Disability pension takes effect upon meeting statutory requirementsPensión por parálisis profunda rige desde que se cumplen los requisitos

*220001610929LA* Supreme Court of Justice SECOND CHAMBER Res: 2023-000051 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at twelve thirty-five on the thirteenth of January, two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the Second Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, by [Name 001], single, student, and resident of Limón, on behalf of her daughter, the minor [Name 002], against the CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, represented by its general judicial attorney, Ivannia Hidalgo Corrales, of unknown characteristics. Both of legal age.

Magistrate Sánchez Rodríguez writes; and,

WHEREAS:

I.- BACKGROUND: In the initial complaint, the legal representative of the minor plaintiff explained that, on April 20, 2016, she filed a petition before the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social seeking a pension from the special regime regulated by Law 7125, of January 24, 1989, the Lifetime Pension for Persons with Profound Paralysis Law, amended by Law 8769, of September 1, 2009. The petition was initially denied, but upon an appeal filed before the Pension Management, the minor's right to receive the benefit was determined, which was finally granted by resolution of the Siquirres branch, effective as of November 10, 2021, that is, more than five years after having filed the petition. The judicial action was filed to order retroactive payment to the date of the administrative petition, including the year-end bonus payments, as well as interest, indexation, and both costs. The defendant's representation answered negatively and raised the defense of lack of right. By judgment number 781, issued at 5:36 p.m. on May 27, 2022, the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone ordered payment of the benefit from the date of the administrative petition and granted legal interest on the owed income. It ordered the defendant to pay both costs of the proceeding and set the personal costs at one hundred fifty thousand colones.

II.- GRIEVANCES: The attorney for the defendant entity appeals the ruling. First, she argues that this case concerns a pension for profound cerebral palsy (parálisis cerebral profunda) that was granted in administrative proceedings, by resolution of November 10, 2021. She says that it is therefore astonishing that the claim was upheld, since there is no legal rule authorizing her client to grant the request retroactively, a matter not analyzed by the Court. She asserts there is a legal vacuum and a lack of logical reasoning, so it cannot be concluded that the administrative act departs from legality. It is not established which legal rule was infringed by the Caja. She states that case law is improperly applied, as this is a case where the pension was not denied, but granted in administrative proceedings. In those precedents, it has been proven, through medical and social expert reports, that the plaintiff meets the regulatory requirements for approval of the benefit, which has not been fulfilled in this case. She asserts that the right was granted prospectively, as there is no rule authorizing the Caja to recognize it retroactively, nor can it perform an act not authorized by the legal system. In judicial proceedings, retroactive effects have been recognized based on Article 19 of the Disability, Old Age, and Death Insurance Regulation (whose content she partially reproduces), to highlight that, in the case of judicial claims, the pension is effective from the moment established in the respective resolution. However, there is no similar rule for situations where the right is approved in administrative proceedings. She states that the court can only exercise legality control and determine if the Administration's conduct departed from the legal system. The ruling does not indicate which legal rule was violated and only refers to provisions related to the evidentiary regime. She warns that only the administrative file for the pension process is on record; and, in her opinion, there was confusion based on different judicial processes. She criticizes that the ruling was issued only three months after the claim was filed. She requests that the appeal and the defense raised be upheld, so that the claim is dismissed, with costs borne by the plaintiff.

III.- ANALYSIS OF THE CASE: The defendant's argument has been that there is no legal rule requiring the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social to grant the benefit retroactively; and that, consequently, in the exercise of legality control incumbent upon the courts, it cannot be concluded that there was a violation of the legal system in issuing the administrative act by which the benefit was granted in favor of the plaintiff, and thus the claim must be dismissed. It is true, as the appellant states, that in judicial proceedings, the Administration's compliance with the legality framework is reviewed. In the specific case under analysis, Article 1 of the Law for the Lifetime Pension for Persons with Profound Cerebral Palsy (Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para Personas con Parálisis Cerebral Profunda), No. 7125, in force since February 14, 1989, establishes that "Persons suffering from profound cerebral palsy or autism, myelomeningocele or any other disease occurring in early childhood with neurological manifestations comparable in severity, according to the opinion of the Disability Status Qualifying Commission, who are in a state of abandonment or whose families are in a state of poverty and/or extreme poverty, shall have the right to a lifetime pension equivalent to the lowest legal monthly minimum wage set by the Executive Branch. /The pension shall be paid monthly from the funds of the Non-Contributory Regime administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), and shall be adjusted to the corresponding amount each time a new minimum wage fixing occurs." Article 2 of that same law states that "For the granting of the pension, the representatives of persons suffering from profound cerebral palsy, autism, myelomeningocele or a disease occurring in early childhood, with comparable neurological manifestations according to the conditions referred to in Article 1 of this Law, must meet the requirements and procedures established for that purpose in the law and in the Non-Contributory Regime Regulation. Likewise, they must necessarily undergo a medical evaluation by the Disability Status Qualifying Commission of the CCSS, which will issue the corresponding opinion." Neither the following provisions nor the regulatory norm of said law (Executive Decree 18936, of April 12, 1989) establish the moment from which the benefit must be granted. The special law referred only to the regulations of the Non-Contributory Regime Regulation regarding requirements and procedures. On the date the administrative petition was filed (April 20, 2016), this latter regulation contained a special rule related to pensions for cerebral palsy. Specifically, Article 5 established: "Processing of cases for profound cerebral palsy, autism, myelomeningocele or any other disease occurring in early childhood with neurological manifestations comparable in severity. (In accordance with the Law for the Lifetime Pension for Persons Suffering from Profound Cerebral Palsy, number 7125 of January 24, 1989, amended by Law No. 8769 of September 1, 2009.) /The requirements to determine the appropriateness of the benefit in cases of pension requests indicated in the title of this article are: /a. The applicant must be in conditions of abandonment or poverty and/or extreme poverty. This condition must be verified through a socioeconomic report prepared by the social work professional of the processing unit. Once the specific expense conditions of each particular case are determined, the social worker will relate it to the expanded family poverty line. /If the result of the total monthly income of the family group is less than or equal to the expanded family poverty line, it will be considered that the family group does not have sufficient income to meet the special needs of the applicant. /b. The applicant must have been declared disabled by the Disability Status Qualifying Commission of the Pension Management for any of the conditions indicated in Article 1 of Law 8769. /The procedure for processing this type of benefits will be established in the corresponding instruction. The amount of this pension will be established in accordance with Law 7125 of January 24, 1989, amended by Law 8769 of September 1, 2009, and its respective Regulation." From the cited regulations, it is observed that, indeed, the moment from which the benefit should take effect is not regulated. Now then, that omission does not exempt the court from resolving the conflict presented. In this regard, Article 5 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, in what is relevant, stipulates: "[...] The courts may not excuse themselves from exercising their authority or from ruling on matters within their competence due to a lack of applicable rule and must do so in accordance with the written and unwritten rules of the legal system, according to the hierarchical scale of its sources. /The general principles of law and case law shall serve to interpret, integrate, and delimit the field of application of the written legal system and shall have the rank of the rule they interpret, integrate, or delimit. When it comes to supplying the absence and not the insufficiency of the provisions regulating a matter, said sources shall have the rank of law. /Uses and customs shall have a supplementary character to written law. When resolving matters within their competence, the courts, at any instance, must effectively respect the principles and rules of each legal discipline, primarily when dealing with specialized ones." (See also Articles 6 and 7 of the General Law of Public Administration and Article 5 of the Civil Code, which regulates the principle of hermeneutic completeness). Under the indicated context, this Chamber considers that the application of the jurisprudential line made by the Trial Court is not therefore erroneous, as the appellant argues. The criterion of this Chamber, in matters where the right to a pension from the special regime regulated by Law 7125 has been claimed, has been that the benefit applies from the moment the person meets the factual circumstances giving rise to its granting, which can be traced back to the time when the administrative claim was made, when the requirements mandated by the special regulation were met from that date. In this repeated sense, a recent ruling stated: "The right to the pension arises when all the requirements to enjoy the benefit are met, therefore the a quo acted correctly in granting the pension from the filing of the claim, since at that time the plaintiff already met the legal requirements for the benefit to be recognized." (Judgment 1908, of 9:55 a.m. on August 20, 2021. Bold added). In the specific case, [Name 002]'s condition has been present since her birth. Subsequently, the economic condition of her family group was verified by the defendant's administrative authorities, and it was considered that it met the poverty requirements regulated in the special law. These are not requirements that occurred subsequently or were configured after the time the party made the request in administrative proceedings. They were merely verified. The social report conducted and the medical evaluation performed do not have a constitutive nature, as they only verified the existence of the conditions that the rule requires. That has been the reason why it has been considered that the pension benefit must be granted from the moment the conditions are present, of course, in relation to the necessary process. The circumstance that the plaintiff's petition took an excessive amount of time, exceeding any reasonable period—more than five years—cannot release the defendant entity from its responsibility. This is undoubtedly an unjustified delay in processing her application, which contravened Article 41 of the Political Constitution and violated the principles governing public service—efficiency, effectiveness, and continuity—with the consequent responsibility of the Administration. (On this topic, see judgments of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 21,957, of 9:50 a.m. on October 1, 2021, and 11,279, of 9:15 a.m. on May 20, 2022). The Caja's conduct, in the case under study, departs from the nature of the Costa Rican State and the constitutional postulates that determine its actions, as one of a social nature. The Costa Rican State has obligated itself to provide special protection to children and to persons with any disability, under the terms of Articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution. In this context, the content of other norms of the General Law of Public Administration cannot be ignored. For example, Article 8 stipulates that the legal system is understood as being composed of the unwritten norms necessary to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Administration and the dignity, freedom, and other fundamental rights of the person. Hence, the application of the jurisprudential criterion that has prevailed in matters of this type is deemed correct. In this case, the effects of the delay now sought to be validated in judicial proceedings undoubtedly harmed the dignity of the minor girl, whose special needs demanded prompt and timely action by the state institution responsible for administering pension matters. Her special health condition and the socioeconomic condition of her family group demanded effective aid from the State; but it was, in short, late; which often truly implies a failure to provide aid. It is clear that she was left at the mercy of charitable help from other people, as well as exposed to deficient care (or lack of care) for her special needs, which contravenes the basic commitments of the Social State under the Rule of Law and the special ones it has undertaken with the international community, as well as those deriving from the principle of social justice. In this sense, what is regulated in Article 16 of the aforementioned law must be noted, according to which "In no case may acts be issued contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique, or to elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience." In the specific case, it is not considered consistent with the elementary principles of justice that the minor plaintiff, despite her special physical condition and her situation of extreme poverty, did not receive timely protection from the State. Therefore, this court cannot validate the defendant's claim, seeking to disregard the right she had to receive such protection in an appropriate manner. In the ongoing analysis, it is relevant to cite judgment number 1125 of the Constitutional Chamber, of 3:02 p.m. on January 30, 2007, which reports on the obligations assumed by the State in this matter, in light of internal norms and other higher-ranking ones duly signed and related to the special protection to be provided to persons in vulnerable conditions due to their physical disability, and where it informs about their normative value, according to what is clearly regulated in Article 7 of the Political Constitution and Articles 1, 2, and 5 of the Civil Code. Regarding the special protection that must be provided to persons who, due to their physical condition, are in a state of vulnerability, the cited vote indicated the following: "Our Political Constitution in its Article 51 commands public authorities to provide special protection to the destitute sick, an obligation that, obviously, must translate into effective, progressively implemented and developed benefits. Evidently, the Law for the Lifetime Pension for Persons Suffering from Profound Cerebral Palsy (Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para las Personas que Padecen de Parálisis Cerebral Profunda), No. 7125 of January 25, 1989), and its regulation (Executive Decree No. 18936-S of April 12, 1989), constitute a complete demonstration of the compliance and progressive development of the referred constitutional imperative. In the realm of International Human Rights Law in Vote No. 11550-04 of 11:46 a.m. on October 15, 2004, this Constitutional Court, authored by the Presiding Magistrate: 'VII.- PROTECTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. In the field of International Human Rights Law there are various instruments, even ratified by our Country, aimed at protecting persons with some disability, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons of December 9, 1975, resolution 3447 (XXX), which establishes, among other rights of this disadvantaged group, the following: '3. The disabled person has the inherent right to respect for his human dignity (...) the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible', '5. The disabled person has the right to measures designed to enable him to become as self-reliant as possible', '7. The disabled person has the right to economic and social security and to a decent standard of living (...) and '9. The disabled person has the right to live with his family (...) ' The Declaration of Cartagena de Indias on Integral Policies for Persons with Disabilities in the Ibero-American Area of October 30, 1992, clearly and forcefully establishes that any integral and coherent policy for persons with disabilities must lessen their socioeconomic consequences and that persons with disabilities have the right to their economic security, a decent standard of living, and to live, preferably, within their family (Point 1 objectives). This regional declaration, in the section related to Economic and Social Protection, stipulates the following: 'Disabled persons have the right to economic security, to the care of their social needs, and to a decent standard of living. The guarantee of these rights is an inalienable responsibility of the State (...) Economic and social protection aims to guarantee persons with disabilities the enjoyment of a decent level of quality of life and the coverage of their basic and specific needs, through economic aid and social services.' The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations, approved at the General Assembly on December 20, 1993, stipulate in Article 8, relating to 'Income maintenance and social security', paragraph 3, that 'States should also ensure that persons engaged in caring for a person with disability have an assured income or enjoy the protection of social security', Article 9 referring to 'Family life and personal integrity', provides that '1. Persons with disabilities must be able to live with their families (...)' Finally, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities of June 7, 1999, in its Article I, understands discrimination against a person with disability as any exclusion that has the effect of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities; likewise, in its Article III it provides that to achieve the objectives, the States parties –among which Costa Rica is listed– must provide persons with disabilities with comprehensive services to ensure them an optimal level of quality of life. It is evident that such guarantees and protection mechanisms established in the international concert are reinforced when dealing with persons suffering from a profound or acute disability.' To the international instruments indicated in Vote No. 11550-04 of this Court, it is necessary to add the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its protocol (approved by Resolution of the General Assembly 61/106 of December 13, 2006), opened for signature as of March 30, 2007. The preamble (point l) of that instrument recognizes the 'importance of international cooperation for improving the living conditions of persons with disabilities in every country, particularly in developing countries', highlights (point t) '(...) the fundamental need to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on persons with disabilities' and considers (point x) ' (...) that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families to contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities'. Within the principles of the Convention, Article 3, subsection a), enunciates 'Respect for inherent dignity' of persons with disabilities. Finally, Article 28 referring to 'Adequate standard of living and social protection', establishes in its paragraph 1 that 'States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.' For its part, paragraph 2, subsections a) and c), of the aforementioned provision indicate that, among the measures to protect the right of disabled persons to social protection, they must ensure access '(...) to social protection programs and poverty reduction strategies' and to these persons and their families living in situations of poverty, (...) to State assistance for disability-related expenses (...) Faced with such social circumstances, it is incumbent upon public authorities, by direct application of the principle of solidarity contained in Article 74 of the Constitution, to fulfill a welfare function regarding nuclear families that have among their members one with profound cerebral palsy..." (The bold does not appear in the original). In addition to the foregoing, as this concerns a minor, the Convention on the Rights of the Child cannot be omitted, Article 23 of which provides: "1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. /2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. /3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development. /4. States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries." (Bold added). In summary, the Costa Rican State assumed the obligation to provide special protection to persons with some disability, a duty that is accentuated in the present matter, as it concerns a minor. The processing of the pension application under Law 7125 filed by the minor's mother was handled with unjustified delay; it extended from April 2016 until the date the benefit was recognized, specifically November 2021. The duration of the administrative process, which exceeded five years, cannot be considered other than unreasonable and disproportionate, and cannot be detrimental to the minor beneficiary of the right, as intended by the judicial representation of the defendant entity, shielded by the absence of a rule establishing the possibility of granting the benefit with retroactive effects to the time of the application. The Caja's failure to process and resolve the application within a reasonable and timely period, as well as the absence of a specific rule regulating the matter, cannot be used to the detriment of the person whom the State has committed to providing special protection, because that is what the application of the principle of the best interests of the minor regulated in Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Articles 5 and 112 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code demands.

