← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00562-2022 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 07/01/2022
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo for violation of the right to petition, ordering AyA to notify the response to the request within three days.La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el amparo por violación al derecho de petición, ordenando al AyA notificar la respuesta a la gestión en tres días.
SummaryResumen
The Desamparados Ecologist Group filed an amparo action against the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA) for failing to respond to their challenge of the water availability certificate granted to the La Arboleda housing project. The applicants noted that AyA's communication PRE-2021-2021 stated there was no water or sewage availability, yet a Water Capacity Certificate (CCH) was issued subject to improvements to the aqueduct. They sought correction via communication 011-ASECODES-2021, sent to [email protected]. Although AyA acknowledged receipt and processed the request, it did not notify the petitioners of the outcome. The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo, ordering AyA to notify the result within three days. Magistrate Castillo Víquez dissented, finding the email was not an official channel and thus no violation occurred.El Grupo Ecologista de Desamparados interpuso recurso de amparo contra el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA) por la falta de respuesta a una gestión que cuestionaba la certificación de capacidad hídrica otorgada al proyecto urbanístico La Arboleda. Los recurrentes señalaron que el oficio PRE-2021-2021 del AyA indicó que no había disponibilidad de agua potable ni alcantarillado en la propiedad, pero aún así se emitió una Carta de Capacidad Hídrica (CCH) sujeta a la realización de mejoras en el acueducto. Ante esta contradicción, solicitaron una enmienda mediante el oficio 011-ASECODES-2021, enviado al correo [email protected]. Aunque el AyA acusó recibo y tramitó la solicitud, no notificó la respuesta a los recurrentes. La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el amparo, ordenando al AyA notificar el resultado de la gestión en tres días. Destaca el voto salvado del Magistrado Castillo Víquez, quien consideró que el correo usado no era un medio oficial y por tanto no existía violación.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Now, first, it must be noted that, even though the respondent authority stated under oath that the email to which the petitioners sent their request is not an official channel, it is no less true that the record shows the request was acknowledged and processed, thus creating the obligation to address it and notify the petitioners accordingly. Furthermore, even though the record shows the respondent authority issued a response through communication PRE-2021-01439 of December 9, 2021, which in turn references memo UEN-OSMS-GAM-2021-00260 of the same date, it is no less true that the record does not show these documents were notified to the petitioners at the means indicated for such purposes. Thus, since it is not proven that the respondent authority communicated the corresponding response to the petitioners regarding the matter underlying this action, it is proper to grant the amparo.Ahora bien, en primer término, debe advertirse que, aun cuando la autoridad accionada haya informado bajo juramento que el correo electrónico al que se remitió la gestión de la parte amparada no es un mecanismo oficial, no menos ciertos es que de los autos se desprende que a tal gestión se le dio acuse de recibo y fue tramitada, configurándose así la obligación de atenderla y notificarle a la parte accionante lo correspondiente. Por otra parte, aun cuando de los autos se desprende que la autoridad accionada emitió una respuesta mediante el oficio PRE-2021-01439 del 9 de diciembre de 2021, el cual a su vez hace referencia al memo UEN-OSMS-GAM-2021-00260 del 9 de diciembre de 2021, no menos cierto es que de los autos no se desprende que tales documentos hayan sido notificados a la parte amparada al medio señalado para tales efectos. De modo que, al no acreditarse que la autoridad recurrida le haya comunicado a la parte recurrente la respuesta correspondiente a la gestión objeto de este recurso, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"NO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE AGUA POTABLE, NI TAMPOCO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE SISTEMA DE ALCANTARILLADO AL FRENTE DE LA PROPIEDAD, pero se le otorgó la CCH en la que se Indica '...se deberán realizar las siguientes mejoras en el acueducto'."
"THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF DRINKING WATER, NOR IS THERE AVAILABILITY OF A SEWAGE SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, but the CCH was granted stating '...the following improvements to the aqueduct must be carried out.'"
Hecho probado b)
"NO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE AGUA POTABLE, NI TAMPOCO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE SISTEMA DE ALCANTARILLADO AL FRENTE DE LA PROPIEDAD, pero se le otorgó la CCH en la que se Indica '...se deberán realizar las siguientes mejoras en el acueducto'."
Hecho probado b)
"De modo que, al no acreditarse que la autoridad recurrida le haya comunicado a la parte recurrente la respuesta correspondiente a la gestión objeto de este recurso, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso."
"Thus, since it is not proven that the respondent authority communicated the corresponding response to the petitioners regarding the matter underlying this action, it is proper to grant the amparo."
Considerando V
"De modo que, al no acreditarse que la autoridad recurrida le haya comunicado a la parte recurrente la respuesta correspondiente a la gestión objeto de este recurso, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso."
Considerando V
"A diferencia de la mayoría de la Sala, considero que los derechos del recurrente no fueron lesionados. Tal y como se indica en el Considerando III, el correo electrónico al cual la parte recurrente remitió la gestión no constituye un mecanismo oficial para la atención de comunicaciones."
