← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 27295-2022 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 18/11/2022
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is partially granted only regarding the violation of the right to petition and timely response, ordering notification of the responses to the appellants within three days; in all other respects, it is denied.Se declara parcialmente con lugar el amparo únicamente en cuanto a la vulneración del derecho de petición y pronta respuesta, ordenando notificar las respuestas a los recurrentes en tres días; en lo demás, se declara sin lugar.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo action filed by neighbors against the ASADA of Tierra Blanca de Cartago, the Municipality of Cartago, the ICAA, the CNE, and the Ministry of Health, regarding the construction of a 415 m³ water storage tank on an adjacent property. The neighbors alleged structural risks, lack of environmental permits, procedural defects, and failure to respond to their requests for information. The Chamber dismissed the substantive claims, finding that the tank had soil studies, municipal permits, and did not require an EIA under the Regulatory Plan, and that the water seepage was from natural groundwater, not tank leaks. However, it partially upheld the amparo, as the ASADA had drafted responses to the information requests but could not prove they had been notified, violating the right to petition and timely response. It ordered notification of the response letters within three days and imposed costs, damages, and losses on the ASADA.La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos contra la ASADA de Tierra Blanca de Cartago, la Municipalidad de Cartago, el ICAA, la CNE y el Ministerio de Salud, por la construcción de un tanque de almacenamiento de agua de 415 m³ en un terreno colindante, alegando riesgos estructurales, falta de permisos ambientales, defectos en el procedimiento administrativo y desatención de sus solicitudes de información. La Sala desestimó las alegaciones sustantivas sobre riesgos y legalidad de la construcción, al constatar que el tanque cuenta con estudios de suelos, permisos municipales y no requería EIA según el Plan Regulador, y que el agua brotada obedece a aguas subterráneas, no a filtraciones. Sin embargo, declaró parcialmente con lugar el amparo al verificar que, si bien la ASADA elaboró respuestas a las solicitudes de información de los recurrentes, no constaba que se las hubiera notificado, vulnerando así su derecho de petición y pronta respuesta. Ordenó notificar los oficios de respuesta en tres días y condenó a la ASADA al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios.
Key excerptExtracto clave
“The appeal is partially granted, solely with respect to the requests filed by the appellants on February 22, March 4, and April 5, all in 2022, before the Administrative Association of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer System (ASADA) of Tierra Blanca de Cartago. It is ordered that Vera Céspedes Quesada, in her capacity as president of the ASADA of Tierra Blanca de Cartago, or whoever holds that position, issue the pertinent orders, carry out all actions within the scope of her powers, and coordinate whatever is necessary so that, within a period of THREE DAYS counted from the notification of this judgment, the appellants be notified — through the means indicated for that purpose — of the letters ASADAPRES-009-2022 dated February 22, 2022, ASADAPRES-013-2022 dated March 4, 2022, and ASADAPRES-0016-2022 dated March 21, 2022. [...] In all other respects, the appeal is denied.”“Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, únicamente respecto a las gestiones presentadas por los recurrentes en fechas 22 de febrero, el 04 de marzo y el 05 de abril, todos de 2022 ante la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Tierra Blanca de Cartago. Se ordena a Vera Céspedes Quesada, en su condición de presidenta de la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario (ASADA) de Tierra Blanca de Cartago, o a quien ocupe ese cargo, que gire las órdenes pertinentes, lleve a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y coordine lo necesario para que, en el plazo de TRES DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se les notifique a los accionantes -a través del medio señalado para ello- los oficios ASADAPRES-009-2022 de fecha 22 de febrero de 2022, el oficio ASADAPRES-013-2022 del 04 de marzo de 2022 y el oficio ASADAPRES-0016-2022 de fecha 21 de marzo de 2022. [...] En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso.”
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Este Tribunal ha señalado que el derecho de petición y pronta respuesta, encierra una doble vertiente, ya que implica no sólo el derecho que ostenta todo ciudadano para dirigirse a cualquier funcionario o entidad oficial, con el fin de exponer un asunto de su interés, o bien solicitar determinada información, sino además obliga a la Administración a recibir y responder las mismas dentro del plazo de diez días."
"This Court has indicated that the right to petition and timely response encompasses a dual aspect, as it implies not only the right of every citizen to address any official or public entity to raise a matter of interest or request certain information, but also obliges the Administration to receive and respond to such requests within a ten-day period."
