Disciplinary sanction for COVID-19 vaccination and moral damagesSanción disciplinaria por vacunación COVID-19 y daño moral

**File 22-005917-1027-CA** **Ruling 001362-F-S1-2025** **FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at thirteen hours twenty-eight minutes on the thirtieth of September, two thousand twenty-five.

Ordinary proceeding, filed before the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal by SONIA CONTRERAS ALVARADO, against the COSTA RICAN ELECTRICITY INSTITUTE (INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD). Acting as special judicial attorneys are, for the plaintiff, attorney Randall Sibaja Miranda; and for the defendant Institute, attorneys Paulina Bustos Rugama and Marys Palacios Carrillo. The plaintiff files a cassation appeal against ruling number 2024004697, issued at 14:56 on July 19, 2024, by the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, composed of the judges: Rosa María Cortés Morales (presiding), Paulo André Alonso Soto, and Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz.

Drafted by Magistrate Vargas Vásquez; **WHEREAS**

I.On November 4, 2022, Ms. Sonia Contreras Alvarado filed an administrative lawsuit against the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (by its acronym ICE). She indicated that she is an employee of the defendant entity. Without specifying a date, she stated that ICE told her she was obligated to get vaccinated against COVID-19. However, her primary care physician stated that this was risky for her, and therefore, issued a medical opinion (dictamen médico). She informed her supervisors of the condition and her unwillingness to be inoculated. Despite the foregoing, ICE decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her, number T-037-2022, even though the College of Physicians and Surgeons (Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos) had concluded that the medical opinions were valid. This situation, she stated, caused her anguish and stress due to the possibility of losing her job. She stated that ICE, through circular 5500-1178-2022, reported the acceptance of private medical opinions as a contraindication. By virtue of the foregoing, the Institution ordered the closure (archivo) of the proceedings against her. However, she had already suffered moral damage (daño moral), as her level of stress, anguish, anxiety, unease, and sadness increased. She affirmed that she was pregnant and the situation forced her to seek psychological help. Based on this statement of facts and as established in the preliminary hearing, she petitioned: "I request that the Costa Rican Electricity Institute be ordered to pay 45 million colones, for the moral damage caused by the opening of an illegal and unfounded ordinary disciplinary proceeding. / I request that it be ordered to pay costs (costas) for both stages of the proceeding." The defendant answered negatively and raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction (resolved interlocutorily), as well as payment (pago), lack of right (falta de derecho), and lack of interest (falta de interés). The Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, in vote number 2024004697 issued at 14:56 on July 19, 2024, rejected the evidence for a better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) offered in the preliminary hearing. It rejected the exceptions of lack of interest and payment. It upheld the exception of lack of right. It dismissed the claim in all its aspects. It ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of both stages, who, dissatisfied, files a cassation appeal. On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff submitted evidence for a better provision (prueba para mejor proveer), consisting of official letters: DRSS-GR-0026-2022, DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021, and FGJ-1728-2021; and indicates that they show that the National Commission on Vaccination and Epidemiology (Comisión Nacional de Vacunación y Epidemiología) agreed to accept the medical certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Due process of hearing was given to the opposing party regarding these.

II.Regarding the evidence provided during the processing of the cassation appeal. Article 145.1 of the Administrative Procedural Code provides that the parties may provide documentary evidence which they swear they did not know of previously, concerning new facts occurring after the appealed judgment. In the case under study, official letter DRSS-GR-0026-2022 was issued on January 18, 2022; next, DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021 is from November 3, 2021; and finally, FGJ-1728-2021 is from October 6, 2021. As can be observed, none of them meet the requirements established by the cited regulation. All of them predate the issuance of the challenged ruling, vote 2024004697 issued at 14:56 on July 19, 2024; they even predate the date the lawsuit was filed. The foregoing implies that the documents provided as evidence for a better resolution must be rejected.

III.She alleges the following four grounds for substantive reasons. First, she claims that facts were deemed demonstrated in contradiction with the evidence on file. She states that the Tribunal deemed it not proven that, prior to the opening of the disciplinary proceedings, the plaintiff had a contraindication for inoculation against COVID-19. However, there are elements that the Tribunal did not take into account, such as that, in the first stage of mandatory vaccination, private medical opinions were not admissible. Therefore, for the judges, there was inaction on her part, but as indicated by the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura, when circular 5500-1463-2021 was in effect, these medical opinions were not received unless they were validated (homologados) by the Ministry of Health or the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social). Then, she says, the Tribunal did not deem it demonstrated that circular 5500-1463-2021 had been declared illegal or was suspended at the time the administrative proceeding was opened. But, it fails to consider that the intention of the lawsuit was never to seek to discredit or demonstrate the existence of a nullity of the institution's directives. It was another circular that rendered this first one ineffective, when ICE made a drastic turn regarding the medical impossibility of getting vaccinated. The new circular did accept medical opinions without the need for them to be validated. Second, she alleges, in concordance with the previous objection, that the Tribunal resolved the non-existence of subjective moral damage, acting against the right of defense, due process, legal certainty, and non-observance of legal norms. She argues violations of Articles 136, 190, 191, and 192 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP). She indicates that if the judges had analyzed the testimonial evidence, they would have deemed the plaintiff's suffering as demonstrated. There is an illegitimate, abnormal, and disproportionate action by the Administration in imposing the validation of private medical opinions. The appealed judgment does not indicate the reasons why the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura is not credible to it, regarding circular 5500-1463-2021, when private medical opinions were not accepted without being validated. Third, she alleges violation of the principles of legal certainty, defense, due process, reasoned judgment (motivación) and grounding (fundamentación), as well as the prohibition of arbitrariness. The Tribunal did not provide a reasoned basis for the judgment, as it did not analyze what was stated by the plaintiff's witness, nor did it take into account what was argued in the conclusions stage. Fourth, she expresses disagreement with the ruling on legal costs (costas); in her view, there are sufficient elements to determine that she litigated in consideration of the non-pecuniary (extrapatrimonial) harm suffered. If what Dr. Gabriela Segura stated had been taken into account, the resolution of the case would have been in her favor.

IV.By virtue of the first three objections being intimately linked, they will be resolved jointly. The Tribunal considered that the plaintiff failed to establish what action by ICE unlawfully caused damage, since the opening of the proceeding was protected by an internal circular. In this sense, it indicated that regulation 5500-1463-2021 from ICE's General Management implemented Executive Decree 43249-S, which established the mandatory nature of the vaccine for public officials, with the exception of those who had a contraindication. The judges stated that from both the circular and the deposition of witness Segura Solís, it follows that, through an application (app) created for such purposes, employees had to demonstrate their vaccination status, or failing that, the medical contraindication, for which they had a period of 5 to 10 business days to submit to the ICE Health Area the respective certification from the Costa Rican Social Security Fund explicitly indicating the medical reasons that contraindicated vaccination. This provision was of mandatory compliance and an act that has not been challenged. Thus, the plaintiff was obligated to comply with what was established in said circular. The Tribunal asserted that, as the validity of said act is not questioned in this proceeding, it cannot make a legal assessment of it as a possible formal action by the Administration causing the damage alleged by the plaintiff. Witness Segura Solís herself affirmed that an awareness campaign was carried out and workers were given the opportunity to meet the requirements. The Tribunal stated that a sanctioning procedure was initiated against Ms. Contreras Alvarado for having failed to comply with what was indicated in circular 5500-1463-2021, that is, presenting her vaccination status, the CCSS certification indicating the contraindication, or also a validated medical certificate. Thus, the Institution proceeded as provided in the referenced circular, specifically in point 7.11, which orders the initiation of proceedings against anyone who does not comply with vaccination or its exceptions. The judges stated that it was the plaintiff's own actions that led to the initiation of the proceedings. The circular is a valid and effective act according to Articles 128 and 140 of the LGAP, and the cessation of its effects through a new formal action cannot be taken as a basis for its illegality. When the administrative proceeding was opened, on April 8, 2022, the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the circular; it was not until August 25 of that same year that she presented a private opinion with the contraindication; therefore, ICE had to exercise its sanctioning power, without this being considered capable of producing damage.

V.Regarding the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) in the administrative function. This Chamber has referred on many other occasions, including in vote number 676-F-S1-2021 issued at 9:35 on March 25, 2021 (visible 676-F-S1-2021), that within the dynamics of the predominantly strict liability system of the Administration, the State is liable to a private individual who has suffered an unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica), which they do not have the duty to bear and which was caused by a public operation. The scope of coverage of the postulates that comprise it includes, in addition to injuries of a material nature, those of a non-pecuniary (extrapatrimonial) nature. This type of liability is based on the damage itself, and not on other elements, such as intent (dolo) or fault (culpa). The foregoing finds support in Article 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as in Article 197 of the General Law of Public Administration. For this criterion of imputation, it is repeated, it is not required that the analysis of the conduct of the person causing the injury considers whether it was with intent or fault. Those types of considerations become irrelevant, as other aspects come into play. It is essential that a causal link exists between the conduct or situation that causes the damage and that suffered by the victim, a link that is broken if any exemption (eximente) intervenes, namely: force majeure (fuerza mayor), fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), or act of a third party (hecho de un tercero). This principle arises independently of the liability to the administered party that its officials or agents may assume. Therefore, the State will be liable whenever its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal, operation causes damage that the victim does not have the duty to bear, whether material or non-pecuniary, regardless of their subjective legal situation and the ownership or condition of power they hold.