The absence of a written rule regulating the moment from which the benefit must be granted cannot support the legal thesis of the defendant party, and the cited regulations lead to the conclusion that the decision made in the preceding instance was correct. The legal gap that is noted cannot leave the conflict without a decision, which must be addressed in light of the purpose of the special regulations, the principles governing matters of childhood and adolescence, and the hierarchy of normative sources, according to their referral in the absence of a written rule. Both the principles related to fundamental human rights and the protection of persons with disabilities, as well as the jurisprudence developed regarding the effective date (rige) of the benefits, lead to the conclusion that the pension may be granted as of the moment the beneficiary meets the requirements that have been established as a condition for granting the right. In this specific case, it is clear that the minor plaintiff met the health and socioeconomic conditions established for the granting of the pension for profound cerebral palsy from the moment she made the application before the entity in charge of administering the special regime under which she requested the benefit. Consequently, the same reasoning applied in similar and reiterated judicial precedents must be applied, such that it must be concluded that the defendant deviated from the legal framework (bloque de legalidad) in that it granted the pension starting from November 10, 2021. Therefore, the decision of the Court is in accordance with the law and no objection can be made. The circumstance that those judicial precedents involved cases where the right had been denied in administrative proceedings, unlike this case, in which it was granted, has no relevance whatsoever. The central issue is the benefit's effective date (rige), and the reasoning that has been applied, centered on the moment when the requirements are met, applies to one scenario as much as to the other.

IV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the reasons given, it is appropriate to declare the appeal filed by the representative of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social without merit. The appellant's complaint that the ruling was issued so swiftly is astonishing. Swiftness in the administration of justice is a cherished principle and value (Article 41, Constitución Política), which is even more transcendental in hearing and deciding cases such as this one. The speed with which this case was decided also reflects the development of internal policies, which strive to provide dignified treatment to persons in a state of vulnerability.

POR TANTO:

The appeal is declared without merit.

Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Roxana Chacón Artavia Sandra María Pereira Retana Deyanira Adelaida Martínez Bolívar Shirley Vanessa Víquez Vargas Res: 2023-000051 GGONZALEZ/JBÁEZ CONSTANCIA: In accordance with Article 28.2 of the Código Procesal Civil, it is recorded that Magistrate Shirley Vanessa Víquez Vargas participated with her vote in the issuance of this judgment, but does not sign because she is on sick leave. San José, January 31, 2023.