Considerando IV
"Este Tribunal ha señalado que el derecho de petición y pronta respuesta, encierra una doble vertiente, ya que implica no sólo el derecho que ostenta todo ciudadano para dirigirse a cualquier funcionario o entidad oficial, con el fin de exponer un asunto de su interés, o bien solicitar determinada información, sino además obliga a la Administración a recibir y responder las mismas dentro del plazo de diez días."
Considerando IV
"no consta que la ASADA accionada le haya notificado dichas respuestas a los recurrentes. Así las cosas, en cuanto a este punto, se declara con lugar el recurso."
"it is not shown that the respondent ASADA notified the appellants of these responses. Therefore, on this point, the appeal is granted."
Considerando IX
"no consta que la ASADA accionada le haya notificado dichas respuestas a los recurrentes. Así las cosas, en cuanto a este punto, se declara con lugar el recurso."
Considerando IX
"la Sala estima que debe desestimarse el amparo en cuanto a este extremo, pues no se constata fehacientemente una vulneración a los derechos fundamentales de los accionantes."
"the Chamber considers that the amparo must be dismissed regarding this aspect, since no violation of the appellants' fundamental rights is reliably verified."
Considerando VIII
"la Sala estima que debe desestimarse el amparo en cuanto a este extremo, pues no se constata fehacientemente una vulneración a los derechos fundamentales de los accionantes."
Considerando VIII
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Case File: 22-014208-0007-CO Type of Matter: *Amparo* Appeal CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the eighteenth of November, two thousand twenty-two.
*Amparo* appeal processed in case file No. 22-014208-0007-CO, filed by FERNANDO AGUILAR GÓMEZ, identity card 0301930536 and JAIRO DE JESÚS AGUILAR ARIAS, identity card 0304350006, against the ADMINISTRATIVE ASSOCIATION OF THE AQUEDUCT AND SANITARY SEWER (ASADA) OF TIERRA BLANCA DE CARTAGO, THE COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS, THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARTAGO AND THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR RISK PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
Whereas:
The material residues, which are minimal, will be removed once the construction of the 415m3 tank has been completed—it has not been completed, as it is at 90% and not even in operation. They are aware that the water filtration is due to groundwater, which is of natural origin, and not from tank leaks…”. “… This same issue was analyzed by the Urban Planning Department of the Municipality of Cartago, which indicated, regarding the complaint filed by Mr. Jairo Aguilar Arias, through official communication dated July 12, 2022, number DU-OF-609-2022, the following: “In view of the aforementioned official communications, it is possible to conclude that the tank under study meets all the technical requirements for its installation, stability, and permanence, and therefore the undersigned has no competence to object to the reports cited”…”. “… The plaintiff does not indicate that the new 415m3 tank, and the 40 m3 tank, are set back from the wall that is indicated as having a 3-centimeter tilt by approximately 6 to 7 meters distance.
From the foregoing, it is accredited that both in the aforementioned response communications, as well as the documentation requested from the ASADA and the complaint filed at the municipal level, the appellants were duly attended to …”. “… It is true that the property of the ASADA of Tierra Blanca acquired the right since 2007, since subsequently, the property was individualized and the 415 m3 tank is being built. Indeed, a 415 m3 fiberglass tank was built. This is better than a metal tank, which is heavier. Study No. SUB-G-GSG-UEN-GA-ISO-2013-2698, called “Diagnóstico de la situación y propuesta de Mejoras” of the Acueducto de Tierra Blanca de Cartago. This was endorsed by AYA in the Department of Verification of Project Resolution Documentation on February 11, 2020, a copy of which is attached. This representation does not understand the basis for stating that the cited study is expired.
Since, while it is recommended to update diagnostics every 5 years, this is not an obstacle to saying it is expired…”. “… By documents that Mr. Jairo has referred to the Urban Planning Department of the Municipality of Cartago and by email to the ASADA, this is indicated. But as it is well stated, it is a wall that adjoins the municipal easement (servidumbre municipal), and the construction is municipal. It should be noted that if the reconstruction of the same is opportune, the ASADA can collaborate with its construction, jointly with the municipal entity…”. “…Now then, as indicated, the water that springs forth is not due to filtration from the tanks or from any specific spring (naciente), but rather it is the product of groundwater in the area…”. “…the construction of the 415 m3 tank has its soil mechanics study from August 2019, which supports the soil's bearing capacity and requires the construction of piles to settle the cited tank and establish the optimal conditions for the construction of said tank…”.