"Unlike the majority of the Chamber, I consider that the petitioner's rights were not violated. As stated in Considerando III, the email to which the petitioner sent the request does not constitute an official mechanism for communications."
Voto Salvado Magistrado Castillo Víquez
"A diferencia de la mayoría de la Sala, considero que los derechos del recurrente no fueron lesionados. Tal y como se indica en el Considerando III, el correo electrónico al cual la parte recurrente remitió la gestión no constituye un mecanismo oficial para la atención de comunicaciones."
Voto Salvado Magistrado Castillo Víquez
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Case File: 21-024565-0007-CO Type of Matter: Amparo appeal Analyzed by: CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER Judgment with protected data, in accordance with current regulations 3*210245650007CO* Res. No. 2022000562 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on the seventh of January of two thousand twenty-two.
Amparo appeal processed in case file no. 21-024565- 0007-CO, filed by [Name 001], identity card [Value 001] AND [Name 002], identity card [Value 002], representing the GRUPO ECOLOGISTA DE DESEMPARADOS, against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (ICAA).
Considering:
1.- Through a writing received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 13:18 hours on December 1, 2021, the plaintiff party files an amparo appeal. They relate that on April 30, 2021, they received official letter PRE-2021-2021 signed by the executive president of the ICAA. They explain that such official letter is the response to memorial 006-ASECODES2021, regarding the water availability for an urban development project called La Arboleda, intended to be developed in the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento) of the Zona Especial Forestal Loma de Salitral, located in the Canton of Desamparados. They argue that the response stated that "THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER, NOR IS THERE AVAILABILITY OF A SEWER SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, but the CCH was granted which Indicates '...the following improvements to the aqueduct must be made'"; furthermore, the official letter stated that given the described circumstance, improvements to the aqueduct must be made to interconnect with the local distribution network in order to grant the water capacity certification (certificación de capacidad hídrica). They relate that in extraordinary session no. 5-2021 of the Municipal Council of Desamparados, ICAA representatives were received to present the current situation of the potable water supply in the canton of Desamparados, where it was concluded that there is a significant deficit in the area. They detail that given the discrepancy between what was certified by the Executive Presidency and the Technical Areas: System Utilization Unit of the Metropolitan Aqueduct-Area of Availability and New Services GAM System, official letter no. 011-ASECODES-2021 was sent via email to the address [email protected] on July 20, 2021, for the purpose of having the granted water capacity certification amended. They maintain that on September 3, 2021, they sent memorial 012-ASECODES-2021 to the executive president of the ICAA, where they insisted on a response to the consultation contained in document 011-ASECODES-2021, received by that office since July 20, 2021. They assert that on October 4, given the lack of response, they again requested a response. They complain that at the time this appeal was filed, they had not received any response. They add that on November 21, 2021, the executive president of the ICAA gave an interview to the newspaper La Nación regarding the water problem for housing projects in the Gran Área Metropolitana. They request that the appeal be granted.
2.- By resolution of the Presidency of the Chamber at 11:51 hours on December 3, 2021, the amparo was processed and a report was requested from the executive president of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.
3.- By writing incorporated into the digital case file at 16:19 hours on December 13, 2021, Tomás Francisco Martínez Baldares reports under oath, in his capacity as executive president of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. He states: “REGARDING THE FACTS FIRST: That, in response to the situation that is the subject of the amparo filed by Mr. [Name 001] and Another, against the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, we proceeded to verify the relevant information surrounding the case, finding that, as reported by Ms. Marisol Aguilar Hernández, Advisor to the Executive Presidency of this Institute, through Memorandum No. PRE-2021-01440 dated December 9, 2021, having checked the records kept for this purpose by this Institute, Ms. Silvia Rodas, Administrative Assistant, reported that indeed, through the Executive Presidency of AyA's email [email protected], official letter No. 011-ASECODES-2021 was received on July 20, 2021; said official letter was not presented or received in the office, but rather via email to the aforementioned address. Additionally, it is important to note that the responsible technical area was requested to send the corresponding response to the applicants, and through official letter PRE-2021-01439, a response was provided to the Grupo Ecologista de Desamparados. SECOND: That, Mr. Luis Fernando Cubillo Lobo, Director of the UEN Servicio al Cliente Comercial GAM of this Institute, reported through Memorandum No. UEN-SCC-GAM2021-02562 dated December 9, 2021, that according to a query made to the Administration System databases (CRM), no interactions derived from the process of handling procedures, claims, and consultations are registered, which demonstrates that the only management submitted was done through the email address [email protected]. THIRD: That, it is of vital importance to point out regarding the official means for addressing user requests, that the email [email protected] is part of the official non-face-to-face means communicated to the institution's users for managing consultations, procedures, and claims. Likewise, there are also means such as the website Chat, the online service for reporting breakdowns on the website, and the mobile application “Servicios AyA”, enabled 24 hours, 365 days a year, for reporting breakdowns or other interactions such as information on events affecting service provision or claims, and the telephone service line 800-REPORTE (800-737-6783), available 24 hours, 365 days a year. The email [email protected] is not an official means for formalizing requests; it is an email that belongs to the Executive Presidency Office, and in this sense, it is also important to highlight that said email is a tool to streamline and facilitate the office's procedures, that is, it is a facilitating tool, without it being considered to date a formal means or guideline that characterizes them as an official means