser reelectas durante el presente período…” (ver folios 65 a 70 del expediente judicial). En primera instancia, la parte actora, aduce que DINADECO no podía conocer y resolver la acción de nulidad planteada por Manuel Antonio Hernández Zamora contra la Asamblea General del 22 de marzo del 2009, pues aquel no había presente en la misma. En ese sentido y a contrario de lo que alega la parte actora, aunque el afiliado que interpuso la acción de nulidad contra la asamblea general celebrada el 22 de marzo del dos mil nueve, no estaba legitimado para ello, pues no participó en dicha asamblea, requisito sine qua non de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 33 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859 -"...La acción podrá ser ejercida por cualquier asociado mayor de edad, que haya estado presente en la asamblea..."- (ver folios 26 a 28 del expediente judicial; 148 y 147 del que a la Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad le corresponde ejercer la más estricta vigilancia sobre estas asociaciones con el propósito de que funcionen conforme a los términos de esta ley, su reglamento y los respectivos estatutos (artículo 25 de la Ley 3859). En razón de lo anterior, es que tanto en la resolución número D.L.R. 035-2009 como en la D.L.R. 039-2009 de las catorce horas del dos de junio del dos mil nueve, la Dirección Legal y de Registro de DINADECO resolvió que aún y cuando el afiliado que interpuso la acción de nulidad contra la Asamblea General celebrada por la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, no estaba legitimado conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 33 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, para interponerla, porque no participó en dicha asamblea (ver folios 26 a 28 del expediente judicial); lo cierto es, que DINADECO en ejercicio de las potestades de fiscalización que le otorga el artículo 25 de la Ley número 3859, sí podía revisar las presuntas nulidades que alegó el afiliado que planteó la acción de nulidad, relacionadas con la imposibilidad de reelección de los miembros de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral de Goicoechea, a efecto de establecer si la elección se dio o no conforme al ordenamiento jurídico. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal considera que DINADECO cuenta con competencia para analizar posibles patologías de los acuerdos adoptados en las Asambleas Generales, o bien, la validez de estas últimas, por ende, lo resuelto en ese sentido por DINADECO, mediante resolución número D.L.R. 035-2009 de las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve, no resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 25 de la Ley 3859 y 33 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859. En cuanto a las razones en que se fundamenta el Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO para ordenar la no inscripción del nombramiento de la actora, como Presidenta de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea para el período 2009-2011, este Tribunal considera que resultan contrarias a derecho, por los motivos que de seguido se exponen: 5.a) Si bien es cierto, la demandante se desempeñó como miembro de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Debajo de Goicochea, en los siguientes cargos y períodos: Secretaria del 26 de abril de 1979 al 26 de abril de 1981; Secretaria del 26 de abril de 1981 al 26 de abril de 1983; Secretaria del 26 de abril de 1999 al 26 de abril del 2001; Secretaria del 26 del 2001 al 26 de abril del 2003; Secretaria del 26 de abril del 2003; al 26 de abril del 2005; Vicepresidenta del 26 de abril del 2005 al 26 de abril del 2007 (ver folios 39, 99 del expediente judicial; 1 a 15 del expediente administrativo numerado como carpeta 2 y que corresponde a la tarjeta número 801; 3 y 4 del expediente administrativo numerado como carpeta 9); también lo es, que el cargo para el que fue postulada y electa durante la Asamblea General celebrada el 22 de marzo del 2009 , fue el de Presidenta de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea (ver folios 26 a 29, 47 del expediente judicial). En consecuencia, no puede sostenerse que la designación de la demandante como Presidenta para el período 2009-2011, encuadre en el supuesto de hecho de la reelección, ya que el puesto que ocupó durante el período 2005-2007 fue el de vicepresidenta de la de junta directiva y, a contrario de lo que sostiene DINADECO, la reelección se da respecto al puesto que se ocupe en la Junta Directiva, no a la condición de miembro de la misma (folio 62 del expediente judicial). Ahora bien, el hecho de que conforme a los artículos 46 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859 y 23 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, la actora haya sustituido a la Presidenta de la ADI durante una parte del período 