Kenneth Muñoz Rojas Secretario a.i. 1 The special rule referred to the regulations of the *Reglamento del Régimen no Contributivo* only with respect to **requirements and procedures (requisitos y trámites)**. On the date the administrative proceeding was initiated (April 20, 2016), this latter regulation contained a special rule related to pensions for cerebral palsy. Specifically, numeral 5 established: “***The procedure for cases of profound cerebral palsy, autism, myelomeningocele, or any other illness occurring in early childhood with neurological manifestations comparable in severity**.* (*In accordance with the Law for Lifetime Pensions for Persons Suffering from Profound Cerebral Palsy, number 7125 of January 24, 1989, as amended by Law No. 8769 of September 1, 2009.)* */The requirements to determine the eligibility for the benefit in pension application cases indicated in the title of this article are: /a. The applicant must be in a state of abandonment or poverty and/or extreme poverty. This condition must be verified through a socioeconomic report prepared by the social work professional of the processing unit. Once the special expense conditions of each particular case are determined, the social worker will relate it to the expanded family poverty line. /If the result of the total monthly income of the family group is less than or equal to the expanded family poverty line, the family group will be considered not to have sufficient income to meet the special needs of the applicant. /b. The applicant must have been declared disabled by the Comisión Calificadora del Estado de Invalidez of the Gerencia de Pensiones due to one of the conditions indicated in Article 1 of Law 8769. /The procedure for processing this type of benefit shall be established in the corresponding instructions. The amount of this pension shall be established in accordance with what is indicated in Law 7125 of January 24, 1989, as amended by Law 8769 of September 1, 2009, and its respective Reglamento*.” From the cited regulations, it is observed that, in effect, the moment from which the benefit must take effect is not regulated. However, this omission does not exempt the jurisdictional body from resolving the conflict that is raised. In this regard, canon 5 of the *Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial*, as relevant, stipulates: *“[...]* ***The courts may not excuse themselves from exercising their authority or from ruling on matters within their competence due to a lack of a rule to apply and must do so in accordance with the written and unwritten rules of the legal system, according to the hierarchical scale of their sources***. */The** **general principles of law and jurisprudence** will serve to interpret, integrate, and delimit the field of application of the written legal system and will have the rank of the rule they interpret, integrate, or delimit.* ***When it comes to supplementing the absence and not the insufficiency of the provisions regulating a matter, such sources shall have the rank of law***. */Customs and practices shall have a supplementary character to written law. When resolving matters within their competence, the courts, at any instance, must effectively respect the principles and rules of each legal discipline, primarily when it comes to specialized ones*.” (See also Articles 6 and 7 of the *Ley General de la Administración Pública* and Article 5 of the *Código Civil*, which regulates the principle of hermeneutic completeness). Under the indicated context, the Chamber considers that the application of the jurisprudential line made by the lower court is not therefore erroneous, as the appellant argues. The criterion of this Chamber, in matters where the right to a pension from the special regime regulated in Law 7125 has been claimed, has been in the sense that the benefit is due from the moment the person meets the factual circumstances that give the right to its granting, which can be backdated to the moment the administrative claim is made, when the requirements demanded by the special regulations are met from that date. In that reiterated sense, a recent ruling stated: “***The right to the pension arises when all the requirements to enjoy the benefit are met***, *so the lower court acted correctly by granting the pension from the filing of the claim, since by that time the claimant already fulfilled the legal requirements for the benefit to be recognized*.” (Judgment 1908, at 9:55 a.m. on August 20, 2021. Bold added). In the specific case, [Name 002] has had the condition since birth. Subsequently, the economic condition of her family group was verified by the administrative authorities of the defendant and was considered to meet the poverty requirements regulated in the special law. These are not requirements that arose or were configured after the moment when the party made the request in the administrative venue. They were merely verified. The social report and the medical evaluation conducted do not have a constitutive nature, as they only verified the existence of the conditions that the rule requires. That has been the reason why it has been considered that the pension benefit must be granted from the moment the circumstances are present, of course, in relation to the necessary proceeding. The circumstance that the proceeding initiated by the acting party was excessively delayed, exceeding any reasonable timeframe, more than five years, cannot release the defendant entity from its responsibility. This is, without doubt, an unjustified delay in processing her application, which contravened canon 41 of the *Constitución Política* and violated the principles regulating public service, of efficiency, effectiveness, and continuity, with the consequent liability of the Administration. (On this topic, see rulings by the Sala Constitucional numbers 21.957, at 9:50 a.m. on October 1, 2021, and 11.279, at 9:15 a.m. on May 20, 2022). The conduct of the Caja, in the case under study, departs from the nature of the Costa Rican State and the constitutional principles that determine its actions, as one of a social nature. The Costa Rican State has obligated itself to provide special protection to boys and girls, as well as to persons with a disability, in the terms of numerals 51 and 55 of the *Constitución Política*. In this context, the content of other rules of the *Ley General de la Administración Pública* cannot be ignored. For example, canon 8 stipulates that the legal system is understood to be comprised of the unwritten rules necessary to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Administration and **dignity**, freedom, and other fundamental rights of the person. Hence, it is considered correct to apply the jurisprudential criterion that has prevailed in matters of this type. In this case, the effects of the delay that are now intended to be validated in a judicial venue, without doubt, violated the dignity of the girl, whose special needs demanded prompt and timely action by the state institution responsible for administering pension matters. Her special state of health and the socioeconomic condition of her family group demanded effective assistance from the State; but it was, in sum, delayed; which often truly implies a failure to assist. It is clear that she was left at the mercy of charitable help from other people, as well as exposed to deficient attention (or lack of attention) to her special needs, which contravenes the basic commitments of the Social State of Law and the special ones it has assumed with the international community, as well as those derived from the principle of social justice. In this sense, what is regulated in numeral 16 of the aforementioned law must be emphasized, according to which *“In no case may acts contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique,* ***or elementary principles of justice***, *logic, or convenience be issued”*. In this specific case, it is not considered in accordance with elementary principles of justice that the plaintiff girl, despite her special physical condition and her situation of extreme poverty, did not receive timely protection from the State. Hence, this jurisdictional body cannot validate the claim of the defendant party, seeking to disregard the right she had to receive said protection in an appropriate manner.

In the ongoing discussion, it is of interest to cite the ruling by the Sala Constitucional number 1125, at 3:02 p.m. on January 30, 2007, which accounts for the obligations assumed by the State in this matter, in light of internal rules and others of higher rank duly signed and related to the special protection to be provided to people in vulnerable conditions due to their physical disability, and which reports on its normative value, according to what is clearly regulated in Article 7 of the *Constitución Política* and numerals 1, 2, and 5 of the *Código Civil*. In relation to the special protection that must be provided to persons who, due to their physical condition, are in a state of vulnerability, the cited vote indicated the following: “*Our Constitución Política in its Article 51 commands the public powers to provide special protection to the helpless sick,* ***an obligation that, obviously, must translate into effective benefits implemented and developed progressively***. *Evidently, the Law for Lifetime Pensions for Persons Suffering from Profound Cerebral Palsy, No. 7125 of January 25, 1989), and its regulation (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18936-S of April 12, 1989),* ***constitute a complete example of the fulfillment and progressive development of the referred constitutional imperative.*** *In the realm of International Human Rights Law, in Vote No. 11550-04 at 11:46 a.m. on October 15, 2004, this Constitutional Court, authored by the reporting Magistrate: ‘VII.- PROTECTION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. In the field of International Human Rights Law, there are various instruments, even signed by our Country, aimed at protecting persons with a disability, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons of December 9, 1975, resolution 3447 (XXX), which establishes, among other rights of this disadvantaged group, the following: ‘3. The disabled person has essentially the right to respect for their human dignity (…) the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible’, ‘5. The disabled person has the right to measures designed to enable them to become as self-reliant as possible’, ‘7. The disabled person has the right to economic and social security and to a decent level of living (…)’ and ‘9. The disabled person has the right to live in the bosom of their family (…)’ The Declaración de Cartagena de Indias on Comprehensive Policies for Persons with Disabilities in the Ibero-American Area of October 30, 1992, clearly and forcefully establishes that any comprehensive and coherent policy for persons with disabilities must lessen their socioeconomic consequences and that persons with disabilities have the right to their economic security, a dignified standard of living, and to live, preferably, within their family (Point 1 objectives). This regional declaration, in the section regarding Economic and Social Protection, establishes the following: ‘Disabled persons have the right to economic security, to the attention of their social needs, and to a dignified standard of living. The guarantee of these rights is an inalienable responsibility of the State (…)* ***Economic and social protection is aimed at guaranteeing persons with disabilities the enjoyment of a dignified quality of life level and the coverage of their basic and specific needs, through economic aid and social services’***. *The United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, approved by the General Assembly on December 20, 1993, state in Article 8, regarding ‘Income maintenance and social security’, paragraph 3, that ‘States should also ensure that persons who undertake the care of a person with a disability have income security or enjoy the protection of social security’, numeral 9 concerning ‘Family life and personal integrity’, provides that ‘1. Persons with disabilities must be able to live with their families (…)’ Finally, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities of June 7, 1999, in its Article I, understands discrimination against a person with a disability as any exclusion that has the effect of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities;* ***similarly, in its Article III it prescribes that to achieve the objectives, the States Parties – among which Costa Rica figures – must provide persons with disabilities with comprehensive services to ensure them an optimal level of quality of life.*** ***It is evident that such guarantees and protection mechanisms established in the international concert are reinforced when it comes to persons suffering from a profound or acute disability***. *’ To the international instruments indicated in Vote No. 11550-04 of this Tribunal, it is necessary to add the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its protocol (approved by General Assembly Resolution 61/106 of December 13, 2006), opened for signature as of March 30, 2007. In the preamble (point l) of that instrument, the ‘importance of international cooperation for improving the living conditions of persons with disabilities in every country, particularly in developing countries’ is recognized, it highlights (point t) ‘(…) the critical need to address the negative impact of poverty on persons with disabilities’ and considers (point x) ‘(…) that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families to contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities’. Among the principles of the Convention, Article 3, subsection a), states, ‘Respect for inherent dignity’ of persons with disabilities. Finally, Article 28 referring to ‘Adequate standard of living and social protection’, establishes in its paragraph 1* ***that ‘States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability’***. *For its part, paragraph 2, subsections a) and c), of the aforementioned numeral indicate that, among the measures to protect the right of disabled persons to social protection, access must be ensured ‘(…) to social protection programmes and poverty reduction strategies’ and to these persons and their families, living in situations of poverty, (…) to State assistance for disability-related expenses (…) In light of such social circumstances, it is the responsibility of the public powers, by direct application of the principle of solidarity contained in Article 74 of the Constitution, to fulfill an assistance function with respect to nuclear families that have among their members one with profound cerebral palsy...*” (Bold does not appear in the original). In addition to the foregoing, as it concerns a minor, the *Convention on the Rights of the Child* must be invoked, in whose Article 23, it is provided: “*1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child* ***should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity***, *promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community. /2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. /3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child,* ***and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development*** *. /4. States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries*.” (Bold added). In summary, the Costa Rican State assumed the obligation to provide special protection to persons with a disability, a duty that is accentuated in the present matter, as it concerns a minor. The processing of the pension application under Law 7125 filed by the girl's mother was processed with unjustified delay; it extended from the month of April 2016 until the date the benefit was recognized, specifically in November 2021. The duration of the administrative proceeding, which exceeded five years, can only be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, and cannot prejudice the girl beneficiary of the right, as the legal representation of the defendant entity intends, shielded by the absence of a rule establishing the possibility of granting the benefit with retroactive effects to the time of the request. The omission by the Caja to process and resolve the application within a reasonable and timely period, as well as the absence of a specific rule regulating the matter, cannot be used to the detriment of the person to whom the State has committed to provide special protection, for that is what the application of the principle of the best interests of the minor, regulated in Article 3 of the *Convention on the Rights of the Child* and Articles 5 and 112 of the *Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia*, demands. The absence of a written rule regulating the moment from which the benefit must be granted cannot support the legal thesis of the defendant party, and the cited regulations lead to the conclusion of the correctness of what was decided in the prior instance. The observed legal vacuum cannot leave the conflict without a decision, which must be addressed in light of the purpose of the special regulations, the principles regulating the matter of childhood and adolescence, and the hierarchy of normative sources, according to their referral in the absence of a written rule. Both the principles related to fundamental human rights and the protection of persons with disabilities, as well as the developed jurisprudence regarding the effective date of benefits, lead to the conclusion that the pension can be granted from the moment the beneficiary meets the requirements that have been established as a condition for granting the right. In the specific case, it is clear that the minor plaintiff met the health and socioeconomic conditions required for the granting of the pension for profound cerebral palsy from the moment she made the application before the entity responsible for administering the special regime under which she requested the benefit. Consequently, the same reasoning applied in similar and reiterated judicial precedents applies, such that it must be concluded that the defendant departed from the legal framework by granting the pension starting from November 10, 2021. Consequently, the lower court's decision is in accordance with law, and no objection can be made. The circumstance that in those judicial precedents, matters were heard where the right was denied in the administrative venue, unlike this case in which it was granted, has no relevance. The central issue is the effective date of the benefit, and the reasoning that has been made, focused on the moment the requirements are met, applies to both scenarios.