of communication, in accordance with the provisions of the Reglamento para la adquisición y Administración de Recursos Informáticos in its article 36, which literally states: “Article 36: Uses of email: Email is a work tool to streamline and facilitate the procedures of each office. Its use is regulated by Board of Directors Directive.” FOURTH: Consequently, it is important to refer to the principle of legality enshrined in Article 11 of our Constitución Política, which warns that the acts and behaviors of the Administration must be regulated by written norm, in such a way that AyA must submit to the Constitución Política and the law preferentially; and in general to all the norms of the Legal System, known as the Principle of Juridicity of the Administration, which means that public institutions can only act to the extent that they are empowered to do so by the system itself and normally by express text, consequently, only what is constitutionally and legally authorized in express form is permitted to them, and everything for which they are not authorized is forbidden. FIFTH: Based on the aforementioned principle, this Institute must comply with the regulatory provisions that govern us and the general principles of science and technique; in accordance with Article 16, subsection 1) of the ley General de la Administración Pública, which states: “In no case may acts contrary to unequivocal rules of science or technique be issued…”; hence, in accordance with the arguments mentioned, AyA has complied with what was requested by Mr. [Name 001] and has not violated any of his fundamental rights, therefore it is not possible to grant the appellant's request under the conditions he intends. SIXTH: As this Honorable Court can verify, AyA has acted in accordance with the regulations that govern it, without capricious manipulation of the service provision, nor of the exercise of its functions, carrying out at all times duly grounded and reasoned actions as detailed; it is thus evidenced that the Institute has proceeded in accordance with the law, without any of its acts having violated any constitutional right; on the contrary, from the arguments presented and the evidence provided, it can be concluded that AyA has indeed proceeded as it should. PRAYER: By virtue of the foregoing, and by reason that it is demonstrated that the facts alleged through this Amparo Appeal, that our actions have been correct in accordance with the regulations that govern us, we request that this Appeal be declared without merit, that the case file be ordered archived, and that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados be exempted from all liability”.
4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.
Drafted by Magistrate Fernandez Acuña; and,
Whereas:
I.- REGARDING THE EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION. Before analyzing the merits of the matter - for the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled procedure - it must be clarified that, since judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction - with some exceptions - those matters in which it is disputed whether the public administration has or has not complied with the deadlines set by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (Articles 261 and 325) or the sectoral laws for special administrative procedures, to resolve by final act an administrative procedure - initiated ex officio or at the instance of a party - or to hear admissible administrative appeals. Precisely, in the sub lite case, an exception scenario arises, as it concerns a matter related to the alleged delay in addressing an apparent challenge to a water capacity certificate. Having clarified the foregoing, the amparo appeal is considered on the merits.
II.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellants state that they made an inquiry to the ICAA regarding the water availability for an urban development project called La Arboleda, intended to be developed in the buffer zone of the Zona Especial Forestal Loma de Salitral, located in the Canton of Desamparados. They allege that in response to such inquiry, the executive president of the ICAA, through official letter PRE-2021-2021, communicated to them in relation to that project that "THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER, NOR IS THERE AVAILABILITY OF A SEWER SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, but the CCH was granted which Indicates '...the following improvements to the aqueduct must be made'." They reproach that the water capacity certification was granted. They relate that in extraordinary session no. 5-2021 of the Municipal Council of Desamparados, the current situation of the potable water supply in the canton of Desamparados was learned, where it was concluded that there is a significant deficit in the area. For the foregoing, they state that on July 20, 2021, they sent a communication to the address [email protected], whose purpose was for the Executive Presidency of the ICAA to amend the water capacity certification granted, but due to the lack of response, on September 3 and October 4, 2021, they again requested a response. They complain that they have not received any response.
III.- PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly proven, either because they have been accredited or because the appealed authority has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:
IV.- UNPROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are not considered duly proven:
V.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the sub lite case, the appellants state that they made an inquiry to the ICAA regarding the water availability for an urban development project called La Arboleda, intended to be developed in the buffer zone of the Zona Especial Forestal Loma de Salitral, located in the Canton of Desamparados. They allege that in response to such inquiry, the executive president of the ICAA, through official letter PRE-2021-2021, communicated to them in relation to that project that "THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER, NOR IS THERE AVAILABILITY OF A SEWER SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, but the CCH was granted which Indicates '...the following improvements to the aqueduct must be made'." They reproach that the water capacity certification was granted. They relate that in extraordinary session no. 5-2021 of the Municipal Council of Desamparados, the current situation of the potable water supply in the canton of Desamparados was learned, where it was concluded that there is a significant deficit in the area. For the foregoing, they state that on July 20, 2021, they sent a communication to the address [email protected], whose purpose was for the Executive Presidency of the ICAA to amend the water capacity certification granted, but due to the lack of response, on September 3 and October 4, 2021, they again requested a response. They complain that they have not received any response.