VI.Regarding subjective moral damage (daño moral subjetivo). Regarding this topic, this Chamber has also referred on many other occasions to this type of damage; see resolutions 667-F-S1-2021 issued at 15:40 on March 18, 2021 (667-F-S1-2021) and 2218-F-S1-2020 issued at 10:27 on August 20, 2020 (2218-F-S1-2020). It has indicated that moral damage is an injury in the sphere of the individual's non-pecuniary interest, which on occasions can also cause material consequences; it involves an unjust disturbance of the individual's emotional conditions. As its amount cannot be structured and demonstrated in a precise manner, its determination is left to the prudent discretion of the judge, since its determination is made in re ipsa, meaning it is consubstantial or inherent to the injury itself. However, like any other injury, a causal link must exist. Furthermore, the claimant is not exempt from all evidentiary effort; they must provide elements (at least circumstantial) from which the subjective affliction attributed to the public conduct can be extracted and based on which a causal link can be feasibly constructed. Of course, due to this characteristic, the existence of direct evidence is not required; on the contrary, the evidentiary duty is fulfilled by providing those elements from which the judge is capable, based on sound judgment (sana crítica), of determining the effective existence of damage.

VII.In the case under study, as seen in the evidence on file in the judicial record, there is the document titled Circular 5500-1463-2021, issued on October 21, 2021. Therein, based on Executive Decree number 43249-S of October 15, 2021, ICE declared vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory, including all work profiles within the Institution, that is, for all ICE personnel. This act excluded "persons who have a special health condition duly certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS), and endorsed by the ICE Health Services Area, where the application of the COVID-19 vaccine is explicitly contraindicated." Furthermore, this circular, in section 7.9, contains the instruction that anyone alleging a contraindication had to submit the respective CCSS certification within 5 to 10 business days. Then, point 7.11 provided that, in cases where the employee did not comply with what was stipulated in the directive, the opening of the corresponding disciplinary proceedings would be ordered. Now then, according to proven fact one of the "Administrative File" section, not challenged in the cassation appeal; the order to open the ordinary administrative disciplinary proceeding against the plaintiff was issued at 16:30 on April 5, 2022, and notified on April 18, 2022. Therein, she was accused of having repeatedly and unjustifiably failed to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned circular, since she had provided neither the documents corresponding to the respective vaccination, nor the appropriate medical contraindication certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. Next, it is important to add, according to evidence on file in the judicial record, titled Circular 5500-1178-2022, of August 23, 2022, which is based on Executive Decree number 43543-S; it noted that, based on the new guidelines from the Ministry of Health, private medical certificates, company medicine, and mixed medicine were functional to demonstrate the contraindication for the COVID-19 vaccine, with validation by the CCSS not being necessary. Thus, it was ordered that in cases where a proceeding had been initiated against an employee, steps be taken before the hierarchical superior to close (archivar) the case. On August 25, 2022, employee Contreras Alvarado submitted to the Administration a medical opinion (dictamen médico) in which the application of any COVID-19 vaccine was contraindicated (proven fact two, not challenged). By resolution of the Telecommunications Management at 10:15 on September 26, 2022, official letter 6000-1744-2022, the disciplinary case against the plaintiff was closed (archivó) (proven fact three, not debated). In addition to the foregoing, it must be stated that the witness Gabriela Segura Solís, who is the coordinator of ICE's health services, clearly explained that the parameters used regarding vaccination were governed by the aforementioned circulars. She affirmed that while circular 5500-1463-2021 was in effect, the medical opinions had to be validated by the CCSS or the Ministry of Health, since ICE was not a governing body capable of doing so from its Health Area. Furthermore, she emphasized that, during that period, Ms. Contreras Alvarado never submitted the corresponding opinion.

VIII.From the foregoing, it is clear to the Chamber that there is a first administrative act, namely circular 5500-1463-2021 of October 21, 2021, which established the mandatory nature for ICE employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. As the Tribunal correctly indicated, said act was never challenged so that its non-conformity with the legal system could be declared, which evidently makes it a valid and effective act, pursuant to Article 128 of the LGAP. As the appellant herself correctly indicates, for the first stage of vaccination, when circular 5500-1463-2021 was producing its effects, the private medical opinions establishing a contraindication necessarily had to be validated or certified by the CCSS so that the ICE Health Area could consider the requirement imposed on the employee as met. Furthermore, witness Segura Solís explained it that way. Now then, it is also clear that on April 18, 2022, Ms. Contreras Alvarado was notified about the deficiency in her file related to vaccination, as well as that no document certified by the CCSS from which the contraindication could be inferred had been presented. As was deemed demonstrated, it was not until August 25, 2022, that the plaintiff provided a medical opinion (dictamen médico) indicating the need for her exclusion; however, by that time, the ICE workforce community had already been notified and circular 5500-1178-2022 was in effect, informing that from that moment on, private medical opinions were accepted as a contraindication for the vaccine. Thus, the appellant argues in her appeal that the Tribunal deemed it not proven that she had a contraindication prior to the initiation of the sanctioning proceeding; but as has been shown, Ms. Sonia Contreras did not submit any contraindication before the notification of the proceeding, but rather did so only after the entry into force of circular 5500-1178-2022. As explained supra, when claiming compensation from the Administration, it becomes essential to demonstrate the causal link between the administrative conduct and the damage claimed. In this predicate and according to the evidence on file, the Administration always acted in accordance with the guidelines established regarding the crisis generated by COVID-19; the plaintiff, for her part, claims to have suffered damage due to the unease generated by the initiation of the proceeding; however, the opening thereof was due to the fact that Ms. Contreras Alvarado herself did not communicate the medical contraindications beforehand, since as seen, she did so until August 25, 2022. In this scenario, no action by ICE that could generate liability towards Ms. Sonia Contreras is evident, linked to the damage she claims she endured due to the proceeding initiated against her. Finally, as stated supra, the Tribunal carefully grounds its judgment based on the content of the circulars and, among other things, the testimony of Dr. Segura Solís; hence, there is no lack of reasoned judgment (motivación) in the ruling. In accordance with the foregoing, the alleged regulatory violations do not occur, which is why the objections must be denied.

IX.The fourth claim is related to the legal costs (costas). The Tribunal indicated that, in accordance with Article 193 of the Administrative Procedural Code, given that the claim was dismissed and finding no cause to justify an exemption, it imposed the costs against the plaintiff. In this regard, Article 193 of the CPCA establishes the imposition of costs on the losing party for the mere fact of being so, which must be done even ex officio. Now then, that precept includes the following exceptions: a) When the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence the opposing party plausibly did not know about and, because of this, the party's opposition was adjusted. b) Due to the nature of the debated issues, there existed, in the Tribunal's view, sufficient reason to litigate. Then, Article 194 ibidem provides one more singularity: c) when the prevailing party has incurred in plus petitio. In the case under study, the plaintiff filed her action without being able to establish the causal link between the damage claimed and the alleged action by the Administration. The foregoing forced the defendant to exercise its defense, demonstrating the aforementioned deficiency. In this scenario, it is not possible for the Chamber to recognize that there was sufficient reason to litigate, and, therefore, to apply the exemptions mentioned above. Therefore, the objection must be denied.

X.By virtue of the foregoing, the evidence provided for a better provision will be rejected. The cassation appeal filed by Ms. Sonia Yorleny Contreras Alvarado will be dismissed. The costs of this appeal shall be borne by her, pursuant to Article 150.3 of the Administrative Procedural Code.

**THEREFORE** The evidence for a better provision is rejected. The appeal is dismissed. The costs of this appeal are borne by the party who filed it.

AMV Luis Guillermo Rivas Loaiciga Rocío Rojas Morales Damaris Vargas Vásquez Jorge Leiva Poveda Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code --  Telephones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, email [email protected] **Exp. 22-005917-1027-CA** **Res. 001362-F-S1-2025** **FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at thirteen hours twenty-eight minutes on the thirtieth of September two thousand twenty-five.

Ordinary proceeding, established before the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court by **SONIA CONTRERAS ALVARADO**; against the **COSTA RICAN ELECTRICITY INSTITUTE** (INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD). Special judicial representatives are: for the plaintiff, attorney Randall Sibaja Miranda; and for the defendant Institute, licensed attorneys Paulina Bustos Rugama and Marys Palacios Carrillo. The plaintiff files a cassation appeal (recurso de casación) against resolution number 2024004697, from 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024, issued by the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, composed of the judges: Rosa María Cortés Morales (presiding judge-rapporteur), Paulo André Alonso Soto, and Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz.