**IV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:** Based on the reasons given, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal filed by the representation of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. The appellant's complaint that the judgment was issued swiftly is unheard of.

Speed in the administration of justice is a cherished principle and value (article 41, *Constitución Política*), which is even more transcendent in the hearing and decision of matters such as this one. Speed in deciding the case also reflects the development of internal policies, which seek to provide dignified treatment to persons in a state of vulnerability.

**POR TANTO:** The appeal is declared without merit.

**Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez** **Roxana Chacón Artavia Sandra María Pereira Retana** **Deyanira Adelaida Martínez Bolívar Shirley Vanessa Viquez Vargas** **Res: 2023-000051** GGONZALEZ/JBÁEZ **CONSTANCIA:** In accordance with article 28.2 of the Código Procesal Civil, it is hereby recorded that Magistrate Shirley Vanessa Viquez Vargas concurred with her vote in the issuance of this judgment, but does not sign due to being on sick leave. San José, January 31, 2023.

**Kenneth Muñoz Rojas** **Secretario a.i.** 1 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ **Exp: 22-000161-0929-LA** **Res: 2023-000051** **SECOND DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE**. San José, at twelve thirty-five in the afternoon on the thirteenth of January two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the Second Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, by [Name 001], single, student, and resident of Limón, representing her daughter, the child [Name 002], against the **CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL**, represented by its general judicial attorney, Ivannia Hidalgo Corrales, whose qualifications are unknown. Both of legal age.

**Opinion drafted by Judge Sánchez Rodríguez; and,** **WHEREAS:** **I.- BACKGROUND:** In the initial complaint, the legal representative of the minor plaintiff explained that, on **April 20, 2016**, she filed a petition before the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social to request a pension from the special regime regulated by Law 7125, of January 24, 1989, *Ley Pensión Vitalicia para Personas con Parálisis Profunda*, amended by Law 8769, of September 1, 2009. The petition was initially denied, but upon appeal filed before the Gerencia de Pensiones, the minor's right to receive the benefit was determined, and it was finally granted by resolution of the Siquirres branch, effective as of **November 10, 2021**, that is, more than five years after filing the petition. The judicial action was brought to order back payment to the date of the administrative petition, including the bonuses, as well as interest, adjustment for inflation, and both costs. The respondent's representation responded in negative terms and raised the defense of lack of right. By judgment number 781, issued at 17:36 on May 27, 2022, the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone ordered payment of the benefit from the date of the administrative petition and granted legal interest on the rents owed. It ordered the defendant to pay both costs of the proceeding and set personal costs at one hundred fifty thousand colones.

**II.- GRIEVANCES:** The attorney for the defendant entity files an appeal against the ruling. Firstly, she argues that the case involves a deep cerebral palsy pension process that was granted at the administrative level, by resolution of November 10, 2021. She states that, for this reason, it is astonishing that the claim was upheld, as no legal norm authorizes her client to retroactively grant the petition, which was not analyzed by the Court. She asserts that there is a legal and logical reasoning vacuum, so it cannot be concluded that the administrative act departs from legality. The legal norm violated by the Caja is not established. She argues that case law is improperly applied, as this is a case where the pension was not denied but granted at the administrative level. In those precedents, it has been proven, through medical and social expert reports, that the plaintiff meets the regulatory requirements for approval of the benefit, which has not been fulfilled in this case. She asserts that the right was granted prospectively, as there is no norm authorizing the Caja to recognize it retroactively, and it cannot perform an act not authorized by the legal system. In judicial proceedings, retroactive effects have been recognized based on article 19 of the *Reglamento del Seguro de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte* (the content of which she partially reproduces), to highlight that, in the case of judicial claims, the pension is payable from the moment set by the respective resolution. However, no similar norm exists for situations where the right is approved at the administrative level. She states that the judicial body can only exercise control of legality and determine whether the Administration's conduct departed from the legal system. The judgment does not indicate which legal norm was violated and only refers to articles related to the rules of evidence. She notes that only the administrative file for the pension process is on record; and, in her view, confusion arose based on different judicial processes. She criticizes that the judgment was issued only three months after the filing. She requests that the appeal and the raised defense be upheld, so that the claim is dismissed, with costs to be borne by the plaintiff.

**III.- CASE ANALYSIS:** The thesis of the respondent party has been that no legal norm obligates the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social to grant the benefit retroactively; and that, consequently, in exercising the control of legality incumbent upon judicial bodies, a violation of the legal system cannot be found in the issuance of the administrative act granting the benefit to the plaintiff, and therefore the claim must be dismissed. It is true, as the appellant asserts, that the Administration's adherence to the legality framework is reviewed in judicial proceedings. In the specific case under analysis, article 1 of Law *Pensión Vitalicia para Personas con Parálisis Cerebral Profunda*, No. 7125, in effect as of February 14, 1989, establishes that "Persons suffering from deep cerebral palsy or autism, myelomeningocele or any other disease occurring in early childhood with neurological manifestations comparable in severity, according to the opinion of the Comisión calificadora del estado de la invalidez, who are in a state of abandonment or whose families are in a state of poverty and/or extreme poverty, shall have the right to a lifetime tenure pension equivalent to the lowest legal monthly minimum wage set by the Executive Branch. /The pension shall be paid monthly from the funds of the Non-Contributory Regime (Régimen No Contributivo) administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), and shall be adjusted to the corresponding amount each time a new minimum wage is set." Article 2 of that same law states that "For the granting of the pension, the representatives of persons suffering from deep cerebral palsy, autism, myelomeningocele or a disease occurring in early childhood, with comparable neurological manifestations according to the conditions referred to in article 1 of this Law, must fulfill the requirements and procedures established for such purpose in the law and in the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. Furthermore, they must necessarily undergo a medical evaluation by the CCSS comisión calificadora del estado de la invalidez, which shall issue the corresponding opinion." Neither the following articles nor the regulatory norm of said law (Decreto Ejecutivo 18936, of April 12, 1989) establish the date from which the benefit must be granted. The special law referred to the regulations of the *Reglamento del Régimen no Contributivo* concerning ***requirements and procedures*** only. As of the date the administrative petition was filed (April 20, 2016), this latter regulation contained a special norm related to cerebral palsy pensions. Specifically, article 5 established: "***The processing of cases of deep cerebral palsy, autism, myelomeningocele or any other disease occurring in early childhood with neurological manifestations comparable in severity.** (Pursuant to the Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para Personas que Padecen Parálisis Cerebral Profunda, number 7125 of January 24, 1989, amended by Law No. 8769 of September 1, 2009.) /The requirements to determine the suitability of the benefit in the cases of pension requests indicated in the title of this article are: /a. The applicant must be in conditions of abandonment or poverty and/or extreme poverty. This condition must be verified through a socioeconomic report prepared by the social work professional of the processing unit. Once the special expense conditions of each particular case are determined, the social worker shall relate it to the extended family poverty line. /If the result of the total monthly income of the family group is less than or equal to the extended family poverty line, the family group shall be considered as not having sufficient income to meet the special needs of the applicant. /b. The applicant must have been declared invalid by the Comisión Calificadora del Estado de Invalidez of the Gerencia de Pensiones for one of the conditions indicated in article 1 of Law 8769. /The procedure for processing this type of benefits shall be established in the corresponding manual. The amount of this pension shall be established according to what is indicated in Law 7125 of January 24, 1989, amended by Law 8769 of September 1, 2009, and its respective Regulations."* It is observed from the cited regulations that, indeed, the date from which the benefit must take effect is not regulated. However, this omission does not exempt the judicial body from resolving the conflict raised.