In this respect, from the study of the case file documents it is evident that by means of minute no. 5-2021 of the session held by the Municipal Council of Desamparados on January 25, 2021, the officials of the Subgerencia de Atención de Sistemas GAM of the ICAA presented the current situation regarding the supply of the canton of Desamparados and the factors that influence the shortage. The executive president of the ICAA, by official letter PRE-2021-00521 of April 30, 2021, addressed to the appellant party, stated: “(…) Receive cordial greetings from the Executive Presidency of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, while I refer to your official letter 006-ASECODES-2021 and respond to the requests made in the aforementioned previous official letters, all referring to the availability procedure for the urban development project called La Arboleda, in the canton of Desamparados. For the specific case of the indicated property, this year a request for Availability was received from Urbanizadora La Laguna for the development of a Residential Condominium of 777 Subsidiary Properties, which will be located on the property of Folio Real number 1-4819-M-000 located in Damas district, Desamparados canton, San José province, according to Cadastral Map No. 1-112393-2006 in the name of CONDOMINIO HORIZONTAL RESIDENCIAL DE FFPI LA ARBOLEDA, legal identification number 03-109-789865, determining that the case has sufficient antecedents to be able to renew the Carta de Capacidad Hídrica (CCH) granted in 2016. The project is identified before APC with code APC 161053 and OC 674202. The contract was signed on December 11, 2014, and has the construction permit identified with number PC 658 2015 from the Municipalidad de Desamparados.
In accordance with the Technical Studies performed, the distribution network at the site lacks the capacity to incorporate into the system the works intended to be developed, and therefore the interested parties were informed that THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER, NOR IS THERE AVAILABILITY OF A SEWER SYSTEM AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, but a CCH was granted, in which they are informed that: “…the following improvements to the aqueduct must be carried out…”. After the issuance of this Water Capacity Letter, no application for receipt of the indicated primary works has been received, which would be the next process within the institution and is required for connection of the Residential Condominium to the service network. (…)”.
By virtue of the foregoing, on an undetermined date, the petitioner sent an email to the account [email protected]. Attached to said email was official communication no. 011-ASECODES-2021, addressed to the Executive President of ICAA, in which the following was requested: “(…) From what is set out in this document, it is evident that we are in the presence of a contrast, that is, a notable differentiation regarding the availability of potable water in the Canton of Desamparados between the Executive Presidency and the Technical Areas: Unidad de Utilización de Sistemas del Acueducto Metropolitano – Área de Disponibilidad y Nuevos Servicios Sistema GA. Therefore, let this serve to request of your esteemed person an amendment to the Water Availability Letter issued by your office for the La Arboleda Project, which would be located in the Buffer Zone of the LOMA DE SALITRAL Special Forest Zone. It is unacceptable that, with scandalous simplicity, it is indicated that certain works must be carried out to supply the water resource to the development, connecting to the flow of an aqueduct that is depleted (…)”. Furthermore, while it follows from the report rendered under oath that the electronic account [email protected] does not constitute an official mechanism for submitting requests to the respondent authority, it is no less true that on July 20, 2021, from the electronic address [email protected], an email was sent to the amparo-protected party, stating: “I acknowledge receipt of your email and official communication 011-ASECODES-2021; we will proceed with the corresponding process.” Subsequently, on September 3, 2021, the petitioner filed a new request before the appealed authority through official communication 012-ASECODES-2021, in which they requested a response to the requirement formulated through official communication no. 011-ASECODES-2021. On September 7, 2021, from the account [email protected], an email was sent to the amparo-protected party, stating: “(…) I acknowledge receipt of your email and official communication 012-ASECODES-2021; we will proceed with the corresponding process (…)”. On October 4, 2021, the petitioner sent an email to the account srodasaya.go.cr, in which they indicated: “(…) we hereby inform you that we have not received a response to official communications ASECODES-011-2021 and ASECODES-012-2021. We find that the elapsed time is gross and unacceptable (…)”.