“… Regarding the period when this ASADA administration began, we cannot attest to what has been indicated since 2013. What we can indicate is that the mentioned Ministry of Health report exists…”. “… at the level of the Asada of Tierra Blanca, once the construction works of the cited tank have been completed, steps will be taken to obtain the endorsement for said 415 m3 tank, which has not been completed, to operate. This is part of the Optimization Proposal for the Use of the Internal Space of the Metallic Tank and the Use of the 415m3 PRFV Tank, per official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270…”. “… It is true that the Asada Board of Directors decided, not as the appellant indicates “to discontinue”, the use of the tank called the metallic tank, which had a capacity of 500 m3. This was because it had already reached the end of its useful life, but rather for the purpose of protecting Public Health.
Said tank had serious oxidation problems, and the treatment required to cure the tank, that is, its thickness, and therefore, upon recommendation of the same technical report Optimization Proposal for the Use of the Internal Space of the Metallic Tank and the Use of the 415m3 PRFV Tank, per official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270, it was decided to modify its use from tank to warehouse and install three polyethylene tanks inside it, with plans to include up to two more to store water and thus provide better service to the branch it supplies. This seems an adequate measure to meet the continuity and quality requirements of the public service provided by the ASADA…”. “… The Asada acquired right 002 on the property registered in the Cartago Registry under title number 29782-000 on February 20, 2007, under cadastral plan No. C-21339872-2019. Subsequently, the right was individualized through Cadastral Plan No. C-218685-2020, and it was given the new title number, in said registry, under number 265126-000…”.
“… The tank in question has a construction area of 98 square meters. Furthermore, the land use granted by the Municipality on May 21, 2020, indicates it is for conditioned use in a high-density residential zone in Tierra Blanca, according to the Reglamento de Zonificación of the Plan Regulador of Cartago. From which it is concluded that the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) from Setena is not required…”. “… The previous Board of Directors failed to request the accompaniment that must be provided by the ICAA – Eastern East Sector Office of Cartago. But the construction plans, which is another department of the ICAA, granted them as indicated. Indeed, when Engineer Esteban Marín arrived to do the work acceptance study, he issued the inspection report official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05313 dated November 14, 2020, in which he noted deficiencies and requested compliance with information.
Upon compliance, he issued the report of the Optimization Proposal for the Use of the Internal Space of the Metallic Tank and the Use of the 415 m3 PRFV Tank, per official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-0270, which modifies the previous report…”. She requests that the appeal be dismissed.
That is not true; the ORAC Central Este does not have in its possession the procedural documents for the granting of construction permits for the 415m3 tank project; to the contrary, the complete certified digital files of the reviews performed regarding compliance with requirements by the corresponding bodies (CFIA and Municipality of Cartago) have been requested, and there is still no response to the request made. It is true with annotations; it is important to clarify that the ORAC Central Este does not grant an operating approval (aval de funcionamiento) as mentioned in the brief; the authorization reference made mention of, or that is intended to be referred to, is the acceptance of works (aval de recepción de obras) in relation to the construction project for the 415m3 storage tank; which project, in fact, did not have the approval (aval) from the ORAC throughout its entire construction process and completed works acceptance.
That is not true; the appeal brief mentions that the technical study report expired in the year 2013, which is not true, since in the mentioned year, resolution report SUB-G-GSG-UEN-GA-ISO-2013-2698 was issued, endorsing the content of the technical study presented by the ASADA of Tierra Blanca, with its validity expiring 5 years later, according to the process of considering the improvement works presented in said technical report within an investment plan for the period from 2013 to 2018. This does not mean that the ASADA and its Board of Directors in office for that period had the approval (aval) of the ORAC Central Este to carry out the construction of the 415m3 PRFV storage tank." As indicated in the first fact, the Asada of Tierra Blanca de Cartago did not request prior authorization for the construction of the tank, in compliance with the provisions of Article 45 cited above…" "…It is true with clarifications.