In that regard, canon 5 of the <i>Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, </i>in what is pertinent, stipulates: "<i>[...]</i><b> </b><b><i>Courts may not excuse themselves from exercising their authority or from ruling on matters within their competence due to lack of a rule to apply and shall do so in accordance with the written and unwritten rules of the legal system, according to the hierarchical scale of their sources</i></b><i>. /The </i><b><i>general principles of law and jurisprudence</i></b><i> shall serve to interpret, integrate, and delimit the field of application of the written legal system and shall have the rank of the rule they interpret, integrate, or delimit. </i><b><i>When it comes to supplementing the absence and not the insufficiency of the provisions regulating a matter, said sources shall have the rank of law</i></b><i>. /Uses and customs shall have a supplementary character to written law. When resolving matters within their competence, courts, at any instance, shall effectively respect the principles and rules of each legal discipline, primarily when dealing with specialized ones". </i>(See also Articles 6 and 7 of the <i>Ley General de la Administración Pública </i>and Article 5 of the <i>Código Civil, </i>which regulates the principle of hermeneutic fullness). Under the indicated context, the Chamber considers that the application of the jurisprudential line made by the Trial Court is not erroneous, as the appellant argues. The criterion of this Chamber, in matters where the right to a pension from the special regime regulated in Law 7125 has been claimed, has been in the sense that the benefit proceeds from the moment the person meets the factual circumstances that give the right to its granting, which can be retroactive to the moment the administrative claim is made, when the requirements demanded by the special regulation are met from that date. In that reiterated sense, a recent ruling stated: "<b><i>The right to the pension arises when all the requirements to enjoy the benefit are met</i></b><i>, therefore the lower court correctly granted the pension from the filing of the lawsuit, since at that time the plaintiff already met the legal requirements for the benefit to be recognized". </i>(Judgment 1908, of 9:55 a.m. on August 20, 2021. Bold text has been added). In the specific case, the condition [Name 002] has been present since birth. Subsequently, the economic condition of her family group was verified by the administrative authorities of the defendant and was considered to meet the poverty requirements regulated in the special law. These are not requirements that arose or were configured after the moment the party made the administrative filing. These were merely verified. The social report carried out and the medical evaluation performed do not have a constitutive nature, as they only verified the existence of the conditions required by the rule. That has been the reason why it has been considered that the pension benefit should be granted from the moment the circumstances arise, of course, in relation to the necessary proceedings. The circumstance that the plaintiff's process was excessively delayed, exceeding any reasonable timeframe, more than five years, cannot release the defendant entity from its responsibility. It is, without a doubt, an unjustified delay in the processing of her application, which contravened canon 41 of the <i>Constitución Política </i>and violated the principles that regulate public service, of efficiency, efficacy, and continuity, with the consequent responsibility of the Administration. (On this topic, judgments of the Sala Constitucional numbers 21,957, of 9:50 a.m. on October 1, 2021, and 11,279, of 9:15 a.m. on May 20, 2022, can be consulted). The conduct of the Caja, in the case under study, departs from the nature of the Costa Rican State and from the constitutional postulates that determine its actions as one of a social nature. The Costa Rican State has obligated itself to provide special protection to boys and girls, as well as to persons with any disability, in the terms of numerals 51 and 55 of the <i>Constitución Política. </i>In this context, the content of other norms of the <i>Ley General de la Administración Pública. </i>cannot be set aside. For example, canon 8 stipulates that the legal system is understood to be integrated by the unwritten norms necessary to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Administration and <b>the dignity</b>, liberty, and other fundamental rights of the person. Hence, the application of the jurisprudential criterion that has prevailed in matters of this type is deemed correct. In this case, the effects of the delay that are now sought to be validated in judicial headquarters, without a doubt, violated the dignity of the girl, whose special needs demanded prompt and timely action by the state institution in charge of administering pension matters. Her special health status and the socioeconomic condition of her family group demanded effective aid from the State; but it was, in sum, late; which often truly implies a failure to provide aid. It is clear that she was left at the mercy of charitable assistance from other people, as well as exposed to deficient attention (or lack of attention) to her special needs, which contravenes the basic commitments of the social State of law and the special ones it has assumed with the international community, as well as those derived from the principle of social justice. In that sense, what is regulated in numeral 16 of the cited law must be highlighted, according to which<i> "In no case may acts contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique, </i><b><i>or to elementary principles of justice</i></b><i>, logic, or convenience be dictated". </i>In the specific case, it is not considered aligned with the elementary principles of justice that the plaintiff girl, despite her special physical condition and her situation of extreme poverty, did not receive timely protection from the State. Hence, this jurisdictional body cannot validate the defendant's claim that the right she had to receive such protection in an appropriate manner be disregarded. <i> </i>In the development being made, it is pertinent to cite judgment of the Sala Constitucional number 1125, of 3:02 p.m. on January 30, 2007, which reports on the obligations assumed by the State in this matter, in light of internal norms and others of higher rank duly signed and related to the special protection that must be provided to persons in a condition of vulnerability due to their physical disability, and where it reports on its normative value, in accordance with what is clearly regulated in Article 7 of the <i>Constitución Política </i>and numerals 1, 2, and 5 of the <i>Código Civil. </i>In relation to the special protection that must be provided to persons who, due to their physical condition, are in a state of vulnerability, the cited vote indicated the following: "<i>Our Constitución Política in its Article 51 commands the public powers to provide special protection to the destitute sick, </i><b><i>an obligation that, obviously, must be translated into effective benefits implemented and progressively developed</i></b><i>. Evidently, the Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para las Personas que Padecen de Parálisis Cerebral Profunda, No. 7125 of January 25, 1989), and its regulation (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18936-S of April 12, 1989, </i><b><i>constitute a complete example of the fulfillment and progressive development of the referred constitutional imperative.</i></b><i> At the level of International Human Rights Law, in Voto No. 11550-04 of 11:46 hrs. of October 15, 2004, this Constitutional Court, with drafting by the Reporting Magistrate: 'VII.- PROTECTION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. In the field of International Human Rights Law, there are various instruments, including those signed by our Country, aimed at protecting persons with some disability such as the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons of the United Nations of December 9, 1975, resolution 3447 (XXX), which establishes, among other rights of this disadvantaged group, the following: '3. The disabled person has essentially the right to respect for their human dignity (...) the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible', '5. The disabled person has the right to measures intended to allow them to achieve the greatest possible autonomy', '7. The disabled person has the right to economic and social security and to a decent standard of living (...)' and '9. The disabled person has the right to live in the bosom of their family (...) ' The Cartagena de Indias Declaration on Comprehensive Policies for persons with disabilities in the Ibero-American Area of October 30, 1992, establishes, clearly and forcefully, that any comprehensive and coherent policy for persons with disabilities must lessen its socioeconomic consequences and that persons with disabilities have the right to their economic security, a dignified standard of living, and to live, preferably, in the bosom of their family (Point 1 objectives). This regional declaration, in the section relating to Economic and Social Protection, establishes the following 'Disabled persons have the right to economic security, to the attention of their social needs, and to a dignified standard of living. The guarantee of these rights is an inalienable responsibility of the State (...) </i><b><i>Economic and social protection aims to guarantee persons with disabilities the enjoyment of a dignified level of quality of life and the coverage of their basic and specific needs, through economic aid and social services'</i></b><i>. The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations Organization, approved at the General Assembly of December 20, 1993, establish in Article 8, relating to 'Income maintenance and social security', paragraph 3, that 'States should also ensure that persons caring for a person with a disability have an assured income or enjoy the protection of social security', numeral 9 referring to 'Family life and personal integrity', provides that '1. Persons with disabilities must be able to live with their families (...)' Finally, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities of June 7, 1999, in its Article I, understands discrimination against a person with a disability as any exclusion that has the effect of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities; </i><b><i>in the same way, in its Article III, it prescribes that to achieve the objectives, the States Parties – among which Costa Rica figures – must provide persons with disabilities with comprehensive services to ensure them an optimal level of quality of life.</i></b><i> </i> <b><i>It is evident that such guarantees and protection mechanisms established in the international arena are reinforced when dealing with persons suffering from a profound or acute disability</i></b><i>.' To the international instruments indicated in Voto No. 11550-04 of this Tribunal, it is necessary to add the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations and its protocol (approved by General Assembly Resolution 61/106 of December 13, 2006), opened for signatures as of March 30, 2007. In the preamble (point l) of that instrument, the 'importance of international cooperation for improving the living conditions of persons with disabilities in all countries, particularly in developing countries' is recognized, it highlights (point t) '(...) the fundamental need to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on persons with disabilities' and considers (point x) '(...) that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance so that families can contribute to persons with disabilities fully enjoying their rights on an equal basis'. Among the principles of the Convention, Article 3, subsection a), states 'Respect for inherent dignity' of persons with disabilities. Finally, Article 28 referring to 'Adequate standard of living and social protection', establishes in its 1st paragraph </i><b><i>that 'States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the exercise of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability'</i></b><i>. For its part, the 2nd paragraph, subsections a) and c), of the aforementioned numeral indicate that, among the measures to protect the right of disabled persons to social protection, access must be ensured '(...) to social protection programs and poverty reduction strategies' and to these persons and their families, living in situations of poverty, (...) to State assistance to cover disability-related expenses (...). Faced with such social circumstances, it corresponds to the public powers, by direct application of the principle of solidarity contained in constitutional Article 74, to fulfill an assistance function regarding nuclear families that count among one of their members one with profound cerebral palsy...' </i>(The bold text does not appear in the original). In addition to the foregoing, being a minor person, the <i>Convención de los Derechos del Niño</i> cannot be omitted, in whose Article 23, it is provided: "<i>1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child </i><b><i>should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity</i></b><i>, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. /2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. /3. In recognition of the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, </i><b><i>and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development</i></b><i>. /4. States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries". </i>(Bold text has been added). In summary, the Costa Rican State assumed the obligation to provide special protection to persons with any disability, a duty that is accentuated in the present matter, as it concerns a minor person. The processing of the pension application under Law 7125 made by the girl's mother was processed with an unjustified delay; as it extended from the month of April of the year 2016 until the date the benefit was recognized, specifically in November of 2021. The duration of the administrative process, which exceeded five years, can only be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, and cannot prejudice the beneficiary girl of the right, as intended by the legal representation of the defendant entity, shielded by the absence of a norm establishing the possibility of granting the benefit with retroactive effects to the moment of the application. The Caja's omission to process and resolve the application within a reasonable and timely period, as well as the absence of a specific norm regulating the topic, cannot be used to the detriment of the person whom the State has committed to provide special protection to, because that is what the application of the principle of the best interest of the minor person regulated in Article 3 of the <i>Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño</i> and Articles 5 and 112 of the <i>Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia</i> demands. The absence of a written norm regulating the moment from which the benefit should be granted cannot support the legal thesis of the defendant, and the cited regulations lead to the conclusion that the decision in the preceding instance is correct. The legal gap observed cannot leave the conflict without decision, which must be approached in light of the purpose of the special regulation, the principles regulating the matter of childhood and adolescence, and the hierarchy of normative sources, according to their reference in the absence of a written rule. Both the principles related to fundamental human rights and the protection of persons with disabilities, as well as the jurisprudence developed regarding the effective date of benefits, lead to the conclusion that the pension should be granted from the moment the beneficiary person meets the requirements that have been foreseen as a condition for granting the right. In the specific case, it is clear that the minor plaintiff met the health and socioeconomic conditions foreseen for the granting of the pension for profound cerebral palsy from the moment she made the application before the entity in charge of administering the special regime through which she requested the benefit. Consequently, the same reasoning made in similar and reiterated judicial precedents must be applied, such that it must be concluded that the defendant departed from the block of legality when it granted the pension from November 10, 2021. Therefore, the decision of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and no objection can be made. The circumstance that in these judicial precedents matters were heard where the right was denied in administrative headquarters, unlike this case, in which it was granted, has no relevance. The central issue is the effective date of the benefit and the reasoning that has been made, centered on the moment when the requirements are met, applies to both one scenario and the other.