2005-2007, dado que ésta última se traslado a vivir a los Estados Unidos de América (ver folios 03 y 04 del expediente administrativo numerado como carpeta 9), tampoco resulta de recibido para sostener que configura el supuesto de hecho de la reelección, toda vez que el ejercicio de las funciones inherentes a ese cargo, se dio por una razón sobrevenida y no en virtud de la designación por parte de la asamblea general de la actora en ese puesto. Por otra parte, tampoco resulta procedente afirmar que la actora ya había sido electa como Presidenta la Junta Directiva para el período 2007-2009, toda vez que por resolución número 054-2007 dictada a las trece horas de veintisiete de agosto del dos mil siete, por la Dirección de Legal y Registro de la Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO), se resolvió acoger la acción de nulidad interpuesta contra la Asamblea General de Afiliados de la ADI de Purral Debajo de Goicoechea, celebrada el diecinueve de mayo del dos mil siete y decretar la invalidez de los acuerdos alcanzados en dicha asamblea, entre ellos, la elección de la actora en el cargo de Presidenta de la Junta Directiva para el período 2007-2009 (ver folios 18 a 25, 181 del expediente judicial; 16 a 14 del expediente administrativo numerado como carpeta 3). En consecuencia, este Tribunal considera que el hecho de que la actora haya ocupado con anterioridad otros cargos en la Junta Directiva de la ADI, no tiene la virtud de configurar el presupuesto de hecho que da cabida a la reelección, toda vez que ésta se da con relación al puesto que se ocupe en la Junta Directiva, no a la condición de miembro de la misma.; 5.b) También resulta improcedente que en la resolución D.L.R. 035-2009 se afirme que "...en acatamiento de lo estipulado dentro del artículo diecisiete del estatuto, en el que se dispone que los miembros serán electos por períodos de dos años, sin hacer ilusión (sic) a la reelección y siendo que desde el vencimiento de la junta directiva sea el veintiséis de abril del 2007 no se realiza nuevo nombramiento de junta directiva, se desprende que ambas señoras no puedan ser reelectas durante el presente período…” (ver folios 65 a 70 del expediente judicial), no sólo porque parte de un supuesto de hecho erróneo -que hubo reelección en el caso de la actora-; sino porque tal y como ya se analizó en el apartado 4 de este considerando, la circunstancia de que los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoecha, no regulen expresamente lo relativo al procedimiento de reelección, no obsta para que un miembro de la Junta Directiva pueda postularse nuevamente para ocupar por un segundo período el mismo cargo, o bien, para ser designado en otro puesto de la Junta Directiva, toda vez que ni la Ley 3859, ni el Reglamento a esa Ley, ni los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, lo prohíben. En ese sentido, el plazo de dos años a que hace alusión tanto el artículo 17 de los Estatutos de la ADI como el 35 párrafo 2º del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, se refiere al período por el cual se nombra a los miembros de la Junta Directiva de una ADI, y no a que una vez transcurridos esos dos años, estén imposibilitados para postularse nuevamente a fin de que se les reelija o se les designe en otro puesto de la Junta Directiva. Aunado a que los artículos 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea y 37 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, no establecen como requisito para ser elegido como miembro de la Junta Directiva, que el postulante no haya ocupado con anterioridad un cargo en dicha junta. En razón de lo anterior, este Tribunal considera que las resoluciones impugnadas resultan contrarias a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política; 17 de la Ley 3859; 35 párrafo 2º, 37 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859; 17 y 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea; 19, 132, 133 y 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 5.c) Por último, también resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política, 22 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 de la Ley 3859; 11 y 12 del Reglamento a esa Ley, que en resoluciones número DND 13-2009 y DND 22-2009, DINADECO sostenga que del artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859 "...se desprende que de no estar la reelección de los miembros de junta directiva, General de Afiliados, la misma no procederá..." (folio 59 del expediente judicial) y que "...no se trata este asunto de la reelección consecutiva o no de personas que han ocupado cargos directivos en el pasado, sino de la total ausencia vía estatutaria de tal posibilidad como se señala en la página segunda de la resolución sometida a revisión, contraviniendo lo dispuesto legal y reglamentariamente en la normativa comunal reseñada..." (folio 