According to the report issued by the Engineering Area of the ORAC Central Este, it must be clarified that it has effectively not been possible to access the complete digital or physical copies of the review files requested from the reviewing bodies; the ORAC Central Este has actively participated as a mediator in the process of requesting the required information, but no effective response has been received from the ASADA, the CFIA and the Municipality of Cartago, but we have no record of the requests made by the appellants before the different instances cited above. As can be observed, the information required by the appellants has not been generated by AyA; therefore, it cannot be provided; rather, the documentation required must also be requested from other Entities by the Institute, so AyA cannot be attributed with a lack of response for information that is located in offices external to AyA.
In that sense, the provisions of Article 100 of the Asadas Regulation, Executive Decree No. 42582-S-MINAE, must be taken into consideration, which states: "Article 100. Authority to formulate petitions, complaints and/or claims before the Board of Directors of the ASADA. Any user or person with a legitimate interest may formulate petitions to the Board of Directors of the ASADA, who must resolve and respond within the time limits established for that purpose by the General Law of Public Administration, the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excessive Administrative Requirements and Procedures and other related laws. In everything not indicated in this chapter, what is established by the General Law of Public Administration and related norms shall be subsidiarily applied." It follows from that rule that users or persons with a legitimate interest must submit their petitions to the Asada; therefore, it is the responsibility of said Association to supply the required documentation as they are the operators of the aqueduct system, and AyA cannot be blamed for not delivering documentation that not even the Institute itself has access to…" "…That is not true.
Regarding what is stated in this fact, report GSD-UENGAR-2022-02814, dated July 19, 2022, indicates: "at this point reference is made to the hydraulic work known as the 500m3 metal tank, it was built between 1985 and 1988, it is effectively constructed of steel sheets; from its construction process, there is no evidence that the steel material was treated correctly; therefore, given its deterioration between 2016 and 2018, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca, with its Board of Directors in office, made the decision to place an internal fiberglass lining (revestimiento interno en fibra de vidrio), which presented adhesion problems one year after its application; upon removing the material, it was possible to demonstrate that the damage from oxidation and corrosion is very severe, so treating the walls to restore an optimal surface for the placement of any lining material would be an excessive cost for the aqueduct and would generate considerable weakening of the steel material; the following photographs show the conditions in which the Metal Tank walls were found…" "…Clarification is made that the company Fibertank, mentioned in the brief, carries out the improvement works on the hydraulic works for the Tierra Blanca aqueduct, validating the warranty for the work performed and the contractual process.
Therefore, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca cannot hire another company, as it would lose the warranty for the contracted work." It is important to clarify that the contractual relationships of the Asadas are their own, without any interference from AyA, and must respect the principles of administrative contracting; therefore, AyA would not be the competent body to resolve situations that arise with this type of contracts, but rather this would be done through judicial channels. Added to the above, it is reiterated that the Asada did not process prior authorization from the ORAC Central Este for the construction of this work…" "…Regarding the affirmations and/or accusations expressed by the appellants, the technical report states: "Given the affirmations of this point by the appellant, reference will be made to what is relevant and corresponding, discharging the falsehood of the accusation made by the appellants: While it is true that AyA is the governing and supervisory body of the ASADAS, this responsibility has the scope based on Article 28, subsections b, e, g and l of the ASADAS Regulation; which indicates the following: Article 28. - Obligations and rights of the ASADAS.
In relation to the provision of services delegated to the ASADAS, these community organizations are obliged to provide and ensure the adequate provision of drinking water supply and wastewater sanitation services in their area of competence. For such purposes, they have the following obligations and rights: a. Mandatory Compliance: Comply in all respects with the provisions established in this Regulation, other regulations, rulings, directives, circulars, and criteria related to their operation and the provision of public services. b. AyA Approval: Submit their Statutes and their amendments to AyA for approval (visto bueno), prior to submission to the Registry of Associations for registration; likewise, sign the respective delegation agreement (convenio de delegación) with AyA that empowers them to provide public services under the responsibility of the Institute. c. Access to Services: Grant public services efficiently, equally, and timely to all users, without distinctions of any nature, provided that the requirements established for that purpose are met and understanding access to drinking water and wastewater sanitation as fundamental human rights for life and health. d. Accountability: Submit periodic reports to the Assembly, the community, and AyA on actions taken regarding the provision of services, in accordance with the provisions of subsection h) of Article 21 of this regulation. e. Requests to AyA: Request from AyA governing advice and technical assistance, accompaniment, and any other support necessary for the correct provision of the services they provide. f. Training: Receive general and specific training from AyA and other public or private institutions or organizations that allow them to provide the delegated services in the best manner.