**IV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:** Based on the reasons given, it is appropriate to declare the appeal filed by the representation of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social without merit. The appellant's complaint that the judgment was rendered swiftly is extraordinary. Swiftness in the administration of justice is a desired principle and value (Article 41, <i>Constitución Política</i>), which is even more transcendental in the knowledge and decision of matters such as the present one. The speed in deciding the case also reflects the development of internal policies, which seek to give dignified treatment to persons in a state of vulnerability.

**POR TANTO:** It is declared that the appeal is without merit.

Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Roxana Chacón Artavia Sandra María Pereira Retana Deyanira Adelaida Martínez Bolívar Shirley Vanessa Viquez Vargas Res: 2023-000051 GGONZALEZ/JBÁEZ CERTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Article 28.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Código Procesal Civil), it is certified that Judge Shirley Vanessa Viquez Vargas concurred with her vote in the issuance of this judgment, but does not sign due to being on sick leave. San José, January 31, 2023.

Kenneth Muñoz Rojas Acting Clerk 1 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Fax: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected] and [email protected]

*220001610929LA* Corte Suprema de Justicia SALA SEGUNDA Res: 2023-000051 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las doce horas treinta y cinco minutos del trece de enero de dos mil veintitrés.

Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito de la Zona Atlántica, por [Nombre 001], soltera, estudiante y vecina de Limón, en representación de su hija la niña [Nombre 002] contra la CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, representada por su apoderada general judicial, la licenciada Ivannia Hidalgo Corrales, de calidades desconocidas. Ambas mayores.

Redacta el Magistrado Sánchez Rodríguez; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- ANTECEDENTES: En el escrito inicial de demanda, la representante legal de la menor actora explicó que, el 20 de abril del 2016, presentó una gestión ante la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, con el objeto de que se le concediera una pensión del régimen especial regulado mediante Ley 7125, del 24 de enero de 1989, Ley Pensión Vitalicia para Personas con Parálisis Profunda, reformada por Ley 8769, del 1º de setiembre de 2009. En primer término la gestión fue denegada, pero ante recurso de apelación formulado ante la Gerencia de Pensiones se determinó el derecho de la menor a percibir el beneficio, el cual finalmente fue concedido mediante resolución de la sucursal de Siquirres, con efecto a partir del 10 de noviembre de 2021, es decir, después de más de cinco años de haber formulado la petición. La acción judicial se planteó con el objeto de que se ordenara el pago retroactivo a la fecha de la gestión administrativa, incluyendo las cuotas por concepto de aguinaldo, así como los intereses, la indexación y ambas costas. La representación de la parte accionada contestó en términos negativos y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho. Mediante sentencia número 781, dictada a las 17:36 horas del 27 de mayo del 2022, el Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica ordenó el pago del beneficio desde la fecha de la gestión administrativa y concedió los intereses legales sobre las rentas adeudadas. Condenó a la demandada a pagar ambas costas del proceso y las personales las fijó en ciento cincuenta mil colones.

II.- AGRAVIOS: La apoderada de la entidad demandada formula recurso contra lo fallado. En primer lugar, sostiene que el caso trata de un proceso de pensión por parálisis cerebral profunda que se otorgó en sede administrativa, mediante resolución del 10 de noviembre del 2021. Dice que, por esa razón, asombra que se haya acogido la demanda, en tanto no existe norma jurídica que autorice a su representada a otorgar retroactivamente la petición, lo cual no fue analizado por el Juzgado. Asegura que existe un vacío legal y de razonamiento lógico, por lo que no puede concluirse que el acto administrativo se aparte de la legalidad. No se establece cuál fue la norma jurídica infringida por la Caja. Expone que se aplica indebidamente la jurisprudencia, en tanto se trata de un caso en que la pensión no fue denegada, sino concedida en sede administrativa. En esos precedentes, se ha comprobado, mediante peritajes médicos y sociales, que la parte actora cumple con los presupuestos normativos para la aprobación del beneficio, lo que no se ha cumplido en este caso. Asevera que el derecho se concedió a futuro, en tanto no hay norma que autorice a la Caja a reconocerlo de manera retroactiva, sin que esta pueda efectuar un acto no autorizado por el ordenamiento. En sede judicial se han reconocido efectos retroactivos con base en el numeral 19 del Reglamento del Seguro de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte (cuyo contenido reproduce parcialmente), para destacar que, tratándose de reclamos judiciales, la pensión procede a partir del momento en que fije la resolución respectiva. Sin embargo, no existe norma similar para situaciones en los que el derecho sea aprobado en sede administrativa. Manifiesta que el órgano jurisdiccional solo puede ejercer control de legalidad y determinar si la conducta de la Administración se apartó del ordenamiento jurídico. El fallo no indica cuál norma jurídica se violentó y solo se hace referencia a numerales relacionados con el régimen probatorio. Advierte que solo consta el expediente administrativo del trámite de la pensión; y, a su juicio, medió confusión con base en procesos judiciales diferentes. Recrimina que el fallo se haya dictado tan solo tres meses después de haberse interpuesto. Solicita que se acoja el recurso y la excepción opuesta, de forma tal que se desestime la demanda, con las costas a cargo de la parte actora.