Finally, it is considered accredited that the official of the UEN Optimización de Sistemas Mejoramiento del Sistema GAM, through official communication UEN-OSMS-GAM-2021-00260 of December 9, 2021, addressed to the Executive Presidency of ICAA, stated: “(…) Below, the analysis carried out to assess the application for renewal of the Service Availability Certificate UND-GAM-CCH-0660-2012-0061-2 is detailed, where the new application bears sequential number 2021-00004347-1. For this same reason, a case summary will be presented. Information regarding the application: The application for water supply / sanitary sewer availability submitted by Mr. Manuel Terán Jiménez is recorded in the Integrated System for Availability and Development Management (Sistema Integrado para Gestión de Disponibilidades y Desarrollos, SIGDD), concerning the project called CONDOMINIO HORIZONTAL RESIDENCIAL COMERCIAL DE FINCAS FILIALES PRIMARIAS INDIVIDUALIZADAS LA ARBOLEDA, which is intended to continue to be developed within the property registered under Real Folio Number 1-4819—M-000, whose nature indicates LAND WITH A CONDOMINIUM COMPOSED OF ELEVEN INDIVIDUALIZED PRIMARY AFFILIATED PROPERTIES SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHICH ARE DESTINED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE, WITH A MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FLOORS, located in the Damas district, Desamparados canton, San José province, according to cadastral plan SJ-1123934-2006, Administered by NARET SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, for the eventual provision of 1 service to supply 777 services, whose requested demand is 1195 cubic meters per day. According to the information provided, the property of interest can be located in the following image: (…) Information provided by the applicant: 1. The Service Availability certificate is for a project with a Previous Record, where, according to what was indicated by the interested party, they wish to renew the Water Capacity Certificate UND-GAM-CCH-0660-2012-0061-2 dated November 4, 2014. 2. The interested party also indicates that the project consists of 11 affiliated properties, in which 777 consumption units will be developed in stages. 3. The aforementioned Water Capacity Certificate makes mention of 777 affiliated properties and not 11 as indicated by the interested party, where the following works must be carried out: “there is insufficient distribution infrastructure in the sector for this type of development. For the interconnection of this branch line, which shall be no less than 150 mm (6”), from the 600mm (24”) or 300mm (12”) pipe. A pressure-reducing valve system of no less than 100 mm (4”) must be installed at the beginning. A SINGLE CONNECTION (MACROMETERING) is approved with the diameter necessary to satisfy the demand. The provisions established in official communication SB-GSGAMOS-2014-042 of 3/19/2014 must be complied with.” 4. After reviewing the information provided, the interested party is consulted about the project and its background, where they indicated that it has construction permits with a municipal seal, and they also indicated that the project has sequential number OC 674202 before the CFIA. 5. Availability is required to renew documentation for Institutions. Review performed: 1. The project is identified before APC with code APC 161053 and OC 674202. The contract was signed on December 11, 2014, and has the construction permit identified with number PC 658 2015 from the Municipality of Desamparados. 2. The document that was provided as an Availability Certificate to upload the plans to the CFIA and obtain the permits is a note identified with number SB-GSGAM-OS2014-042; said document does not correspond to an Availability Certificate; however, it was the one with which the process was carried out, and it is also consistent with the Water Capacity Certificate provided, which indicates that the same improvements must be carried out. Said note is presented below in the following images: (…) 3. The approved plans are reviewed, and indeed the property is divided into 11 affiliated properties, within which the 777 consumption units are intended to be realized. 4. Within the approved plans, it is possible to determine that the requested improvements were indicated, both in the note from images 2 and 3, and also in the previously described Water Capacity Certificate. 5. On the other hand, the urban development area has file AM-2704, which belongs to the project; this has approval in 2011 through document COND-2011-14 and BIT-2011-08; it was approved according to the availability UNSD-GAM.0834-2010-0061. As can be observed, this approval predates the construction permit, and even predates the document that was granted to obtain the construction permits. 6. For this project, a review of cases approved by SETENA is carried out, for which no data is found prior to 2018: (…) 7. For this specific project, the viewer of the Dirección de Aguas of MINAE is reviewed, and it is discovered that there are no concessions for the property: (…) 8. According to the potable water database of this unit, the property has frontage on its boundary with a public street, a 100 mm PVC potable water pipe belonging to the Tres Ríos System. Legality Analysis: 1. The case has sufficient background to be able to renew the water capacity certificate; it is important to determine that the project will be developed in STAGES according to the interested parties' instructions, so the term thereof shall be for 12 months (in the absence of a different indication from the interested party), in reference to the provisions of article 37 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios, which I quote verbatim: “…For real estate developments conceived in stages, availability certificates may be renewed in accordance with the progress of the project for each stage to be executed. In the event that the developer does not exercise this possibility, AyA will issue the certificate with a validity of 12 months, subject to the possibility of an extension for the period that the developer formally justifies, for which AyA will require the submission of the site design of the urban development…” 2. Also, consider that, within the set of plans approved by the CFIA and the Municipality (which are not the same as those approved by the urban development area since they do not include the requested improvements), the requested improvements are already contemplated within the project, so if the condominium has not been received, the Water Capacity Certificate must also be granted. 3. In this case, an expiration of the previous one does not apply (in terms of legal activation terms) since at the time the contract was executed before the CFIA, the note was in force. Conclusion: 1. The Renewal of water capacity certificate SIGDD-2021-00004347-1-2-1 was due to the fact that the project it refers to has sufficient background since the interested party has demonstrated having carried out concrete procedures related to the execution of the construction project, such as approval before the CFIA and the AyA Dirección de Urbanizaciones, in addition to having the respective construction permit; therefore, not renewing said certificate could bring legal problems to the Institution. 2. An important point to note is that in November 2014, the date on which the first water capacity certificate for this project was issued, the water balance in the sector where the subject property is located was positive, and therefore there were no impacts on the potable water service for this reason, so there were no technical reasons at that time to deny said application. 3. Everything related to the environmental matter must be addressed directly with Setena and other competent entities, which is the reason why all real estate projects of this type must have the respective environmental viability. (…)”. Furthermore, the chief of staff of the Executive Presidency of ICAA, by official communication PRE-2021-01439 of December 9, 2021, addressed to the protected party, stated: “(…) In response to your official communication 011-ASECODES-2021, I attach memorandum UEN-OSMS-GAM-2021-00260, signed by the UEN Optimización de Sistemas Mejoramiento de Sistemas GAM, which issues an opinion on the availability of the La Arboleda Condominium, Desamparados. Also attached is the Water Capacity Certificate SIGDD-2021-00004347-1-2-1 issued on March 9, 2021 (…)”.