ASADAS may use, among other inputs, the National Plan for Continuous Training of ASADAS and any other academic or technical instruments to meet their training needs. g. Attention to AyA: Attend to the requests formulated by AyA with the utmost promptness and efficiency, complying with legal deadlines. h. Summons: Attend training calls and summonses required by the Institution. i. Use of public funds: Use the public funds generated by the provision of the delegated services for necessary efforts, provided they are oriented towards achieving the purposes set forth in this Regulation. j. Issuance of certifications: Issue certificates of service availability and hydraulic capacity letters, contributing to the development of their communities, in accordance with their water balance and provided it is technically and legally feasible. k. Attention to emergencies and natural disasters: Receive the governing advice, accompaniment, and technical assistance they require in addressing emergencies and natural disasters that arise. l. Institutional backing: The ASADAS will have the backing of AyA for their actions, provided these are framed within the rules that govern them and focused on best practices.
(The underlining does not correspond to the original). With this article, it is mentioned that when a community operating entity possesses the delegation agreement from AyA, it obtains the degree of responsibility to submit for approval any action it wishes to carry out regarding investment project development where public funds are required; the ASADA is obligated to communicate to the ORAC Central Este every project it wishes to undertake; since the ORAC Central Este does not have exclusive attention for the ASADA of Tierra Blanca; on the contrary, it serves around 166 ASADAS, with an equal volume of demands for attention and consultations; therefore, asserting that the ORAC must exclusively supervise the actions carried out by an ASADA is utopian and far removed from the operational reality of ASADA service management in the region and its high demand. Now, clarifying once again that the ORAC Central Este does not grant the operating approval (aval de funcionamiento), but rather an acceptance of completed hydraulic works (aceptación en la recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas), through official letter GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05313, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca was notified that the request for acceptance of completed hydraulic works (recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas) for the 415m3 tank project is not approved, because the ORAC did not participate in the project approval process, nor was it part of the construction process, to guarantee the quality of the work performed and attest to adequate construction practices.
Even with the denial of acceptance of works (recepción de obras) by the ORAC, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca and the Board of Directors in office for that period decided to continue with the construction process and process the corresponding permits for the supposed completion of the work, for which the Federated College and the Municipality of Cartago granted the respective permits for the continuity of the project execution; so, within my scope as a technical advisor to the ASADA, it does not grant me the qualities to interrupt the start-up of a hydraulic work; an asset built by the ASADA and which required investment of public funds that cannot simply be abandoned. Said hydraulic work (415m3 Storage Tank) possesses the corresponding permits; therefore, as the professional responsible for management as an ASADA advisor, what I seek is to comply with everything established in the current legislation regarding Drinking Water Supply Systems.
I wish to express my unease at what was indicated by the appellant of this amparo appeal; as they mention that there is corruption on my part as a professional; when what is sought in the management carried out is to legalize and bring into compliance the operation of the aforementioned hydraulic work, which possesses the corresponding construction permits granted by the CFIA, the AyA Urbanization Departments, and the Municipality of Cartago. If the appellants have tangible evidence of the acts of corruption carried out by me as a professional, it must be provided as evidence; otherwise, they risk that I may take action in compliance with Article 145 of the Penal Code, as an act of defamation against a public official without having evidence to support their affirmations of an irregular and/or corrupt act." (The highlighting is not from the original). In that sense, it is necessary to indicate that said work has not been accepted (recibida) by the ORAC Central Este, since the necessary information to verify the technical feasibility of the construction and demonstrate that it was built complying with the technical standards established for that purpose is not available; therefore, responsibility could not be attributed to the Rural Aqueduct Service Office Central Este for actions of other Entities or offices that have participated in the approval to build the works.