63 del expediente judicial). Tal y como ya se analizó en el apartado 3 de este considerando, ello implica condicionar el ejercicio de un derecho fundamental a una limitación introducida por un reglamento ejecutivo que no tiene asidero en la ley, lo cual, resulta contrario al principio de reserva de legal en materia de regulación de derechos fundamentales (artículo 23.2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 19 del la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Asimismo, implica una violación al artículo 28 de la Constitución Política, pues en razón de la naturaleza jurídica de las ADI –sujetos de derecho privado- se les impediría a sus afiliados el ejercicio de un derecho fundamental, sin que exista una prohibición a nivel legal, para tal efecto, aspecto que resulta relevante pues en razón de su naturaleza jurídica y del régimen jurídico que les es aplicable, pueden realizar todo lo que no les esté prohibido por ley. En consecuencia, el párrafo último del artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, se limita a remitir a los estatutos de cada ADI, la forma en que se regulará el procedimiento de reelección, pero no condiciona a esa circunstancia, la posibilidad de reelegirse en un cargo de la junta directiva de una ADI, como manifestación del ejercicio del derecho fundamental a elegir y ser electo, razón por la cual, los interesados podrían reelegirse en los mismos términos en que fueron electos por primera vez, o sea, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 17 y 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea y 37 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859. 5.d) En razón de lo anterior, este Tribunal considera que el motivo –que la actora no podía ser reelecta en el cargo de Presidenta de ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea para el período 2009-2011, porque ya había ocupado el puesto de vicepresidenta para el período 2005-2007 y porque con anterioridad ya había desempeñado otros cargos en la Junta Directiva de esa ADI-; el contenido –que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 35 párrafo último del Reglamento a la Ley 3859, no procede la reelección si no está regulada en los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, aunado que el artículo 17 de los Estatutos de esa asociación, establece que los miembros de la Junta Directiva durarán dos años en sus cargos-; y la motivación que sustentan la resolución D.L.R. 035-2009 del Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO dictada a las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve -únicamente respecto al tema de la reelección objeto del proceso-, así como, las resoluciones DND 13-2009 y DND 22-2009 dictadas por la Directora Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, a las trece horas del dieciséis de junio del dos mil nueve, y a las diez horas treinta minutos del tres de agosto del dos mil nueve, resultan disconformes con el ordenamiento jurídico, por ser contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política; 22 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19, 132, 133, 136 y 158 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 de la Ley 3859; 11, 12, 35 párrafo último y 37 del Reglamento a esa Ley; 17 y 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.
• 6)En cuanto a la situación actual de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea para el período 2009-2011. A contrario de lo que manifiesta el Representante del Estado, este Tribunal ha tenido por acreditado que de conformidad con la certificación de personería jurídica extendida por el Departamento de Registro de DINADECO el veintiuno de enero del dos mil diez (folio 115 del expediente judicial), aún se encuentran pendientes los nombramientos para designar a las personas que ocuparán los puestos de Presidente y Tesorero para el período 2009-2011, por lo que, únicamente se encuentran inscritas las personas que fueron designadas en la Asamblea General celebrada el 22 de marzo del 2009 por la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, para ocupar los puestos de Vicepresidente, Secretaria, Vocal 1, 2 y 3, Fiscal 1 y 2. En razón de lo anterior, este Tribunal considera que la declaratoria de nulidad parcial de la resolución D.R.L. 035-2009, mediante la cual, se dispuso no inscribir el nombramiento de la actora en el puesto de Presidenta de dicha ADI, no tiene la virtud de afectar a la persona que según el dicho del Representante del Estado ocupa ese cargo, ya que de conformidad con los documentos visibles a folios 114 y 115 del expediente judicial, el puesto de Presidente de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, aún se encuentra vacante. En todo caso y a fin de que la declaratoria de nulidad contenida en esta sentencia, no cause graves dislocaciones al funcionamiento de la Asociación -tal y