Now then, in the first place, it should be noted that, even though the respondent authority has informed under oath that the email to which the protected party’s request was sent is not an official mechanism, it is no less true that it follows from the case record that such request was acknowledged and processed, thus creating the obligation to address it and notify the petitioner accordingly.
On the other hand, even though it follows from the case record that the respondent authority issued a response through official communication PRE-2021-01439 of December 9, 2021, which in turn refers to memo UEN-OSMS-GAM-2021-00260 of December 9, 2021, it is no less true that it does not follow from the record that such documents were notified to the protected party via the means indicated for such purposes.
Therefore, since it is not proven that the appealed authority communicated to the petitioner the response corresponding to the request that is the subject of this recurso, it is appropriate to grant the recurso.
VI.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ. Unlike the majority of the Chamber, I consider that the petitioner’s rights were not violated. As indicated in Considerando III, the email to which the petitioner sent the request does not constitute an official mechanism for handling communications. For the foregoing reason, I consider the claim to be inadmissible, regardless of whether or not the petitioner was answered, since it is evident that the email to which the interested party sent their request does not constitute an official means for the receipt of such requests.
VII.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE. The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material that is not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The recurso is granted. Tomás Francisco Martínez Baldares, in his capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever holds the position, is ordered to coordinate whatever is necessary, issue the pertinent orders, and carry out all actions within the scope of his powers so that, within the period of THREE DAYS, counted from the notification of this judgment, the amparo-protected party is notified of the result of the request presented through official communication no. 011-ASECODES-2021, via the means indicated for such purposes. The appealed authority is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and fails to comply with it or fails to have it complied with, provided that the offense is not more severely punished. The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the actions that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be determined in the execution of judgment of the contentious-administrative proceeding. Magistrate Castillo Víquez dissents and declares the recurso without merit. Notify.
Fernando Castillo V. President \n\nJorge Araya G.
Ana María Picado B.
Ileana Sánchez N.
Aracelly Pacheco S.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Jorge Isaac Solano A.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *VM3LEQBZKB861*
Sala Constitucional Clase de asunto: Recurso de amparo Analizado por: SALA CONSTITUCIONAL Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente 3*210245650007CO* Res. Nº 2022000562 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas quince minutos del siete de enero de dos mil veintidos .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente n.° 21-024565- 0007-CO , interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001] Y [Nombre 002], cédula de identidad [Valor 002], en representación del GRUPO ECOLOGISTA DE DESEMPARADOS, contra el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (ICAA). Resultando: 1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 13:18 horas del 1° de diciembre de 2021, la parte accionante interpone recurso de amparo. Relatan que el 30 de abril de 2021, recibieron el oficio PRE-2021-2021 rubricado por el presidente ejecutivo del ICAA. Explican que tal oficio es la respuesta al memorial 006-ASECODES2021, relativo a la disponibilidad de agua de un proyecto urbanístico denominado La Arboleda, que se pretende desarrollar en la zona de amortiguamiento de la Zona Especial Forestal Loma de Salitral, ubicada en el Cantón de Desamparados. Arguyen que en la respuesta se adujo que " NO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE AGUA POTABLE, NI TAMPOCO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE SISTEMA DE ALCANTARILLADO AL FRENTE DE LA PROPIEDAD, pero se le otorgó la CCH en la que se Indica '...se deberán realizar las siguientes mejoras en el acueducto"; además, en el oficio se consignó que al estar en una circunstancia como la descrita se deberán hacer mejoras en el acueducto para interconectar con la red de distribución del lugar para que se otorgue la certificación de capacidad hídrica. Relatan que en la sesión extraordinaria n.° 5-2021 del Concejo Municipal de Desamparados fueron recibidos personeros del ICAA, con el fin de dar a conocer la situación actual del abastecimiento de agua potable del cantón de Desamparados, donde se llegó a la conclusión de que existe un déficit importante en la zona. Detallan que ante la discordancia de lo certificado por la Presidencia Ejecutiva y las Áreas Técnicas: Unidad de Utilización de Sistemas del Acueducto Metropolitano-Área de Disponibilidad y Nuevos Servicios Sistema GAM, se remitió vía correo electrónico a la dirección [email protected] el oficio n.° 011-ASECODES-2021, el 20 de julio de 2021, cuyo objeto era que se enmendara la certificación de capacidad hídrica otorgada. Sostienen que el 3 de setiembre de 2021, enviaron el memorial 012-ASECODES-2021 al presidente ejecutivo del ICAA, donde insistieron se diera respuesta a la consulta contenida en el documento 011-ASECODES-2021, recibido por esa dependencia desde el 20 de julio 2021. Aseguran que el 4 de octubre, ante la falta de respuesta, volvieron a solicitar respuesta. Reclaman que al momento de interposición de este recurso, no han recibido respuesta alguna. Agregan que el 21 de noviembre de 2021, el presidente ejecutivo del ICAA rindió una entrevista al periódico La Nación en relación el problema de agua para los proyectos habitacionales en la Gran Área Metropolitana. Piden se declare con lugar el recurso. 