It should be noted that the ORAC Central Este has requested the necessary information and clarifications to be able to accept the works (recibir las obras); proof of this is the official letter issued by the company Fibertank CR, SA, signed on September 30, 2021, which indicates where relevant: "Cordially, I address you with the purpose of rectifying some aspects concerning the 415m3 drinking water storage tank that our company built, and in turn, to present some situations and briefly explain why rectifying some aspects will not be possible. 1. 'Technical report of the updated technical study justifying the requirement for the volume and the work to be built.' It is important to mention that it is the responsibility of the ASADA to carry out said technical study and that in no clause of the contract on the day of its signing in November 2019 was it agreed or stipulated in any clause that the company had to do it or that the project would be subject to completion until said study was ready; therefore, it is not the company's responsibility. 2. 'Geotechnical study to determine the bearing capacity of the soil where the hydraulic work was carried out, with which the permits and plan approvals were processed before the CFIA via the APC, requiring basic studies for project plan approval,' 'That it complies with the GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC (PRFV) STORAGE TANKS.' Regarding this, it is worth noting that 2 soil studies were done, with which the bearing capacity of the soil could be determined, and in this way, the Engineer in charge of the Soil Study was able to make the foundation recommendation detailed in the second soil study performed, and the design and plans of the project were designed taking into account all these considerations; the project plans stamped by CFIA and the 2 soil studies are attached.
Furthermore, it is important to clarify that the project was signed in November 2019 and therefore is not subject to the new guidelines that came out in May 2020 because they were not in effect on the day the contract was signed. 3. 'Structural study.' In the initial plan and design of the tank, a calculation report was attached detailing the wall thickness of the tank and other elements such as PRFV, steel, concrete, in addition to the methodology and standards applied in its fabrication. 4. 'Environmental impact study.' I must mention the following: the entity responsible for requesting this procedure is the Municipality if necessary, and according to Resolution No. 1909-2017-SETENA of September 22, 2017, Article 5.- Activities: The activities, works, or projects that do not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) are the following: 16. Installation, operation and maintenance of break-pressure and elevated water storage tanks for human consumption and agricultural uses.
In addition, the work does not exceed 500m2; therefore, this project does not need an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental). 5. 'Detailed plans duly signed by the responsible professional.' The detailed plans with CFIA stamps and municipal stamp are attached. 6. 'Attach printout of the CFIA digital inspection log.' Said log is still open since the work has not been completed and therefore has not been delivered. 7. 'Technical report of the results of the compression, tension or traction, and rupture strength tests developed by the Castro y de la Torre laboratory from samples taken of the material.' Regarding this issue, our company is not obligated to produce said report, much less pay for these tests, which furthermore would have no technical basis because the 'Storage Tank' is not finished, so testing a product that is not finished is unjustified, as we were arbitrarily denied access to the project and prohibited from continuing to work to finish it, and said project has been at a standstill for approximately 12 months, where the material has suffered deterioration that has been the total responsibility of the ASADA when it decided to stop the work and did not allow the removal of metallic and PRFV elements to safeguard them in a safe place; on the contrary, all this material has been there for several months suffering severe damage from being exposed to the elements and vandalism. 8. 'Photographic Registry.' On Tuesday, October 5, a USB drive is delivered with the videos and photographs of the project from its inception, even videos of the drilling for the placement of the piles." As can be observed from each of the highlighted points, the ORAC Central Este, prior to accepting the works (recibir las obras), has requested the necessary technical reports to verify their viability; thus, the act of accepting works (recepción de obras) has not been carried out by that office, as it does not have all the technical information required for that purpose.
For this reason, no responsibility whatsoever could be imputed for the construction of the works, since they have neither been approved nor accepted. Regarding the various complaints filed with the AyA Audit Office, it is necessary to indicate that, to date, no final resolution that can be considered public information has been issued; added to the fact that the Audit Offices are independent bodies from ordinary work, so from the ORAC Central Este, we could not refer to the investigation process carried out by the Internal Audit of AyA…" Requests that the appeal be dismissed.
Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,
Considering:
Article 57 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law establishes that the amparo appeal shall be admissible against actions or omissions of subjects of Private Law, when these act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or are, by right or de facto, in a position of power against which common jurisdictional remedies are clearly insufficient or tardy to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms of the petitioners. In the case under study, the respondent ASADA is in the second of the situations established by the cited article, hence the appeal was admitted.