<span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span>**Magistrate Vargas Vásquez writes;** **CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO)** **I.** On November 4, 2022, Mrs. Sonia Contreras Alvarado filed a contentious administrative lawsuit against the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (by its acronym ICE). She stated she is an employee of the defendant entity. Without indicating a date, she stated that ICE told her she was obligated to get vaccinated against COVID-19. However, her primary care physician stated that this was risky for her, and therefore, issued a medical opinion (dictamen médico). She informed her supervisors of the condition and her will not to be inoculated. Despite the foregoing, ICE decided to initiate a disciplinary proceeding (procedimiento disciplinario) against her, number T-037-2022; even though the College of Physicians and Surgeons had concluded that the medical opinions were valid. Such situation, she stated, caused her anguish and stress due to the possibility of losing her job. She stated that ICE, through circular 5500-1178-2022, reported the acceptance of private medical opinions as a contraindication. By virtue of the foregoing, the Institution ordered the archiving of the proceeding against her. However, she had already suffered moral damage (daño moral), since her level of stress, anguish, anxiety, unease, and sadness increased. She affirmed she was pregnant and the situation forced her to seek psychological help. Based on this relation of facts and as established in the preliminary hearing, she petitioned: "*I request that the Costa Rican Electricity Institute be ordered to pay 45 million colones, for the moral damage caused, due to the opening of an ordinary, illegal, and unfounded disciplinary proceeding. / I request that it be ordered to pay both costs (costas) of the proceeding.*" The defendant answered negatively and alleged the defense of lack of jurisdiction (incompetencia) (resolved in an interlocutory manner), as well as payment (pago), lack of right (falta de derecho), and lack of interest (falta de interés). The Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, in vote (voto) number 2024004697 of 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024, rejected the evidence for better resolution offered in the preliminary hearing. It rejected the exception (excepción) of lack of interest and payment. It upheld the exception of lack of right. It declared the lawsuit without merit (sin lugar) in all its respects. It ordered the plaintiff to pay both costs (costas), and the plaintiff, dissatisfied, files a cassation appeal (recurso de casación).

On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff submitted evidence for a better decision (prueba para mejor proveer), consisting of official letters: DRSS-GR-0026-2022, DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021, and FGJ-1728-2021; and indicates that these show that the National Commission for Vaccination and Epidemiology (Comisión Nacional de Vacunación y Epidemiología) agreed to accept the medical certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons (Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos). The opposing party was given due notice of these.

II.Regarding the evidence provided during the processing of the cassation appeal (recurso de casación). Article 145.1 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso) provides that the parties may submit documentary evidence that they swear they had no prior knowledge of, concerning new facts occurring after the appealed judgment. In the case under study, official letter DRSS-GR-0026-2022 was issued on January 18, 2022; DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021 is dated November 3, 2021; and finally, FGJ-1728-2021 is dated October 6, 2021. As can be seen, none of them meet the requirements established by the cited regulation. All are prior to the issuance of the ruling being challenged, vote 2024004697 of 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024; indeed, they are even prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. The foregoing implies that the documents submitted as evidence for a better decision must be rejected.

III.It raises the following four grounds on substantive reasons (razones sustantivas). First, it claims that facts were deemed unproven in contradiction with the evidence on record. It states that the Chamber deemed it not proven that, prior to the opening of the disciplinary procedure, the plaintiff had a contraindication to inoculating herself against COVID-19. However, there are elements the Chamber did not take into account, such as that, in the first stage of mandatory vaccination, private medical opinions (dictámenes médicos) were not accepted. Therefore, for the judges, there was inaction on her part, but as the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura indicated, while circular 5500-1463-2021 was in force, these medical opinions were not accepted unless they were homologated by the Ministry of Health or by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social). Then, it says, the Chamber did not deem it proven that circular 5500-1463-2021 was declared illegal or was suspended at the time the administrative procedure was opened. But it fails to consider that the intention with the lawsuit was never to seek to discredit or demonstrate the nullity of the institution's directives. It was another circular that rendered this first one without effect, when ICE made a drastic turn regarding the medical impossibility of getting vaccinated. The new circular did accept the medical opinions without the need for them to be homologated. Second, it alleges, in accordance with the preceding objection, the Chamber resolved the non-existence of subjective moral damage (daño moral subjetivo), acting against the right of defense, due process, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and non-observance of legal norms. It argues that Articles 136, 190, 191, and 192 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) were violated. It indicates that, if the judges had analyzed the testimonial evidence, they would have deemed the plaintiff's suffering proven. There is an illegitimate, abnormal, and disproportionate action by the Administration, by imposing the homologation of private medical opinions. The appealed judgment does not state the reasons why the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura is not credible to it, regarding circular 5500-1463-2021, when private medical opinions were not accepted without being homologated. Third, it claims violation of the principles of legal certainty, defense, due process, statement of reasons (motivación) and grounds (fundamentación), as well as the prohibition of arbitrariness (interdicción de la arbitrariedad). The Chamber did not provide the grounds for its judgment, as it did not perform an analysis of what was said by the plaintiff's witness, nor did it take into account what was stated in the conclusions stage. Fourth, it expresses disagreement with the award of costs (condenatoria en costas); in its view, there are sufficient elements to determine that it litigated in consideration of the non-pecuniary harm suffered. If what Dr. Gabriela Segura said had been taken into account, the resolution of the case would have operated in its favor.

IV.Given that the first three objections are intimately linked, they will be resolved jointly. The Chamber considered that the plaintiff failed to establish which action by ICE unlawfully caused harm, since the opening of the procedure was protected by an internal circular. In this regard, it indicated that act 5500-1463-2021 of the General Management of ICE implemented Executive Decree 43249-S, which established the mandatory nature of the vaccine for public officials, with the exception of those who had a contraindication. The judges stated that it is evident from both the circular and the deposition of witness Segura Solís that officials, through an application (app) created for such purposes, were to demonstrate their vaccination status, or failing that, their medical contraindication, for which they had a period of 5 to 10 business days to present to the Health Area of ICE the respective certification from the Costa Rican Social Security Fund explicitly indicating the medical reasons that contraindicated vaccination. This provision was of mandatory observance, and an act that has not been subject to challenge. Thus, the plaintiff was obliged to comply with what was established in said circular. The Chamber asserted that, since the validity of said act is not questioned in this proceeding, it cannot make a legal assessment as a possible formal action by the Administration causing the harm alleged by the plaintiff. Witness Segura Solís herself affirmed that an awareness campaign was conducted and workers were given the opportunity to comply with the requirements. The Chamber referred that a sanctioning procedure was initiated against Mrs. Contreras Alvarado for not having complied with what was indicated in circular 5500-1463-2021, that is, for not presenting her vaccination status, the certification from the CCSS indicating the contraindication, or also a homologated medical certificate. Thus, the Institution proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the referenced circular, specifically in point 7.11, which orders the initiation of a procedure against anyone who does not comply with vaccination or its exceptions. The judges said that it was the plaintiff's own actions that led to the procedure being initiated. The circular is a valid and effective act in accordance with Articles 128 and 140 of the LGAP, without the cessation of its effects through a new formal action being able to be considered as a basis for its illegality.

When the administrative procedure was opened, that is, on April 8, 2022, the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the circular; it was not until August 25 of that same year that she submitted a private medical opinion with the contraindication; thus, ICE had to exercise its sanctioning power, without this being able to be considered as producing damage (daño).

**V. On strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) in the administrative function.** This Chamber has stated on many other occasions, among others, in vote number 676-F-S1-2021 of 9:35 a.m. on March 25, 2021 (visible at 676-F-S1-2021), that within the dynamic of the predominantly strict liability system of the Administration, the State is liable to the individual who has suffered an unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica), which they have no duty to bear and which was caused by public functioning. The scope of coverage of the postulates that comprise it includes, in addition to injuries of a material nature, those of a non-pecuniary nature. This type of liability is based on the damage (daño) itself, and not on other elements, such as intent (dolo) or fault (culpa). The foregoing finds support in mandate 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as in norm 197 of the General Public Administration Law. For this criterion of imputation, it is repeated, it is not required that the analysis of the conduct of the person causing the injury (lesión) focus on whether it was with intent (dolo) or fault (culpa). Such considerations become irrelevant, since other aspects come into play. It is essential that there be a causal link (nexo causal) between the conduct or situation that motivates the damage (daño) and that suffered by the victim, a link that is broken if any exonerating circumstance intervenes, namely: force majeure (fuerza mayor), fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), or act of a third party (hecho de un tercero). This principle arises independently of the liability towards the administered party that its officials or agents may assume. Therefore, there will be liability of the State whenever its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning causes damage (daño) that the victim has no duty to bear, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, regardless of their subjective legal situation and the ownership or condition of power they hold.

**VI. On subjective moral damage (daño moral subjetivo).** Regarding this topic, this Chamber has also referred to this type of damage (daño) on many other occasions, see resolutions 667-F-S1-2021 of 3:40 p.m. on March 18, 2021 (667-F-S1-2021) and 2218-F-S1-2020 of 10:27 a.m. on August 20, 2020 (2218-F-S1-2020). It has indicated that moral damage (daño moral) is an injury (lesión) in the sphere of the individual's non-pecuniary interests, which on occasions may also cause pecuniary consequences; it is an unjust disturbance of the individual's emotional conditions. Since its amount cannot be structured and demonstrated precisely, its determination is left to the prudent discretion of the judging person, given that its determination is made in re ipsa, which implies that it is consubstantial or inherent to the injury (lesión) itself. However, like any other injury (lesión), a causal link (vínculo de causalidad) must exist. Furthermore, the claimant is not exempt from all evidentiary effort; they must provide elements (at least circumstantial) from which the subjective affliction attributed to the public conduct can be extracted and on the basis of which it is feasible to construct a causal link (nexo de causalidad). Of course, due to this characteristic, the existence of direct evidence is not required; on the contrary, the evidentiary duty is fulfilled by providing those elements from which the judge is able, based on sound criticism, to determine the effective existence of damage (daño).