2.- Mediante resolución de la Presidencia de la Sala de las 11:51 horas del 3 de diciembre de 2021, se dio curso al amparo y se solicitó informe al presidente ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.- Por escrito incorporado en el expediente digital a las 16:19 horas del 13 de diciembre de 2021, informa bajo juramento Tomás Francisco Martínez Baldares, en su condición de presidente ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Expresa: “ EN CUANTO A LOS HECHOS PRIMERO: Que, en atención a la situación objeto del amparo planteado por el Señor [Nombre 001] y Otro, contra el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, se procede a verificar la información relativa en torno al caso, encontrándose que, según informa la Licenciada Marisol Aguilar Hernández, Asesora de la Presidencia Ejecutiva de este Instituto, mediante Memorando N°PRE-2021-01440 de fecha 09 de diciembre del 2021, verificados los registros que al efecto lleva este Instituto, la Señora Silvia Rodas, Asistente Administrativa informó que en efecto a través de correo electrónico de la Presidencia Ejecutiva de AyA [email protected] se recibió el oficio No. 011-ASECODES-2021, el 20 de julio de 2021; dicho oficio no se presentó ni recibió en el despacho, sino vía correo electrónico a la dirección antes señalada. Adicionalmente es importante señalar, que se solicitó al área técnica encargada remitir la respuesta correspondiente a los solicitantes y mediante el oficio PRE-2021-01439 se brindó respuesta al Grupo Ecologista de Desamparados. SEGUNDO: Que, el Licenciado Luis Fernando Cubillo Lobo, Director de la UEN Servicio al Cliente Comercial GAM de este Instituto, informó mediate (sic) Memorando N°UEN-SCC-GAM2021-02562 de fecha 09 de diciembre del 2021, que según consulta realizada a las bases de datos del Sistema de Administración (CRM), no se registran interacciones derivadas del proceso de atención de trámites, reclamos y consultas, lo cual evidencia que la única gestión presentada se hizo por medio de la dirección de correo electrónico [email protected]. TERCERO: Que, resulta de vital importancia señalar en relación a los medios oficiales para atender gestiones de los usuarios, que el correo electrónico [email protected] forma parte de los medios no presenciales oficiales comunicados a los usuarios de la institución para la gestión de consultas, trámites y reclamos. Así mismo también se cuenta con medios como Chat de página web, servicio en línea de reporte de averías en página web, y aplicación móvil “Servicios AyA”, habilitados las 24 horas los 365 días del año, para reporte de averías u otras interacciones como información de eventos que afectan la prestación del servicio o reclamos y el servicio de atención telefónica línea 800-REPORTE (800-737-6783), disponible las 24 horas los 365 días del año. El correo [email protected] no es un medio oficial para formalizar gestiones, es un correo que corresponde al Despacho de Presidencia Ejecutiva, y en este sentido, resulta importante también destacar, que dicho correo es una herramienta para agilizar y facilitar las gestiones de la oficina, es decir es una herramienta facilitadora, sin que a la fecha se tenga como un medio o lineamiento formal que los caracterice como medio oficial de comunicación, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Reglamento para la adquisición y Administración de Recursos Informáticos en su artículo 36, que a la letra señala: “Artículo 36: Usos del correo electrónico: El correo electrónico es una herramienta de trabajo para agilizar y facilitar las gestiones de cada oficina. Su uso se encuentra regulado por Directriz de Junta Directiva.” CUARTO: En consecuencia, resulta importante referirnos al principio de legalidad consagrado en el artículo 11 de nuestra Constitución Política, el cual advierte que los actos y comportamientos de la Administración deben de estar regulados por norma escrita, de tal manera, AyA debe someterse a la Constitución Política y a la ley preferentemente; y en general a todas las normas del Ordenamiento Jurídico, conocido como Principio de Juridicidad de la Administración, lo que significa que las instituciones públicas solamente pueden actuar en la medida en la que se encuentren apoderadas para hacer por el mismo ordenamiento y normalmente a texto expreso, en consecuencia solo le es permitido lo que esté constitucionalmente y legalmente autorizado en forma expresa y todo lo que no les esté autorizado les está vedado. QUINTO: Partiendo del principio supracitado, este Instituto debe ajustarse a la normativa reglamentaria que nos rige y a los principios generales de la ciencia y la técnica; de conformidad con el artículo 16 inciso 1) de la ley General de la Administración Pública, que señala: “En ningún caso podrán dictarse actos contrarios a reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica…”; de ahí que de conformidad a los argumentos mencionados, AyA ha cumplido con lo solicitado por el Señor [Nombre 001] y no ha vulnerado ninguno de sus derechos fundamentales, por lo que no es posible acoger la solicitud del recurrente en las condiciones como él pretende. SEXTO: Como puede constatarlo este Honorable Tribunal, el AyA ha actuado conforme a la normativa que lo regula, sin manipulación antojadiza de la prestación del servicio, ni del ejercicio de sus funciones, llevando a cabo en todo momento actuaciones debidamente fundamentadas y razonadas como se detalló; se evidencia así que el Instituto ha procedido conforme a derecho, sin que ninguno de sus actos haya violentado ningún derecho constitucional, por el contrario, de los argumentos expuestos y la prueba aportada se puede concluir que efectivamente el AyA ha procedido según le corresponde. PETITORIA: Por lo antes expuesto, y en razón de demostrarse que los hechos alegados mediante este Recurso de Amparo, que nuestras actuaciones han sido las correctas de conformidad con la normativa que nos rige, solicitamos se declare sin lugar el presente Recurso, se ordene archivar el expediente y se exima de toda responsabilidad al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados”. 4.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.