The appellants allege the existence of a water tank of 415 tons (415m3) and a water tank of 40 tons that are on the ASADA's land, which could endanger the surrounding population and nearby properties. They add that the existing damage from material waste, tank leakage, ponding, and live water currents was also presented to the respondent institutions. They argue that a wall was built with the agreement of the municipality and the adjacent owner. They affirm that currently, the wall structure is worn, presents a slope of up to 3 cm, suffers from wall detachment (decapitamiento) and live water currents at the base, which are the product of a spring (naciente) and leakage from the tanks themselves. They question that the land clearing and construction of the tanks began in 2019, even though the documentation from the CFIA and the Urban Planning Directorate of the Municipality of Cartago was signed in 2013, without the approval (aval) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA).
Furthermore, they accuse that from the moment the construction of the tank began, attempts have been made to obtain information and documentation from the ASADA, but it has been denied on multiple occasions. They add that at the beginning of 2022, a new request for information was made, but what was required was not delivered to them in its entirety. They point out that the Administrative Board of the ASADA decided to discontinue the operation of an old metal tank, whose capacity is 500 tons, which was built of metal approximately 40 years ago, but was improperly restored. They claim that the ASADA ordered the new tank to be put into operation, without considering the geographical gradient of the population, and without providing information to users. They highlight that complaint No.
07-03-2022 to the respondent authorities, and in particular the CNE was informed of the administrative and technical inconsistencies presented by the 415 m3 tank project, and the lack of information on possible risks to the population. They also warned that the soil studies provided by the ASADA do not satisfy the concern that the tank structure, the soils, and the retaining wall (muro de contención) have the capacity to support the 600 tons of additional weight. They allege that among the inconsistencies in the administrative procedures involved in the aforementioned project are: 1) That construction of the 415 m3 tank began without the transfer of the property into the name of the ASADA having been carried out, which also could not be verified. 2) That the application for and approval of the project before the CFIA and the Municipality of Cartago was based on an expired technical study (more than 5 years expired). 3) That the contract between the ASADA and the construction company FIBERTANK has a signature date of November 1, 2019; however, the construction plans and permits for the work were approved on October 9, 2019. 4) That the project does not have permits from SETENA. 5) That the ASADA of Tierra Blanca built the work without the endorsement (aval) of the ICAA -Cartago Eastern Sector Office.
For the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:
Regarding the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, CNE):
Regarding the ASADA of Tierra Blanca de Cartago:
Regarding the Municipality of Cartago:
Regarding the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados):
Regarding the Governing Health Area of Cartago (Área Rectora de Salud de Cartago):
This Court has indicated that the right to petition and prompt response entails a dual aspect, as it implies not only the right held by every citizen to address any official or public entity to present a matter of their interest or to request certain information, but it also obligates the Administration to receive and respond to them within a ten-day period, in accordance with Article 27 of the Political Constitution and numeral 32 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Therefore, it must issue a timely response, without denial of any kind; however, the exception exists that if it cannot fulfill the petition within the referenced period, it must communicate the impossibility of resolving it and shall set a reasonable period within which it will address the request. For its part, Article 30 of the Political Constitution encompasses the right of individuals to access information of public interest held by authorities and—consequently—the duty of the latter to deliver such information immediately if what is requested is available, all of the foregoing without prejudice to the existence of possible exceptions where information must be reserved in consideration of the protection of formally recognized relevant rights and interests.
The petitioners allege the existence of a 415-ton (415m3) water tank and a 40-ton water tank that are on the ASADA’s land, which could endanger the surrounding population and nearby properties. They add that the existing impact from waste materials, leakage from the tanks, water stagnation, and running water currents was also presented to the respondent institutions. They argue that a wall was built with the agreement of the municipality and the adjoining owner. They state that currently, the wall structure is worn, presents a slope of up to 3 cm, suffers spalling of the walls and running water currents at the base, which is a product of a spring (naciente) and leakage from the same tanks. They question that the land clearing and construction of the tanks began in 2019, even though the documentation from the CFIA and the Urban Planning Directorate of the Municipality of Cartago was signed in 2013, without the endorsement (aval) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA).