**VII.** In the case under study, as seen in the evidence contained in the judicial file, there is the document called Circular 5500-1463-2021, issued on October 21, 2021. There, based on Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 43249-S of October 15, 2021, ICE declared vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory, including all work profiles within the Institution, that is, all ICE personnel. In this act, it excluded “persons who have a special health condition duly certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS), and endorsed by the ICE Health Services Area, where the application of the COVID-19 vaccine is explicitly contraindicated.” Furthermore, this circular, in section 7.9, contains the indication that anyone alleging a contraindication had to submit the respective CCSS certification within a period of 5 to 10 business days. Then, point 7.11 provided that, in cases where the worker did not comply with what was stipulated in the directive, the opening of the corresponding disciplinary proceedings would be ordered. Now, according to the first proven fact of the “Administrative File” section, not challenged in the cassation appeal; the order to open the ordinary administrative disciplinary proceeding against the plaintiff was issued at 4:30 p.m. on April 5, 2022, notified on April 18, 2022. There, she was charged with having repeatedly and unjustifiably failed to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned circular, since she had provided neither the documents corresponding to the respective vaccination, nor the due medical contraindication certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. Next, it is important to add, according to evidence contained in the judicial file, called Circular 5500-1178-2022, of August 23, 2022, which is based on Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 43543-S; it indicated that, based on the new guidelines of the Ministry of Health, private medical certificates, company medicine, and mixed medicine were functional to demonstrate the contraindication of the COVID-19 vaccine, with homologation by the CCSS not being necessary. Thus, it was ordered that in cases where a proceeding had been initiated against an official, steps be taken before the hierarchical superior in order to archive the case. On August 25, 2022, the official Contreras Alvarado submitted to the Administration a medical opinion where the application of any COVID-19 vaccine was contraindicated (proven fact two, not challenged). By resolution of the Telecommunications Management at 10:15 a.m. on September 26, 2022, official letter 6000-1744-2022, the disciplinary case against the plaintiff was archived (proven fact three, not debated). In addition to the foregoing, it must be noted that the witness Gabriela Segura Solís, who is the health services coordinator of ICE, clearly explained that the parameters used regarding the vaccination issue were governed by the aforementioned circulars. She affirmed that, while circular 5500-1463-2021 was in force, the medical opinions had to be homologated by the CCSS or the Ministry of Health, since ICE was not a governing body to be able to perform them from the Health Area.

Furthermore, she stressed that, during that period, Mrs. Contreras Alvarado never submitted the corresponding medical opinion.

**VIII.** From the foregoing, it is clear to this Chamber that there was a first administrative act, namely circular 5500-1463-2021 of October 21, 2021, which established the obligation for ICE employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. As the lower court correctly indicated, said act was never challenged so that its non-conformity with the legal system could be declared; which evidently makes it a valid and effective act, pursuant to Article 128 of the LGAP. As the appellant herself indicates, for the first vaccination stage, when circular 5500-1463-2021 was in effect, private medical opinions that established a contraindication necessarily had to be homologated or certified by the CCSS so that the ICE Health Area could consider the requirement imposed on the employee fulfilled. Moreover, witness Segura Solís explained it that way. Nevertheless, it is also clear that, on April 18, 2022, Mrs. Contreras Alvarado was notified of the deficiency in her file related to vaccination, as well as that no document certified by the CCSS from which the contraindication could be inferred had been submitted. As was proven, it was not until August 25, 2022, that the plaintiff provided a medical opinion stating the need for her exclusion; however, by that time, the ICE workforce had already been informed and circular 5500-1178-2022 was in effect, stating that from that moment forward, private medical opinions would be accepted as a contraindication for the vaccine. Thus, the appellant argues in her appeal that the lower court considered it unproven that she had a contraindication before the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings; but as has been shown, Mrs. Sonia Contreras did not present any contraindication before the notification of the proceedings, but rather, she did so only after the entry into force of circular 5500-1178-2022. As explained above, when claiming compensation from the Administration, it becomes essential to demonstrate the causal link between the administrative conduct and the claimed harm. In this regard and according to the evidence in the case file, the Administration always acted in accordance with the guidelines issued regarding the crisis generated by COVID-19; the plaintiff, for her part, claims to have suffered harm due to the anxiety caused by the initiation of the proceedings; however, the opening of these proceedings was because Mrs. Contreras Alvarado herself did not previously communicate the medical contraindications, since, as noted, she did so only on August 25, 2022. In that scenario, no action by ICE is evident that could generate liability toward Mrs. Sonia Contreras, linked to the harm she claims to have sustained due to the proceedings initiated against her. Finally, as set forth above, the lower court carefully bases its judgment on the content of the circulars and, among other things, the testimony of Dr. Segura Solís; hence, there is no lack of reasoning in the ruling. In accordance with the foregoing, the alleged regulatory violations do not occur, for which reason the objections must be denied.

**IX.** The **fourth** claim is that related to costs. The lower court indicated that, in accordance with Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since the lawsuit was dismissed and no cause justifying an exemption was found, it imposed costs on the plaintiff. In this regard, Article 193 of the CPCA establishes the imposition of costs on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, which must be done even ex officio. However, that provision includes the following exceptions: **a)** When the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was plausibly not known by the opposing party and, because of this, the party's opposition was adjusted. **b)** Given the nature of the issues debated, there existed, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate. Then Article 194 of the same code provides one more specific case: **c)** when the winning party has engaged in plus petitio. In the case under study, the plaintiff filed her suit without being able to establish the causal link between the claimed harm and the Administration's alleged action. The foregoing forced the defendant to exercise its defense, demonstrating the referenced deficiency. In this scenario, it is not possible for this Chamber to recognize that there was sufficient reason to litigate, and, therefore, to apply the aforementioned exemptions. For the foregoing reason, the objection must be denied.

**X.** By virtue of the foregoing, the evidence submitted for better provision is rejected. The appeal (recurso de casación) filed by Mrs. Sonia Yorleny Contreras Alvarado is declared without merit. The costs of this shall be borne by her, pursuant to Article 150.3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

**POR TANTO** The evidence for better provision is rejected. The appeal is declared without merit. The costs of this are to be borne by the party who filed it.

AMV

Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos <br/> <span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span> <span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span> Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code --  <span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">R30XRCOXD0061 </span> The appellant submitted evidence for better provision, consisting of three official communications. However, all of them predate the issuance of the judgment being challenged; they are even prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. Therefore, they are rejected (voto 1362-F-2025).

Analysis of the Administration's preeminently strict liability (responsabilidad preeminentemente objetiva) toward the individual, for unlawful injuries of a material or non-pecuniary nature (norms 41 of the Constitution, 197 of the General Law of Public Administration), its causal link (nexo causal), and exemptions (force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party). See resolution 676-2021 of the First Chamber (voto 1362-F-2025).

Analysis of subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo). See resolutions 2218-2020 and 667-2021 of the First Chamber. When compensation is claimed from the Administration, it becomes essential to demonstrate the causal link (nexo de causalidad) between the administrative conduct and the claimed damage. Circular 5500-1463-2021 of 21/10/2021 established the mandatory requirement for officials of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) to be vaccinated against COVID-19; this was not challenged (a valid and effective act - norm 128 of the General Law of Public Administration). For the first vaccination stage, private medical opinions establishing a contraindication necessarily had to be homologated or certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (circ. 5500-1463-2021). On 18/04/2022, the plaintiff was notified of the deficiency in her file regarding her vaccination or a document from which a contraindication could be inferred. It was not until 25/05/2022 that she provided a medical opinion stating the need for her exclusion. At that time, circular 5500-1178-2022 was in effect, which accepted private medical opinions as a contraindication for the vaccine. From the foregoing, it is evident that the plaintiff did not present any contraindication before the notification of the disciplinary procedure, so the Administration always acted in accordance with the guidelines issued regarding the crisis generated by COVID-19. The plaintiff claims to have suffered damage due to the anguish caused by the initiation of the procedure. However, said initiation was because the plaintiff herself failed to communicate the medical contraindications beforehand. In this scenario, no administrative action capable of generating liability is evident (voto 1362-F-2025).

In the present proceeding, the Court carefully grounds its judgment on the content of certain circulars and testimony, hence there is no lack of reasoning for the ruling (voto 1362-F-2025).

Section 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code establishes the sua sponte imposition of costs (costas) on the losing party by the mere fact of being so. This precept also includes exceptions. The plaintiff filed her action without being able to establish the causal link (nexo de causalidad) between the claimed damage and the Administration's alleged action. The foregoing forced the defendant to present its defense, evidencing that deficiency. In this scenario, it is not possible for the Chamber to recognize that there was sufficient cause to litigate and, therefore, to apply the exemptions (voto 1362-F-2025).

The appeal in cassation (recurso de casación) filed by the plaintiff is declared without merit.

Costs at this stage are the responsibility of the appellant (article 150.3 of the Administrative Contentious Procedural Code) (voto 1362-F-2025).

Res. 001362-F-S1-2025 SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at thirteen hours and twenty-eight minutes on the thirtieth of September, two thousand and twenty-five.

Ordinary proceeding, filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda by **SONIA CONTRERAS ALVARADO**; against the **INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD**. Appearing as special judicial representatives are, for the plaintiff, attorney Randall Sibaja Miranda; and for the defendant Institute, licensed attorneys Paulina Bustos Rugama and Marys Palacios Carrillo. The plaintiff files a cassation appeal (recurso de casación) against resolution number 2024004697, issued at 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024, by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, composed of the judges: Rosa María Cortés Morales (presiding judge-ponente), Paulo André Alonso Soto, and Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz.