Redacta la Magistrada Fernandez Acuña ; y,
Considerando:
I.- SOBRE LA EXCEPCIÓN AL ARTÍCULO 41 CONSTITUCIONAL. De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto -por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido- debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia No. 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa- con algunas excepciones-, aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o las leyes sectoriales para los procedimientos administrativos especiales, para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo -instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte- o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en el sub lite, se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se trata de un asunto relacionado con el supuesto retardo en atender una aparente impugnación de un certificado de capacidad hídrica. Aclarado lo anterior, se conoce por el fondo sobre el recurso de amparo.
II.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Los recurrentes exponen que formularon una consulta al ICAA, en relación con la disponibilidad de agua de un proyecto urbanístico denominado La Arboleda, que se pretende desarrollar en la zona de amortiguamiento de la Zona Especial Forestal Loma de Salitral, ubicada en el Cantón de Desamparados. Alegan que en respuesta a tal consulta, el presidente ejecutivo del ICAA, por oficio PRE-2021-2021, les comunicó en relación con ese proyecto que "NO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE AGUA POTABLE, NI TAMPOCO HAY DISPONIBILIDAD DE SISTEMA DE ALCANTARILLADO AL FRENTE DE LA PROPIEDAD, pero se le otorgó la CCH en la que se Indica '...se deberán realizar las siguientes mejoras en el acueducto". Reprochan que se haya dado el otorgamiento de la certificación de capacidad hídrica. Relatan que en la sesión extraordinaria n.° 5-2021 del Concejo Municipal de Desamparados se conoció la situación actual del abastecimiento de agua potable del cantón de Desamparados, donde se llegó a la conclusión de que existe un déficit importante en la zona. Por lo anterior, exponen que el 20 de julio de 2021 remitieron una gestión a la dirección [email protected] , cuyo objeto era que la Presidencia Ejecutiva del ICAA enmendara la certificación de capacidad hídrica otorgada, pero debido a la falta de respuesta, el 3 de setiembre y el 4 de octubre de 2021 volvieron a solicitar una respuesta. Reclaman que no han recibido respuesta alguna.
III.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque la autoridad recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos, según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
De modo que, al no acreditarse que la autoridad recurrida le haya comunicado a la parte recurrente la respuesta correspondiente a la gestión objeto de este recurso, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso.
VI.- VOTO SALVADO DEL MAGISTRADO CASTILLO VÍQUEZ. A diferencia de la mayoría de la Sala, considero que los derechos del recurrente no fueron lesionados. Tal y como se indica en el Considerando III, el correo electrónico al cual la parte recurrente remitió la gestión no constituye un mecanismo oficial para la atención de comunicaciones. Por lo anterior, estimo que el reclamo resulta improcedente, con independencia de si a la parte recurrente le contestaron o no, pues se denota que el correo electrónico al que el interesado remitió su gestión, no constituye un medio oficial para la recepción de tales gestiones.
VII.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE . Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a Tomás Francisco Martínez Baldares, en su condición de presidente ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, o a quien ocupe el cargo, que coordine lo necesario, gire las órdenes pertinentes y lleve a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de sus competencias para que, dentro del plazo de TRES DÍAS , contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, le notifique a la amparada el resultado de la gestión planteada mediante oficio n.° 011-ASECODES-2021, al medio señalado para tales efectos. Se advierte a la autoridad recurrida que, de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. El magistrado Castillo Víquez salva el voto y declara sin lugar el recurso. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Jorge Araya G.
Ana María Picado B.
Ileana Sánchez N.
Aracelly Pacheco S.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Jorge Isaac Solano A.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *VM3LEQBZKB861*
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.