como resalta el representante estatal-, este Tribunal dimensionará en el tiempo y espacio sus efectos, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 131 inciso 3) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo; 7) Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 122 incisos a) y b) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, dispone: a) La nulidad parcial de la resolución D.L.R. 035-2009 del Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO dictada a las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve, únicamente en cuanto acoge parcialmente la acción de nulidad interpuesta contra la elección de la actora en el puesto de Presidenta de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea para el período 2009-2011, en la Asamblea General celebrada el 22 de marzo del dos mil nueve y por ende, en cuanto ordena la convocatoria a una nueva asamblea general de afiliados por el diez por ciento de aquellos, para la elección de los restantes miembros de la Junta Directiva y la presentación de de padrón de afiliados actualizado, ello por cuanto en los aspectos indicados, resulta sustancialmente contraria a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política; 22 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19, 132, 133, 136 y 158 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 de la Ley 3859; 11, 12, 35 párrafo último y 37 del Reglamento a esa Ley; 17 y 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 164 inciso 2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la declaratoria de invalidez parcial de la resolución D.L.R. 035-2009 del Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO dictada a las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve , no afecta los demás extremos resueltos en dicho pronunciamiento, relacionados con los siguientes aspectos: la inscripción en el Departamento de Registro de los nombramientos de Junta Directiva para el período 2009-2011 de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, relativos a vicepresidente, fiscal, vocal 1, 2 y 3, adoptados en la Asamblea General del 22 de marzo del 2009; la declaratoria de validez de todos los acuerdos tomados en la asamblea general de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, celebrada el 22 de marzo del 2009. A consecuencia de la declaratoria de nulidad parcial de la D.L.R. 035-2009 del Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO dictada a las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve, y a fin de no provocar una violación al principio de seguridad jurídica o una grave dislocación en el funcionamiento de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, se dispone de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en el inciso 3) del artículo 131 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, dimensionar los efectos de la declaratoria parcial de nulidad absoluta, de la siguiente manera: i) inscribir en el Departamento de Registro de DINADECO, la designación de la actora, como Presidenta de la Junta Directiva de la ADI de Purral de Abajo de Goicoechea, para el período 2009-2011, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia; ii) de lo anterior, el representante del Estado deberá informar a la Jueza Ejecutora de este Tribunal, en el plazo de cinco días hábiles contados a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia; iii) mantener todos los actos o acuerdos que hayan adoptado o vayan a adoptar los miembros actuales de la Junta Directiva de esa Asociación que se encuentran inscritos para el período 2009-2011, en el lapso comprendido entre la fecha de su inscripción en el Departamento de Registro de DINADECO, y hasta la fecha en que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza; 2) La nulidad de las resoluciones número DND-013-2009 de las trece horas del dieciséis de junio del mismo año y DND 022-2009 de las diez horas treinta minutos del tres de agosto de ese año, mediante las cuales, la Directora Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, confirmó la nulidad parcial de la Asamblea General realizada el 22 de marzo del dos mil nueve, acordada en resolución número D.L.R. 035-2009 del Departamento Legal y de Registro de DINADECO dictada a las quince horas del veinte de mayo del dos mil nueve, en el sentido, de no inscribir los nombramientos de Presidente y Tesorero de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea, ello por cuanto en los aspectos indicados, resultan sustancialmente contrarias a lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 y 33 de la Constitución Política; 22 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 19, 132, 133, 136 y 158 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 17 de la Ley 3859; 11, 12, 35 párrafo último y 37 del Reglamento a esa Ley; 17 y 18 de los Estatutos de la ADI de Purral Abajo de Goicoechea.”