**Drafted by Judge Vargas Vásquez;** **CONSIDERANDO** **I.** On November 4, 2022, Mrs. Sonia Contreras Alvarado filed a contentious-administrative lawsuit against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (by its acronym ICE). She stated that she is an employee of the defendant entity. Without indicating a date, she stated that ICE told her she was obliged to get vaccinated against COVID-19. However, her primary care physician stated that this was risky for her, and therefore, issued a medical opinion (dictamen médico). She informed her supervisors of the condition and her unwillingness to be inoculated. Despite the foregoing, ICE decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her, number T-037-2022; this even though the Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos had concluded that the opinions were valid. This situation, she stated, caused her anguish and stress due to the possibility of losing her job. She stated that ICE, via circular 5500-1178-2022, reported the acceptance of private medical opinions as a contraindication. By virtue of the foregoing, the Institution ordered the dismissal (archivo) of the proceeding against her. However, she had already suffered moral damages (daño moral), as her levels of stress, anguish, anxiety, unease, and sadness increased. She affirmed that she was pregnant and the situation forced her to seek psychological help. Based on this statement of facts and as established in the preliminary hearing, she petitioned: “*I request that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad be ordered to pay 45 million colones, for the moral damages caused, by the opening of an illegal and unfounded ordinary disciplinary proceeding. / I request that it be ordered to pay both costs of the process.*” The defendant answered in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of jurisdiction (incompetencia) (resolved in an interlocutory manner), as well as payment (pago), lack of right (falta de derecho), and standing (interés). The Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, in voto number 2024004697 of 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024, rejected the evidence for a better decision (prueba para mejor resolver) offered in the preliminary hearing. It rejected the defense of lack of standing and payment. It upheld the defense of lack of right. It declared the lawsuit without merit (sin lugar) in all its aspects. It ordered the plaintiff to pay both costs, who, dissatisfied, files a cassation appeal.

On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff submitted evidence for a better provision (prueba para mejor proveer), consisting of official letters: DRSS-GR-0026-2022, DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021, and FGJ-1728-2021; and indicates that these demonstrate the National Commission on Vaccination and Epidemiology (Comisión Nacional de Vacunación y Epidemiología) agreed to accept the medical certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons (Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos). The opposing party was duly given a hearing opportunity (audiencia) regarding these.

**II. Regarding the evidence provided during the processing of the cassation appeal (recurso de casación).** Article 145.1 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso) provides that the parties may submit documentary evidence they swear they had no prior knowledge of, concerning new facts that occurred after the appealed judgment. In the case under study, official letter DRSS-GR-0026-2022 was issued on January 18, 2022; then DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021 is dated November 3, 2021; and finally, FGJ-1728-2021 is dated October 6, 2021. As can be seen, none of them meet the requirements established by the cited regulation. All of them predate the issuance of the contested ruling, vote 2024004697 from 14 hours 56 minutes on July 19, 2024; they are even prior to the date the claim was filed. The foregoing implies that the documents submitted as evidence for a better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) must be rejected.

**III.** The following **four** grounds related to **substantive** reasons are alleged. **First**, it is claimed that facts were held as unproven in contradiction with the evidence in the record. It states that the Tribunal held as uncredited that, prior to the opening of the disciplinary proceeding, the plaintiff had a contraindication to be inoculated against COVID-19. However, there are elements the Tribunal did not take into account, such as that, in the first stage of mandatory vaccination, private medical opinions (dictámenes médicos) were not accepted. Then, for the adjudicators, there was inaction on her part, but as indicated by the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura, when circular 5500-1463-2021 was in force, these medical opinions were not accepted unless they were homologated by the Ministry of Health or the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social). Subsequently, it says, the Tribunal did not hold as proven that circular 5500-1463-2021 was declared illegal or was suspended at the time of the opening of the administrative proceeding. But, it does not consider that the intention with the lawsuit has never been to seek to discredit or demonstrate the existence of a nullity of the institution's directives. It was another circular that rendered this first one ineffective when ICE took a drastic turn regarding the medical impossibility of getting vaccinated. The new circular did accept opinions without the need for them to be homologated. **Second**, it alleges, in accordance with the previous objection, the Tribunal resolved the non-existence of subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo), acting against the right of defense, due process (debido proceso), legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and non-observance of legal norms. It argues that articles 136, 190, 191, and 192 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) were violated. It indicates that if the adjudicators had analyzed the testimonial evidence, they would have held the plaintiff's suffering as proven. There is an illegitimate, abnormal, and disproportionate action by the Administration in imposing the homologation of private medical opinions. The contested judgment does not indicate the reasons why the witness Dr. Gabriela Segura was not credible regarding circular 5500-1463-2021, when private medical opinions were not accepted without being homologated. **Third**, it alleges violation of the principles of legal certainty, defense, due process, reasoning (motivación), and substantiation (fundamentación), as well as the prohibition of arbitrariness (interdicción de la arbitrariedad). The Tribunal did not substantiate the judgment, as it did not conduct an analysis of what was said by the plaintiff's witness, nor did it take into account what was presented in the conclusions stage. **Fourth**, it expresses disagreement with the order to pay costs (condenatoria en costas); in its opinion, there are sufficient elements to determine that the litigation was conducted in consideration of the non-material harm (afectación extrapatrimonial) suffered. If what was said by Dr. Gabriela Segura had been taken into account, the resolution of the case would have operated in its favor.

**IV.** Given that the **first three** objections are intimately linked, they will be resolved jointly. The Tribunal considered that the plaintiff failed to establish which action by ICE illegitimately caused harm, as the opening of the proceeding was supported by an internal circular. In this sense, it indicated that act 5500-1463-2021 from the ICE General Management implemented Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) 43249-S, which established the mandatory vaccination requirement for public officials, with the exception of those who had a contraindication. The adjudicators stated that from both the circular and the deposition of the witness Segura Solís, it is inferred that officials, through an application (app) created for such purposes, had to demonstrate their vaccination status, or failing that, the medical contraindication, for which they had a period of 5 to 10 business days to present to the ICE Health Area (Área de Salud del ICE) the respective certification from the Costa Rican Social Security Fund explicitly indicating the medical reasons that contraindicated vaccination. This provision was mandatory and an act that has not been the subject of challenge. Thus, the plaintiff was obligated to comply with what was established in said circular. The Tribunal asserted that since the validity of said act is not questioned in this proceeding, it cannot make a legal assessment as a possible formal action by the Administration causing the harm alleged by the plaintiff. The witness Segura Solís herself affirmed that an awareness campaign was conducted and workers were given the opportunity to meet the requirements. The Tribunal referred that a sanctioning procedure was initiated against Mrs. Contreras Alvarado for not having complied with what was indicated in circular 5500-1463-2021, that is, presenting the vaccination status, the CCSS certification indicating the contraindication, or also a homologated medical certificate. Thus, the Institution proceeded according to the provisions of the referenced circular, specifically point 7.11, which orders the initiation of the procedure against anyone who does not comply with vaccination or its exceptions. The adjudicators stated that it was the plaintiff's own actions that gave rise to the initiation of the procedure. The circular is a valid and effective act pursuant to articles 128 and 140 of the LGAP, without the cessation of its effects by a new formal action being able to be taken as a basis for its illegality.

When the administrative procedure was opened, that is, on April 8, 2022, the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the circular; it was not until August 25 of that same year that she submitted a private medical opinion with the contraindication; thus, ICE had to exercise its sanctioning power, without this being considered as causing harm (daño).

**V. On strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) in the administrative function.** This Chamber has stated on many other occasions, among others, in vote number 676-F-S1-2021 of 9:35 a.m. on March 25, 2021 (available at 676-F-S1-2021), that within the dynamic of the Administration's preeminently strict liability system, the State is liable to the individual who has suffered an unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica), which they have no duty to bear and which was caused by a public function. The scope of coverage of the postulates that comprise it includes, in addition to material injuries, those of a non-pecuniary nature. This type of liability is based on the harm (daño) itself, and not on other elements, such as intent (dolo) or fault (culpa). The foregoing finds support in Article 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as in Article 197 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública). For this criterion of imputation, it bears repeating, it is not required that the analysis of the conduct of the person causing the injury focus on whether it was with intent or fault. Such considerations become irrelevant, as other aspects come into play. It is essential that there be a causal link (nexo causal) between the conduct or situation that motivates the harm and that suffered by the victim, a link that is broken in the event of any exempting circumstance, namely: force majeure (fuerza mayor), fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), or act of a third party (hecho de un tercero). This principle arises independently of the liability to the administered party that its officials or agents may assume. Therefore, the State will be liable whenever its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning causes harm that the victim has no duty to bear, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, regardless of their subjective legal situation and the ownership or position of power they hold.