III.- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO: La tesis de la parte accionada ha sido en el sentido de que no existe norma jurídica que obligue a la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social a otorgar el beneficio de manera retroactiva; y, que, por consiguiente, en el ejercicio de control de legalidad que compete a los órganos jurisdiccionales, no puede concluirse sobre la violación del ordenamiento jurídico en la emisión del acto administrativo por el cual se concedió el beneficio a favor de la parte actora, con lo cual, la pretensión debe desestimarse. Es cierto, como lo afirma la recurrente, que en sede judicial se revisa el ajuste del actuar de la Administración al bloque de legalidad. En el caso concreto que se analiza, se tiene que el artículo 1º de la Ley Pensión Vitalicia para Personas con Parálisis Cerebral Profunda, n.° 7125, vigente a partir del 14 de febrero de 1989, establece que “Las personas que padezcan parálisis cerebral profunda o autismo, mielomeningocele o cualquier otra enfermedad ocurrida en la primera infancia con manifestaciones neurológicas equiparables en severidad, de acuerdo con el dictamen de la Comisión calificadora del estado de la invalidez, que se encuentren en estado de abandono o cuyas familias estén en estado de pobreza y/o pobreza extrema, tendrán derecho a una pensión vitalicia equivalente al menor salario mínimo legal mensual fijado por el Poder Ejecutivo. /La pensión se pagará en forma mensual de los fondos del Régimen No Contributivo que administra la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), y se ajustará a la suma correspondiente, cada vez que se realice una nueva fijación de salarios mínimos”. El numeral 2 de esa misma ley señala que “Para el otorgamiento de la pensión, los representantes de las personas que padezcan parálisis cerebral profunda, autismo, mielomeningocele o una enfermedad ocurrida en la primera infancia, con manifestaciones neurológicas equiparables según las condiciones referidas en el artículo 1 de esta Ley, deberán cumplir los requisitos y trámites establecidos para tal efecto en la ley y en el Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. Asimismo, deberán someterse, necesariamente, a una evaluación médica por parte de la comisión calificadora del estado de la invalidez de la CCSS, la cual emitirá el dictamen correspondiente”. En los numerales siguientes ni en la norma reglamentaria de dicha ley (decreto ejecutivo 18936, del 12 de abril de 1989) se establece el momento a partir del cual el beneficio debe ser concedido. La norma especial remitió a las regulaciones del Reglamento del Régimen no Contributivo en lo concerniente a requisitos y trámites, únicamente. Para la fecha en que se gestionó administrativamente (20 de abril de 2016), esta última reglamentación contenía una norma especial relacionada con las pensiones por parálisis cerebral. En concreto, el numeral 5, establecía: “El trámite de casos por parálisis cerebral profunda, autismo, mielomeningocele o cualquier otra enfermedad ocurrida en la primera infancia con manifestaciones neurológicas equiparables en severidad. (De conformidad con la Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para Personas que padecen Parálisis Cerebral Profunda, número 7125 del 24 de enero de 1989, reformada por la Ley N º 8769 del 1° de setiembre del año 2009.) /Los requisitos para determinar la procedencia del beneficio en los casos de solicitud de pensión indicados en el título de este artículo son: /a. El solicitante deberá encontrarse en condiciones de abandono o de pobreza y/o pobreza extrema. Esta condición deberá ser comprobada mediante informe socioeconómico elaborado por el profesional en trabajo social de la unidad tramitadora. Una vez que se determinan las condiciones especiales de gasto de cada caso en particular, el trabajador social lo relacionará con la línea de pobreza familiar ampliada. /Si el resultado del ingreso total mensual del grupo familiar es inferior o igual a la línea de pobreza familiar ampliada, se considerará que el grupo familiar no cuenta con los ingresos suficientes para satisfacer las necesidades especiales del solicitante. /b. El solicitante debe haber sido declarado inválido por la Comisión Calificadora del Estado de Invalidez de la Gerencia de Pensiones por alguno de los padecimientos señalados en el artículo 1 de la Ley 8769. /El procedimiento para el trámite de este tipo de beneficios será establecido en el instructivo correspondiente. El monto de esta pensión, se establecerá conforme a lo indicado en la Ley 7125 del 24 de enero de 1989, reformada mediante Ley 8769 del 1 de setiembre del año 2009, y su respectivo Reglamento”. De la normativa citada se observa que, en efecto, no se regula el momento a partir del cual debe hacerse regir el beneficio. Ahora bien, esa omisión no exime al órgano jurisdiccional para resolver el conflicto que se plantea. A ese tenor, el canon 5 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en lo que es de interés, estipula: “[...] Los tribunales no podrán excusarse de ejercer su autoridad o de fallar en los asuntos de su competencia por falta de norma que aplicar y deberán hacerlo de conformidad con las normas escritas y no escritas del ordenamiento, según la escala jerárquica de sus fuentes. /Los principios generales del derecho y la jurisprudencia servirán para interpretar, integrar y delimitar el campo de aplicación del ordenamiento escrito y tendrán el rango de la norma que interpreten, integren o delimiten. Cuando se trate de suplir la ausencia y no la insuficiencia de las disposiciones que regulen una materia, dichas fuentes tendrán rango de ley. /Los usos y las costumbres tendrán carácter supletorio del derecho escrito. Al resolver los asuntos propios de su competencia, los tribunales, en cualquier instancia, deberán respetar eficazmente los principios y las normas de cada disciplina jurídica, prioritariamente cuando se trate de las especializadas”. (Véanse también los artículos 6 y 7 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y el artículo 5 del Código Civil, el cual regula el principio de plenitud hermenéutica). Bajo el contexto señalado, la Sala considera que la aplicación de la línea jurisprudencial que hizo el Juzgado no resulta entonces errónea, como lo plantea la recurrente. El criterio de esta Sala, en asuntos donde se ha reclamado el derecho a una pensión del régimen especial regulado en la Ley 7125, ha sido en el sentido de que el beneficio procede desde el momento en que la persona se encuentra en los supuestos de hecho que dan derecho a su otorgamiento, el cual se puede retrotraer al momento en que se hace el reclamo administrativo, cuando desde esa fecha se cumplen los requerimientos exigidos por la normativa especial. En ese reiterado sentido, en un reciente fallo se dijo: “El derecho a la pensión surge cuando se cumplen todos los requisitos para gozar del beneficio, por lo que bien hizo el a quo al conceder la pensión desde la incoación de la demanda, pues para ese momento ya la accionante se ajustaba a las exigencias legales para que se le reconociera la prestación”. (Sentencia 1908, de las 9:55 horas del 20 de agosto de 2021. La negrita se adicionó). En el caso concreto, se tiene que el padecimiento [Nombre 002] lo presenta desde su nacimiento. Luego, la condición económica de su grupo familiar fue constatada por las autoridades administrativas de la demandada y se consideró que se ajustaba a las exigencias de pobreza reguladas en la ley especial. No se trata de requisitos que sobrevinieron o que se configuraron con posterioridad al momento en que la parte hizo la gestión en sede administrativa. Estos solamente se constataron. El informe social practicado y la evaluación médica efectuada no tienen naturaleza constitutiva, pues únicamente lo que hicieron fue verificar la existencia de las condiciones que la norma exige. Esa ha sido la razón por la cual se ha considerado que el beneficio de la pensión debe ser otorgado a partir del momento en que los supuestos se presentan, claro está, en relación con el necesario trámite. La circunstancia de que la gestión de la parte actora haya demorado de manera excesiva, superando cualquier plazo razonable, más de cinco años, no puede liberar a la entidad demandada de su responsabilidad. Se trata, sin duda, de un retardo injustificado en la tramitación de su solicitud, lo que contravino el canon 41 de la Constitución Política y atentó contra los principios que regulan el servicio público, de eficiencia, eficacia y continuidad, con la consecuente responsabilidad de la Administración. (Sobre el tema pueden consultarse las sentencias de la Sala Constitucional números 21.957, de las 9:50 horas del 1º de octubre de 2021 y 11.279, de las 9:15 horas del 20 de mayo del 2022). La conducta de la Caja, en el caso bajo estudio, se aparta de la naturaleza del Estado costarricense y de los postulados constitucionales que determinan su actuar, como uno de naturaleza social. El Estado costarricense se ha obligado a brindar una protección especial a los niños y niñas, así como a las personas con alguna discapacidad, en los términos de los numerales 51 y 55 de la Constitución Política. En este contexto no puede dejarse de lado el contenido de otras normas de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Por ejemplo, el canon 8 estipula que el ordenamiento se entiende integrado por las normas no escritas necesarias para garantizar un equilibrio entre la eficiencia de la Administración y la dignidad, libertad y otros derechos fundamentales de la persona. De ahí que se estime acertado la aplicación del criterio jurisprudencial que ha imperado en asuntos de este tipo. En este caso, los efectos de la tardanza que ahora se pretenden validar en sede judicial, sin duda, atentaron contra la dignidad de la niña, cuyas necesidades especiales demandaban un actuar pronto y oportuno por parte de la institución estatal encargada de administrar la materia de pensiones. Su estado especial de salud y la condición socioeconómica de su grupo familiar demandaban del Estado un auxilio eficaz; pero fue, en suma, tardío; lo que muchas veces realmente implica una omisión de auxilio. Está claro que quedó a expensas de la ayuda caritativa de otras personas, así como expuesta a la atención deficitaria (o no atención) de sus necesidades especiales, lo que contraviene los compromisos básicos del Estado social de Derecho y los especiales que ha asumido con la comunidad internacional, así como los que derivan del principio de justicia social. En ese sentido, debe rescatarse lo que se regula en el numeral 16 de la citada ley, conforme al cual “En ningún caso podrán dictarse actos contrarios a reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, o a principios elementales de justicia, lógica o conveniencia”. En el caso específico no se estima ajustado a los principios elementales de justicia que la niña actora, a pesar de su condición física especial y su situación de pobreza extrema, no haya recibido la protección oportuna por parte del Estado. De ahí que este órgano jurisdiccional no puede validar la pretensión de la parte demandada, para que se desconozca el derecho que tenía de percibir dicho amparo en forma apropiada. En el desarrollo que viene haciéndose, resulta de interés citar la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional número 1125, de las 15:02 horas del 30 de enero de 2007, donde se da cuenta de las obligaciones asumidas por el Estado en esta materia, a la luz de normas internas y otras de rango superior debidamente suscritas y relacionadas con la protección especial que ha de brindarse a personas en condición de vulnerabilidad con motivo de su discapacidad física y, donde se informa acerca de su valor normativo, conforme a lo claramente regulado en el artículo 7 de la Constitución Política y los numerales 1, 2 y 5 del Código Civil. En relación con la tutela especial que debe brindarse a las personas que en atención a su condición física se encuentren en estado de vulnerabilidad, en el voto citado se indicó cuanto sigue: “ Nuestra Constitución Política en su artículo 51 les manda a los poderes públicos brindarles una protección especial a los enfermos desvalidos, obligación que, obviamente, debe traducirse en prestaciones efectivas implementadas y desarrolladas progresivamente. Evidentemente la Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para las Personas que Padecen de Parálisis Cerebral Profunda, No. 7125 de 25 de enero de 1989), y su reglamento (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18936-S de 12 de abril de 1989, constituyen una muestra acabada del cumplimiento y desarrollo progresivo del imperativo constitucional referido. En el plano del Derecho internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Voto No. 11550-04 de las 11:46 hrs. de 15 de octubre de 2004, este Tribunal Constitucional, con redacción del Magistrado ponente: ′VII.