**VI. On subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo).** Regarding this topic, this Chamber has also referred to this type of harm on many other occasions; see resolutions 667-F-S1-2021 of 3:40 p.m. on March 18, 2021 (667-F-S1-2021) and 2218-F-S1-2020 of 10:27 a.m. on August 20, 2020 (2218-F-S1-2020). It has indicated that moral damages (daño moral) constitute an injury (lesión) in the sphere of the individual's non-pecuniary interests, which on occasions can also cause pecuniary consequences; it is an unjust disturbance of the individual's emotional conditions. Since its amount cannot be precisely structured and demonstrated, its determination is left to the prudent discretion of the judge, given that its determination is made *in re ipsa*, which implies that it is consubstantial or inherent to the injury itself. However, as with any other injury, there must be a causal link (vínculo de causalidad). Furthermore, the claimant is not exempt from all evidentiary effort; they must provide elements (at least circumstantial) from which the subjective affliction attributed to the public conduct can be inferred and based on which it is feasible to construct a causal link (nexo de causalidad). Of course, due to this characteristic, the existence of direct evidence is not required; on the contrary, the evidentiary duty is fulfilled by providing those elements from which the judge is able, based on sound criticism (sana crítica), to determine the effective existence of harm (daño).

**VII.** In the case under study, as seen in the evidence contained in the judicial file, there is the document called Circular 5500-1463-2021, issued on October 21, 2021. Therein, based on Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 43249-S of October 15, 2021, ICE declared vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory, including all work profiles within the Institution, that is, all ICE personnel. In this act, it excluded “persons who have a special health condition duly certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, CCSS), and endorsed by the ICE Health Services Area, where it explicitly contraindicates the application of the COVID-19 vaccine.” Furthermore, this circular, in section 7.9, contains the indication that whoever alleges a contraindication had to submit, within a period of 5 to 10 business days, the respective CCSS certification. Then point 7.11 provided that, in cases where the worker did not comply with the provisions of the directive, the opening of the corresponding disciplinary procedures would be ordered. Now, according to proven fact one of the “Administrative File (Expediente Administrativo)” section, not challenged by the cassation appeal; the order to open the ordinary disciplinary administrative procedure against the plaintiff was issued at 4:30 p.m. on April 5, 2022, notified on April 18, 2022. Therein, she was charged with repeatedly and unjustifiably failing to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned circular, as she had not provided either the documents corresponding to the respective vaccination, or the due medical contraindication certified by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. Next, it is important to add, according to evidence contained in the judicial file, called Circular 5500-1178-2022, of August 23, 2022, which is based on Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 43543-S; it indicated that, based on the new guidelines of the Ministry of Health, private medical certificates, company medicine, and mixed medicine were functional to demonstrate the contraindication of the COVID-19 vaccine, with homologation by the CCSS not being necessary. Thus, it was ordered that in cases where a procedure had been initiated against a public employee, steps be taken before the hierarchical superior in order to archive the case. On August 25, 2022, the employee Contreras Alvarado submitted to the Administration a medical opinion where the application of any COVID-19 vaccine was contraindicated (proven fact two, not challenged). By resolution of the Telecommunications Management at 10:15 a.m. on September 26, 2022, official letter 6000-1744-2022, the disciplinary case against the plaintiff was archived (proven fact three, not debated). In addition to the foregoing, it must be indicated that the witness Gabriela Segura Solís, who is the ICE health services coordinator, clearly explained that the parameters used for the vaccination issue were governed by the aforementioned circulars. She affirmed that, while circular 5500-1463-2021 was in force, medical opinions had to be homologated by the CCSS or the Ministry of Health, since ICE was not a governing body to be able to do so from the Health Area.

Furthermore, she emphasized that, during that period, Mrs. Contreras Alvarado never submitted the corresponding medical opinion.

**VIII.** From the foregoing, it is clear to this Chamber that there is a first administrative act, namely circular 5500-1463-2021 of October 21, 2021, which established the obligation for ICE officials to be vaccinated against COVID-19. As the lower court correctly indicated, that act was never challenged in order for its nonconformity with the legal system to be declared; which evidently makes it a valid and effective act, pursuant to Article 128 of the LGAP. As the appellant herself correctly indicates, for the first vaccination stage, when circular 5500-1463-2021 was in effect, private medical opinions that established a contraindication necessarily had to be homologated or certified by the CCSS so that the ICE Health Area could consider the requirement demanded of the official as fulfilled. Furthermore, witness Segura Solís explained it this way. Now then, it is also clear that, on April 18, 2022, Mrs. Contreras Alvarado was notified of the deficiency in her file related to the vaccination, as well as that no document certified by the CCSS from which the contraindication could be extracted had been submitted. As was established, it was not until August 25, 2022, that the plaintiff provided a medical opinion indicating the need for her exclusion; however, by that time, the ICE workforce had already been notified and circular 5500-1178-2022 was in effect, informing that from that moment onward, private medical opinions were accepted as a contraindication for the vaccine. Thus, the appellant challenges in her appeal that the lower court found it unproven that she had a contraindication before the start of the disciplinary procedure; but as has been demonstrated, Mrs. Sonia Contreras did not present any contraindication before the notification of the procedure, but rather did so only after the entry into force of circular 5500-1178-2022. As explained supra, when compensation is claimed from the Administration, it becomes essential to demonstrate the causal link between the administrative conduct and the claimed damage. On this premise and according to the evidence in the case file, the Administration always acted in accordance with the guidelines issued regarding the crisis generated by COVID-19; the plaintiff, for her part, claims to have suffered damage due to the anxiety caused by the initiation of the procedure, however, the opening of this was because Mrs. Contreras Alvarado herself did not communicate the medical contraindications beforehand, since, as seen, she did so only on August 25, 2022. In that scenario, no action by ICE is evident that could generate liability towards Mrs. Sonia Contreras, linked to the damage she claims to have endured due to the procedure initiated against her. Finally, as stated supra, the lower court carefully bases its judgment on the content of the circulars and, among other things, the testimony of Dr. Segura Solís, hence there is no lack of reasoning in the judgment. In accordance with the foregoing, the alleged regulatory violations do not occur, for which reason the objections must be denied.

**IX.** The **fourth** claim relates to costs. The lower court indicated, in accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, that since the lawsuit was dismissed and no cause justifying exemption was found, it imposed costs on the plaintiff. In this regard, ordinal 193 of the CPCA establishes the imposition of costs on the losing party for the mere fact of being so, which must be done even ex officio. Now then, that precept includes the following exceptions: **a)** When the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was plausibly not known by the opposing party and, for this reason, the party's opposition was adjusted. **b)** Due to the nature of the issues debated, there existed, in the opinion of the lower court, sufficient reason to litigate. Then numeral 194 ibid provides one more singularity: **c)** when the winning party has incurred in plus petitio. In the case under study, the plaintiff filed her action without being able to establish the causal link between the claimed damage and the Administration's alleged action. This forced the defendant to exercise its defense, evidencing the stated deficiency. In this scenario, it is not possible for this Chamber to recognize that there was sufficient reason to litigate, and, therefore, to apply the aforementioned exemptions. For the foregoing, the objection must be denied.

**X.** By virtue of the foregoing, the evidence submitted for a better determination (para mejor proveer) is rejected. The appeal for cassation (recurso de casación) filed by Mrs. Sonia Yorleny Contreras Alvarado is declared without merit. The costs of this proceeding shall be borne by her, pursuant to Article 150.3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

**POR TANTO** The evidence for a better determination is rejected. The appeal is declared without merit. The costs of this proceeding are borne by the party who filed it.

AMV

<p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; widows:2; orphans:2; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">Digitally Signed Document</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; widows:2; orphans:2; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">-- Verification Code --</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub"></span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">R30XRCOXD0061 </span></p><div style="-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub">Telephones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, email [email protected]</span></p></div>

 Res. 001362-F-S1-2025 SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las trece horas veintiocho minutos del treinta de setiembre de dos mil veinticinco .

Proceso de conocimiento, establecido ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda por SONIA CONTRERAS ALVARADO; contra el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD. Figuran como personas apoderadas especiales judiciales, por la actora el abogado Randall Sibaja Miranda; y por el Instituto demandado, las licenciadas Paulina Bustos Rugama y Marys Palacios Carrillo. La actora presenta recurso de casación contra la resolución número 2024004697, de las 14 horas 56 minutos del 19 de julio de 2024, emitida por el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, integrado por las personas juzgadoras: Rosa María Cortés Morales (ponente), Paulo André Alonso Soto y Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz.

Redacta la magistrada Vargas Vásquez;

CONSIDERANDO

I.El 4 de noviembre de 2022, la señora Sonia Contreras Alvarado presentó demanda contenciosa contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (por sus siglas ICE). Indicó, es trabajadora del ente demandado. Sin indicar fecha, manifestó, el ICE le dijo que estaba en la obligación de vacunarse contra la COVID-19. Sin embargo, su médico de cabecera manifestó que eso le era riesgoso, por lo que, extendió un dictamen médico. Informó a las jefaturas la condición y su voluntad de no inocularse. A pesar de lo anterior, el ICE decidió iniciar un procedimiento disciplinario en su contra, número T-037-2022; ello aún y cuando, el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos, había concluido que los dictámenes eran válidos. Tal situación, refirió, le generó angustia y estrés por la posibilidad de perder el trabajo. Manifestó, el ICE mediante la circular 5500-1178-2022, informó de la aceptación de dictámenes médicos privados como contraindicación. En virtud de lo anterior, la Institución ordenó el archivo del procedimiento en su contra. Sin embargo, ya había sufrido un daño moral, pues se elevó su nivel de estrés, angustia, ansiedad, zozobra y tristeza. Afirmó, estar embarazada y la situación la obligó a buscar ayuda psicológica. Con base en esta relación de hechos y conforme quedó establecido en audiencia preliminar, peticionó: “Solicito que se condene al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad al pago de 45 millones de colones, por el daño moral causado, por la apertura de un procedimiento ordinario disciplinario, ilegal e infundado. / Solicito que se condene al pago de ambas costas del proceso.” El demandado contestó de manera negativa y adujo la defensa de incompetencia (resuelta de manera interlocutoria), así como la de pago, falta de derecho e interés. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, en voto número 2024004697 de las 14 horas 56 minutos del 19 de julio de 2024, rechazó la prueba para mejor resolver ofrecida en la audiencia preliminar. Rechazó la excepción de falta de interés y pago. Acogió la de falta de derecho. Declaró sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos. Condenó a la actora al pago de ambas costas, quien inconforme presenta recurso de casación. El 10 de marzo de 2025, la actora presentó prueba para mejor proveer, consistente en los oficios: DRSS-GR-0026-2022, DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021 y FGJ-1728-2021; e indica, con ellos se evidencia que la Comisión Nacional de Vacunación y Epidemiología acordó aceptar el certificado médico del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos. De estos se dio la debida audiencia a la contraparte.

II.Sobre la prueba aportada durante la tramitación del recurso de casación. El artículo 145.1 del Código Procesal Contencioso, dispone que las partes podrán aportar prueba documental que juren no haber conocido con anterioridad, sobre hechos nuevos y posteriores a la sentencia recurrida. En el caso de estudio, el oficio DRSS-GR-0026-2022, fue emitido el 18 de enero de 2022; luego el DRSS-DRIPSSCS.DM-CREI-0195-2021, es del 3 de noviembre de 2021; y finalmente el FGJ-1728-2021, es del 6 de octubre de 2021. Como se puede apreciar, ninguno de ellos cumple con los requisitos establecidos por la normativa citada. Todos son anteriores a la emisión del fallo que se impugna, voto 2024004697 de las 14 horas 56 minutos del 19 de julio de 2024; incluso, son anteriores a la fecha de interposición de la demanda. Lo anterior implica, que los documentos aportados como prueba para mejor resolver, deberán ser rechazados.

III.Aduce los siguientes cuatro motivos por razones sustantivas. Primero, reclama se tuvo por indemostrados hechos en contradicción con la prueba que consta en el proceso. Manifiesta, el Tribunal tuvo por no acreditado que, con anterioridad a la apertura del procedimiento disciplinario, la actora contara con una contraindicación para inocularse contra la COVID-19. Sin embargo, hay elementos que el Tribunal no tomó en cuenta como que, en la primera etapa de la vacunación obligatoria, los dictámenes médicos privados no eran de recibo. Entonces, para las personas juzgadoras, hubo una inacción de su parte, pero como lo indicó la testigo doctora Gabriela Segura, para cuando se encontraba vigente la circular 5500-1463-2021, no se recibían estos dictámenes médicos a menos que estuvieran homologados por el Ministerio de Salud o por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. Luego, dice, el Tribunal no tuvo por demostrado que la circular 5500-1463-2021, fuera declarada ilegal o estuviera suspendida al momento de la apertura del procedimiento administrativo. Pero, no toma en cuenta que la intención con la demanda nunca ha sido buscar desacreditar o demostrar la existencia de una nulidad de las directrices de la institución. Fue otra circular la que dejó sin efecto esta primera, cuando el ICE dio giro drástico, sobre la imposibilidad médica de vacunarse. La nueva circular sí aceptó los dictámenes sin necesidad de que estuviera homologados. Segundo, alega, en concordancia con el reparo anterior, el Tribunal resolvió la inexistencia del daño moral subjetivo, actuando en contra del derecho de defensa, debido proceso, seguridad jurídica e inobservancia de normas jurídicas. Arguye conculcados los artículos 136, 190, 191 y 192 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP). Indica, si las personas juzgadoras hubieran analizado la prueba testimonial, habrían tenido por demostrado el sufrimiento de la actora. Hay un actuar ilegítimo, anormal y desproporcionado de la Administración, al imponer la homologación de los dictámenes médicos privados. La sentencia impugnada no indica las razones por las cuales no le es creíble la testigo doctora Gabriela Segura, sobre la circular 5500-1463-2021, cuando no se aceptaban los dictámenes médicos privados sin estar homologados. Tercero, aduce violación de los principios de seguridad jurídica, defensa, debido proceso, motivación y fundamentación, así como interdicción de la arbitrariedad. El Tribunal no fundamentó la sentencia, pues no hizo un análisis sobre lo dicho por la testigo de la actora, ni tomó en cuenta lo expuesto en la etapa de conclusiones. Cuarto, se manifiesta inconforme con la condenatoria en costas; en su criterio, hay elementos suficientes para determinar que se litigó en consideración con la afectación extrapatrimonial sufrida. Si se hubiera tomado en cuenta lo dicho por la doctora Gabriela Segura, la resolución del caso habría operado a su favor.

IV.En virtud de que los tres primeros reparos están íntimamente ligados, serán resueltos en conjunto. Consideró el Tribunal, la actora no logró establecer cuál es la actuación del ICE que de forma antijurídica provocó un daño, pues la apertura del procedimiento estaba amparada a una circular interna. En este sentido indicó, el acto 5500-1463-2021 de la Gerencia General del ICE, implementó el Decreto Ejecutivo 43249-S, en donde se estableció la obligatoriedad de la vacuna a funcionarios públicos, con excepción de los que tuvieran una contraindicación. Manifestaron las personas juzgadoras, tanto la circular, como la deposición de la testigo Segura Solís, se desprende que los funcionarios a través de una aplicación (app), creada para tales efectos, debía demostrar el estado de su vacunación, o en su defecto, la contraindicación médica, para lo cual, tenían un plazo de 5 a 10 días hábiles con el fin de presentar en el Área de Salud del ICE, la respectiva certificación de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social en donde se indicara de manera explícita las razones médicas que contraindicaban la vacunación. Esta disposición era de acatamiento obligatorio, y un acto que no ha sido objeto de impugnación. Así, la actora estaba en la obligación de cumplir con lo establecido en dicha circular. Aseveró el Tribunal, como en este proceso no se cuestiona la validez de dicho acto, no puede hacer una valoración jurídica como posible actuación formal de la Administración causante del daño alegado por la actora. La propia testigo Segura Solís, afirmó que se hizo una campaña de concientización y se dio la oportunidad a las personas trabajadoras para el cumplimiento de los requisitos. Refirió el Tribunal, a la señora Contreras Alvarado se le inició un procedimiento sancionatorio por no haber cumplido con lo señalado en la circular 5500-1463-2021, es decir, que presentara el estado de vacunación, la certificación de la CCSS en donde se indicara la contraindicación, o también un certificado médico homologado. Así, la Institución procedió conforme lo dispuesto en la referida circular, específicamente en el punto 7.11, en donde se ordena el inicio del procedimiento a quien no cumpla con la vacunación o sus excepciones. Dijeron las personas juzgadoras, son las mismas acciones de la actora las que dieron paso a que se iniciara el procedimiento. La circular es un acto válido y eficaz conforme artículos 128 y 140 de la LGAP, sin que, el cese de sus efectos pueda por una nueva actuación formal, ser tenida como base para su ilegalidad. Para cuando se abrió el procedimiento administrativo, sea el 8 de abril de 2022, la actora no había cumplido con lo dispuesto en la circular, es hasta el 25 de agosto de ese mismo año, que presenta un dictamen particular con la contraindicación; así el ICE debía ejercer su potestad sancionadora, sin que esto pueda considerarse productor de un daño.

V.Sobre la responsabilidad objetiva en la función administrativa. Ha referido en muchas otras ocasiones esta Sala, entre otros, en el voto número 676-F-S1-2021 de las 9 horas 35 minutos del 25 de marzo de 2021 (visible 676-F-S1-2021), que dentro de la dinámica del sistema de responsabilidad preeminentemente objetiva de la Administración, el Estado es responsable frente al particular que haya sufrido una lesión antijurídica, que no tiene el deber de soportar y que fue provocada por un funcionamiento público. El ámbito de cobertura de los postulados que lo integran incluye, además de las lesiones de naturaleza material, las de carácter extrapatrimonial. Este tipo de responsabilidad se sustenta en el daño propiamente, y no en otros elementos, como el dolo o la culpa. Lo anterior encuentra sustento en el mandato 41 de la Constitución Política, así como en la norma 197 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Para este criterio de imputación, se repite, no se requiere que el análisis de la conducta de quien causa la lesión verse en si fue con dolo o culpa. Ese tipo de consideraciones se tornan intrascendentes, por cuanto entran en juego otros aspectos. Es indispensable que exista un nexo causal entre la conducta o situación que motiva el daño y el que sufre la víctima, ligamen que se rompe en caso de mediar alguna eximente, a saber: fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de un tercero. Este principio surge independientemente de la responsabilidad frente al administrado, que puedan asumir sus funcionarios o agentes. Por lo anterior, habrá responsabilidad del Estado siempre que su funcionamiento legítimo o ilegítimo, normal o anormal, cause un daño que la víctima no tenga el deber de soportar, ya sea patrimonial o extrapatrimonial, con independencia de su situación jurídica subjetiva y la titularidad o condición de poder que ostente.