- PROTECCION EN EL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS A LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. En el ámbito del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos existen diversos instrumentos, incluso rubricados por nuestro País, tendentes a proteger a las personas con alguna discapacidad tales como la Declaración de los Derechos de los Impedidos de las Naciones Unidas del 9 de diciembre de 1975, resolución 3447 (XXX), la cual establece, entre otros derechos de este grupo en desventaja, los siguientes: ′3. El impedido tiene esencialmente derecho a que se respete su dignidad humana (…) el derecho a disfrutar de una vida decorosa, lo más normal y plena que sea posible′, ′5. El impedido tiene derecho a las medidas destinadas a permitirle lograr la mayor autonomía posible′, ′7. El impedido tiene derecho a la seguridad económica y social y a un nivel de vida decoroso (…) y ′9. El impedido tiene derecho a vivir en el seno de su familia (…) ′ La Declaración de Cartagena de Indias sobre Políticas Integrales para las personas con discapacidad en el Área Iberoamericana del 30 de octubre de 1992, establece, de forma clara y contundente, que toda política integral y coherente para personas con discapacidad debe aminorar sus consecuencias socioeconómicas y que las personas con discapacidad tienen derecho a su seguridad económica, un nivel de vida digno y a vivir, preferentemente, en el seno de su familia (Punto 1 objetivos). Esta declaración regional, en el aparte relativo a la Protección económica y social, estatuye lo siguiente ′Las personas discapacitadas tienen derecho a la seguridad económica, a la atención de sus necesidades sociales y a un nivel de vida digno. La garantía de estos derechos es una responsabilidad irrenunciable del Estado (…) La protección económica y social tiene por objeto garantizar a las personas con discapacidades el disfrute de un nivel digno de calidad de vida y la cobertura de sus necesidades básicas y específicas, por medio de ayudas económicas y de servicios sociales′. Las Normas Uniformes sobre la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, aprobadas en la Asamblea General del 20 de diciembre de 1993, estatuyen en el artículo 8, relativo al ′Mantenimiento de los ingresos y seguridad social′, párrafo 3, que ′Los Estados deben velar asimismo por que las personas que se dediquen a cuidar a una persona con discapacidad tengan un ingreso asegurado o gocen de la protección de la seguridad social′, el numeral 9 referente a la ′Vida en familia e integridad personal′, dispone que ′1. Las personas con discapacidad deben estar en condiciones de vivir con sus familias (…)′ Por último, la Convención Interamericana para la Eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad del 7 de junio de 1999, en su Artículo I, entiende por discriminación a una persona con discapacidad cualquier exclusión que tenga por efecto impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio de los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad; de la misma forma, en su Artículo III preceptúa que para lograr los objetivos, los Estados parte –dentro de los cuales figura Costa Rica- deben suministrar a las personas con discapacidad los servicios globales para asegurarles un nivel óptimo de calidad de vida. Es evidente, que tales garantías y mecanismos de protección establecidos en el concierto internacional se refuerzan cuando se trata de personas que padecen de una discapacidad profunda o aguda.′ A los instrumentos internacionales señalados en el Voto No. 11550-04 de este Tribunal, es menester agregar la Convención sobre los Derechos de las personas con Discapacidad de las Naciones Unidas y su protocolo (aprobada por la Resolución de la Asamblea General 61/106 de 13 de diciembre de 2006), abierta a firmas a partir del 30 de marzo de 2007. En el preámbulo (punto l) de ese instrumento se reconoce la ′importancia de la cooperación internacional para mejorar las condiciones de vida de las personas con discapacidad en todos los países, en particular en los países en desarrollo′ , destaca (punto t) ′(…) la necesidad fundamental de mitigar los efectos negativos de la pobreza en las personas con discapacidad′ y estima (punto x) ′ (…) que las personas con discapacidad y sus familiares deben recibir la protección y la asistencia necesarias para que las familias puedan contribuir a que las personas con discapacidad gocen de sus derechos plenamente y en igualdad de condiciones′. Dentro de los principios de la Convención se enuncia en el artículo 3, inciso a), ′El respeto de la dignidad inherente′ a las personas con discapacidad. Finalmente, el artículo 28 referido al ′Nivel de vida adecuado y protección social′, establece en su párrafo 1° que ′Los Estados Partes reconocen el derecho de las personas con discapacidad a un nivel de vida adecuado para ellas y sus familias, lo cual incluye alimentación, vestido y vivienda adecuados, y a la mejora continua de sus condiciones de vida, y adoptarán las medidas pertinentes para salvaguardar y promover el ejercicio de este derecho sin discriminación por motivos de discapacidad′. Por su parte, el párrafo 2°, incisos a) y c), del numeral supracitado señalan que, entre las medidas para proteger el derecho de las personas discapacitadas a la protección social, se debe asegurar el acceso ′(…) a programas de protección social y estrategias de reducción de la pobreza′ y a estas personas y sus familias, que vivan en situaciones de pobreza, (…) a asistencia del Estado para sufragar gastos relacionados con su discapacidad (…) Ante tales circunstancias sociales, le corresponde a los poderes públicos, por aplicación directa del principio de solidaridad contenido en el artículo 74 constitucional, cumplir una función asistencial respecto de las familias nucleares que cuenten entre uno de sus miembros uno con parálisis cerebral profunda...” (La negrita no consta en el original). En adición a lo expuesto, tratándose de una persona menor de edad, no puede dejar de invocarse la Convención de los Derechos del Niño, en cuyo artículo 23, se dispone: “ 1. Los Estados Partes reconocen que el niño mental o físicamente impedido deberá disfrutar de una vida plena y decente en condiciones que aseguren su dignidad, le permitan llegar a bastarse a sí mismo y faciliten la participación del niño en la comunidad. /2. Los Estados Partes reconocen el derecho del niño impedido a recibir cuidados especiales y alentarán y asegurarán, con sujeción a los recursos disponibles, la prestación al niño que reúna las condiciones requeridas y a los responsables de su cuidado de la asistencia que se solicite y que sea adecuada al estado del niño y a las circunstancias de sus padres o de otras personas que cuiden de él. /3. En atención a las necesidades especiales del niño impedido, la asistencia que se preste conforme al párrafo 2 del presente artículo será gratuita siempre que sea posible, habida cuenta de la situación económica de los padres o de las otras personas que cuiden del niño, y estará destinada a asegurar que el niño impedido tenga un acceso efectivo a la educación, la capacitación, los servicios sanitarios, los servicios de rehabilitación, la preparación para el empleo y las oportunidades de esparcimiento y reciba tales servicios con el objeto de que el niño logre la integración social y el desarrollo individual, incluido su desarrollo cultural y espiritual, en la máxima medida posible . /4. Los Estados Partes promoverán, con espíritu de cooperación internacional, el intercambio de información adecuada en la esfera de la atención sanitaria preventiva y del tratamiento médico, psicológico y funcional de los niños impedidos, incluida la difusión de información sobre los métodos de rehabilitación y los servicios de enseñanza y formación profesional, así como el acceso a esa información a fin de que los Estados Partes puedan mejorar su capacidad y conocimientos y ampliar su experiencia en estas esferas. A este respecto, se tendrán especialmente en cuenta las necesidades de los países en desarrollo”. (La negrita se adicionó). En resumen, el Estado costarricense asumió la obligación de brindar protección especial a las personas con alguna discapacidad, deber que se acentúa en el presente asunto, por tratarse de una persona menor de edad. La tramitación de la solicitud de pensión por la Ley 7125 formulada por la madre de la niña se tramitó con un retardo injustificado; pues se extendió desde el mes de abril del año 2016 hasta la fecha en que se reconoció el beneficio, concretamente en noviembre del 2021. La duración del trámite administrativo, que excedió los cinco años, no puede considerarse sino como irrazonable y desproporcionada, y no puede ir en perjuicio de la niña beneficiaria del derecho, como lo pretende la representación judicial de la entidad accionada, escudada en la ausencia de una norma que establezca la posibilidad de conceder el beneficio con efectos retroactivos al momento de la solicitud. La omisión de la Caja de gestionar y resolver la solicitud en un plazo razonable y oportuno, así como la ausencia de una norma concreta que regule el tema, no puede venir a utilizarse en perjuicio de la persona a quien el Estado se ha comprometido a brindarle una protección especial, pues eso es lo que demanda la aplicación del principio del mejor interés de la persona menor de edad regulado en el artículo 3 de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño y los artículos 5 y 112 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. La ausencia de norma escrita que regule el momento a partir del cual debe ser concedido el beneficio no puede amparar la tesis jurídica de la parte accionada y la normativa citada conduce a concluir sobre la corrección de lo decidido en la instancia precedente. El vacío legal que se advierte no puede dejar sin decisión el conflicto, el cual debe abordarse a la luz de la finalidad de la normativa especial, los principios que regulan la materia sobre niñez y adolescencia y la jerarquía de las fuentes normativas, según su remisión en ausencia de regla escrita. Tanto los principios relacionados con materia de derechos humanos fundamentales y la tutela de las personas con discapacidad, así como la jurisprudencia desarrollada en cuanto al rige de los beneficios, conduce a la conclusión de que la pensión cabe concederla a partir del momento en que la persona beneficiaria reúne los requisitos que se han previsto como condición para otorgar el derecho. En el caso concreto, está claro que la persona menor de edad actora reunía las condiciones de salud y socioeconómicas previstas para la concesión de la pensión por parálisis cerebral profunda desde el momento en que hizo la solicitud ante la entidad encargada de la administración del régimen especial por el cual solicitó el beneficio. Consecuentemente, cabe aplicar el mismo razonamiento hecho en los precedentes judiciales similares y reiterados, de modo tal que ha de concluirse que la demandada se apartó del bloque de legalidad en cuanto concedió la pensión a partir del 10 de noviembre del 2021. Por consiguiente, la decisión del Juzgado se encuentra ajustada a derecho y no cabe realizar ningún reparo. Ninguna relevancia tiene la circunstancia de que en esos precedentes judiciales se hayan conocido asuntos donde el derecho se ha denegado en sede administrativa, a diferencia de este caso, en el que se concedió. El tema central es la fecha de rige del beneficio y el razonamiento que se ha hecho, centrado en el momento en que se reúnen los requisitos, aplica tanto para un supuesto como para el otro.

IV.- CONSIDERACIONES FINALES: Con sustento en las razones dadas, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso formulado por la representación de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. El reclamo de la recurrente porque el fallo se dictó de manera célere resulta inaudito. La celeridad en la administración de justicia es un principio y valor querido (artículo 41, Constitución Política), el cual resulta aún más trascendental en el conocimiento y decisión de asuntos como el presente. La rapidez en la decisión del caso refleja también el desarrollo de las políticas internas, que procuran dar un trato digno a las personas en estado de vulnerabilidad.

POR TANTO:

Se declara sin lugar el recurso.

Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Roxana Chacón Artavia Sandra María Pereira Retana Deyanira Adelaida Martínez Bolívar Shirley Vanessa Víquez Vargas Res: 2023-000051 GGONZALEZ/JBÁEZ CONSTANCIA:

De conformidad con el artículo 28.2 del Código Procesal Civil, se hace constar que la Magistrada Shirley Vanessa Víquez Vargas concurrió con su voto en el dictado de esta sentencia, pero no firma por encontrarse incapacitada. San José, 31 de enero de 2023.

Kenneth Muñoz Rojas Secretario a.i.

1 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Correos Electrónicos: [email protected]. y [email protected]