VI.Sobre el daño moral subjetivo. Respecto de este tema, también esta Cámara en muchas otras ocasiones se ha referido a este tipo de daño, consúltese las resoluciones 667-F-S1-2021 de las 15 horas 40 minutos del 18 de marzo de 2021 (667-F-S1-2021) y, la 2218-F-S1-2020 de las 10 horas 27 minutos del 20 de agosto de 2020 (2218-F-S1-2020). Ha indicado, el daño moral es una lesión en la esfera de interés extrapatrimonial del individuo, que en ocasiones también puede ocasionar consecuencias patrimoniales, se trata de una perturbación injusta de las condiciones anímicas del individuo. Al no poder estructurarse y demostrarse su cuantía de manera precisa, su fijación queda al prudente arbitrio de la persona juzgadora, toda vez que su determinación se hace in re ipsa, lo que implica que es consustancial o inherente a la lesión misma. Sin embargo, al igual que cualquier otra lesión, ha de mediar un vínculo de causalidad. Además, el reclamante no se encuentra exento de todo esfuerzo probatorio; debe aportar elementos (al menos indiciarios) a partir de los cuales se puedan extraer la aflicción subjetiva que se le imputa a la conducta pública y, con base en los cuales sea factible construir un nexo de causalidad. Claro está, por esta característica, no se requiere la existencia de prueba directa; por el contrario, el deber probatorio se cumple al aportar aquellos elementos a partir de los cuales el juzgador se encuentre en capacidad, con base en la sana crítica, de determinar la existencia efectiva de un daño.

VII.En el caso de estudio, según se visualiza en la prueba constante en el expediente judicial, se encuentra el documento denominado Circular 5500-1463-2021, emitida el 21 de octubre de 2021. Allí, con base en el Decreto Ejecutivo número 43249-S del 15 de octubre de 2021, el ICE declaró obligatoria la vacunación contra la COVID-19, incluyendo todos los perfiles de trabajo dentro de la Institución, es decir, a todo el personal del ICE. En este acto, se excluyó “a personas que posean una condición especial de salud debidamente certificada por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), y avalada por el Área de Servicios de Salud del ICE, donde contraindique -de manera explícita- la aplicación de la vacuna contra el COVID-19.”. Además, esta circular, en el apartado 7.9, contiene la indicación relativa a que quien alegue una contraindicación debía presentar en el plazo de 5 a 10 días hábiles, la respectiva certificación de la CCSS. Luego el punto 7.11, dispuso que, en los casos, cuando la persona trabajadora no cumpliera con lo estipulado en la directriz, se ordenaría la apertura de los procedimientos disciplinarios correspondientes. Ahora bien, según hecho probado primero del apartado “Expediente Administrativo”, no cuestionado con el recurso de casación; el auto de apertura del procedimiento administrativo ordinario disciplinario en contra de la actora se emitió a las 16 horas 30 minutos del 5 de abril de 2022, notificado el 18 de abril de 2022. Allí se le imputó haber incurrido de manera reiterada e injustificada acatar lo establecido en la circular antes referida, pues no había aportado ni los documentos correspondientes a la respectiva vacunación, ni la debida contraindicación médica certificada por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. A continuación, importa agregar, según prueba constante en el expediente judicial, denominada Circular 5500-1178-2022, del 23 de agosto de 2022, la cual tiene como base el Decreto Ejecutivo número 43543-S; señaló que, con base en los nuevos lineamientos del Ministerio de Salud, los certificados médicos privados, medicina de empresa y medicina mixta, resultaban funcionales para demostrar la contraindicación de la vacuna contra la COVID-19, no siendo necesaria homologación por parte de la CCSS. Así, se ordenó que en los casos donde se hubiese iniciado un procedimiento contra persona funcionaria, se hicieran las gestiones ante el superior jerárquico con el fin de archivar la causa. El 25 de agosto de 2022, la funcionaria Contreras Alvarado presentó ante la Administración un dictamen médico en donde se contraindicaba la aplicación de cualquier vacuna contra la COVID-19 (hecho demostrado dos, no cuestionado). Mediante resolución de la Gerencia de Telecomunicaciones de las 10 horas 15 minutos del 26 de septiembre de 2022, oficio 6000-1744-2022, se archivó la causa disciplinaria contra la actora (hecho probado tres, no debatido). Aunado a lo anterior, hay que indicar, la testigo Gabriela Segura Solís, quien es la coordinadora de servicios de salud del ICE, explicó con claridad, que los parámetros empleados con el tema de la vacunación se rigieron por las circulares antes dichas. Ella afirmó, mientras estuvo vigente la circular 5500-1463-2021, los dictámenes médicos debían ser homologados por la CCSS o el Ministerio de Salud, ya que el ICE no era un ente rector para poder hacerlos desde el Área de Salud. Además, fue enfática en que, durante ese período, la señora Contreras Alvarado nunca presentó el dictamen correspondiente.

VIII.De lo anterior, resulta claro para la Sala, existe un primer acto administrativo, sea la circular 5500-1463-2021 del 21 de octubre de 2021, que estableció la obligatoriedad a las personas funcionarias del ICE de vacunarse contra la COVID-19. Como bien lo indicó el Tribunal, dicho acto nunca fue impugnado para que fuese declarada su inconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico; lo que, evidentemente hace que sea un acto válido y eficaz, conforme artículo 128 de la LGAP. Como bien lo indica la propia recurrente, para la primera etapa de vacunación, cuando estaba surtiendo sus efectos la circular 5500-1463-2021, los dictámenes médicos privados que establecían contraindicación debían necesariamente ser homologados o certificados por la CCSS para que el Área de Salud del ICE pudiera dar por cumplido el requisito exigido a la persona funcionaria. Además, así lo explicó la testigo Segura Solís. Ahora bien, también se tiene claridad de que, el 18 de abril de 2022, la señora Contreras Alvarado fue notificada sobre la falta en su expediente relacionada con la vacunación, así como que tampoco se había presentado ningún documento certificado por la CCSS de donde se pudiera extraer la contraindicación. Según se tuvo por demostrado, fue hasta el 25 de agosto de 2022, que la actora aportó un dictamen médico en donde señaló la necesidad de su exclusión; sin embargo, para ese momento, ya se había comunicado a la comunidad trabajadora del ICE y se encontraba vigente la circular 5500-1178-2022, en donde se informaba que a partir de ese momento se aceptaban los dictámenes médicos privados como contraindicación para la vacuna. De tal manera, combate en su recurso la casacionista que el Tribunal tuvo por no probado que ella contara con una contraindicación antes del inicio del procedimiento sancionatorio; pero tal y como ha quedado evidenciado, doña Sonia Contreras, no presentó ninguna contraindicación antes de la notificación del procedimiento, sino más bien, lo hizo hasta después de la entrada en vigor de la circular 5500-1178-2022. Como se explicó supra, cuando se reclama la indemnización por parte de la Administración, se torna indispensable evidenciar el nexo de causalidad entre la conducta administrativa y el daño reclamado. En este predicado y según la prueba constante en autos, la Administración actuó siempre apegada a los lineamientos que se dieron respecto de la crisis generada por la COVID-19; la actora por su parte reclama haber sufrido un daño debido a la zozobra que le generó el inicio del procedimiento, sin embargo, la apertura de este se debió a que fue la propia señora Contreras Alvarado quien no comunicó las contraindicaciones médicas con anterioridad, pues como se vio, lo hizo hasta el 25 de agosto de 2022. En ese escenario, no se evidencia una actuación del ICE que pudiera generar responsabilidad ante doña Sonia Contreras, vinculada al daño que ella dice soportó debido al procedimiento iniciado en su contra. Finalmente, como se expuso supra, el Tribunal fundamenta cuidadosamente su sentencia con base en el contenido de las circulares y entre otros el testimonio de la doctora Segura Solís, de allí que no exista una falta de motivación del fallo. De acuerdo con lo expuesto, no se dan las violaciones normativas aducidas, razón por la cual los reparos deberán ser denegados.

IX.El cuarto reclamo es el relativo a las costas. Indicó el Tribunal, de conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, al haber sido declarada sin lugar la demanda y no encontrar causal que justifique eximente, impuso las costas a cargo de la actora. Al respecto, el ordinal 193 del CPCA, establece la imposición de las costas al vencido por el solo hecho de serlo, lo que debe hacerse aún de oficio. Ahora bien, ese precepto incluye las siguientes excepciones: a) Cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia verosímilmente no haya conocida por la contraria y, por causa de ello, se haya ajustado la oposición de la parte. b) Por la naturaleza de las cuestiones debatidas haya existido, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo bastante para litigar. Luego el cardinal 194 ídem, dispone una singularidad más: c) cuando la parte vencedora haya incurrido en plus petitio. En el caso de estudio, la actora presentó su acción sin poder dejar establecido el nexo de causalidad entre el daño reclamado y la supuesta actuación de la Administración. Lo anterior obligó al accionado a ejercer su defensa, evidenciando la carencia referida. En este escenario, no es posible para la Sala reconocer que haya existido motivo suficiente para litigar, y, por ende, aplicar las eximentes antes referidas. Por lo anterior, el reparo deberá ser denegado.

X.En virtud de lo expuesto, se rechazará la prueba aportada para mejor proveer. Se declarará sin lugar el recurso de casación interpuesto por la señora Sonia Yorleny Contreras Alvarado. Serán las costas de este a su cargo, conforme artículo 150.3 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la prueba para mejor proveer. Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Son las costas de este a cargo de quien lo interpuso. AMV Luis Guillermo Rivas Loaiciga Rocío Rojas Morales Damaris Vargas Vásquez Jorge Leiva Poveda Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 