They point out that the Administrative Board of the ASADA decided to discontinue the operation of an old metal tank, whose capacity is 500 tons, which was built of metal approximately 40 years ago, but was improperly restored. They claim that the ASADA ordered the new tank to be put into operation, without considering the geographic gradient of the population, and without providing information to the users. They highlight that complaint No. 07-03-2022 was sent to the respondent authorities, and in particular the CNE was informed of the administrative and technical inconsistencies presented by the 415 m3 tank project, and the lack of information on possible risks to the population. They also warned that the soil studies provided by the ASADA do not satisfy the concern that the tank structure, the soils, and the retaining wall (muro de contención) have the capacity to support the 600 tons of additional weight. They allege that among the inconsistencies in the administrative procedures involved in the aforementioned project are:
VI.From the study of the case file, it is accredited that the ASADA of Tierra Blanca acquired a property in 2007 and subsequently, it was individualized. It is on this parcel of land where the 415 m3 fiberglass tank is being built. It is verified that the water that flows is not due to leaks from the tanks or from any specific spring (naciente), but rather it is a product of underground waters in the area. It is verified that the construction of the 415 m3 tank has, since August 2019, had a soil mechanics study, which supports the soil capacity and required the construction of piles to seat said tank and establish the optimal conditions for its construction. Likewise, the use of the tank known as the metallic tank, which had a capacity of 500 m3, fulfilled its useful life, as it had serious oxidation problems; therefore, upon the recommendation of the technical report “Optimization Proposal for the use of the internal space of the Metallic Tank and the use of the 415m3 GRP Tank, according to official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270” ("Propuesta de Optimización para el uso del espacio interno del Tanque Metálico y el uso del Tanque de PRFV de 415m3, según oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270"), it was decided to modify its use from tank to warehouse, and to install three polyethylene tanks inside to store water and thereby provide better service to the branch line that supplies the ASADA.
In addition to the foregoing, the new tank has a construction area of 98 square meters. It is proven that on May 21, 2020, the Municipality of Cartago granted the land use (uso de suelo) to the respondent ASADA, which was conditioned in a high-density residential zone in Tierra Blanca, according to the Zoning Regulation of the Cartago Master Plan (Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Cartago). From this, it was concluded that the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) from SETENA is not required. However, on September 30, 2021, the company Fibertank CR, S.A. indicated in a note addressed to the respondent ASADA, in relevant part, the following: "Cordially, I address you with the purpose of rectifying some aspects regarding the 415m3 potable water storage tank built by our company and at the same time to expose some situations and briefly explain why rectifying some aspects will not be possible: 1. 'Technical report of the updated technical study justifying the volume requirement and the work to be built'." It is verified that on July 12, 2022, through report number DU-OF-609-2022, issued by the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo) of the Municipality of Cartago, the following was indicated regarding the complaint filed by Mr.
Jairo Aguilar Arias: "In view of the aforementioned official communications, it is possible to conclude that the tank under study has all the technical requirements for its installation, stability, and permanence, therefore the undersigned lacks competence to object to the reports cited…". Furthermore, municipal construction license (licencia municipal de construcción) No. URPC-002086-6-2020, requested by the Administrative Association for the Water and Sanitary Sewer System of Tierra Blanca (Asociación Administradora de Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Tierra Blanca), was processed and approved for the construction of the 400 m³ Potable Water Storage Tank, with an area of 95 m2. Because the supply tank has an area of 95 m², it did not require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). It is corroborated that according to the structural and hydraulic conditions at the tank's inlet and outlet, it presents no problem.
Furthermore, it has all the technical requirements for installation, stability, and permanence. In another vein, it is verified that on July 19, 2022, according to document No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-02814, the following was indicated: "It is important to indicate that with the premise that each cubic meter of water has an approximate weight of one ton, we are facing the premise that both structures built on the land of the ASADA of Tierra Blanca would reach a total weight of ± 455 tons (415 tons, from the 415m3 tank and 40 tons from the 40m3 tank) and not the 600 tons stated in the document; on the other hand, a wall height of 5m in elevation is mentioned, and in the attached image, the setback (retiro) of the tank with respect to the property of Mr. and Mrs. Aguilar Gómez and Mr. Aguilar Arias is appreciated, and regarding the elevation of the buildings established on the petitioners' property, the walls do not exceed the level of the roofs, which are no more than 4m in elevation from the finished floor to the roof truss ridge." Likewise, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca used the technical study dated October 30, 2013, to process construction permits before various public entities.
Said study has an objective validity of 5 years, associated with the five-year planning carried out by ASADAs regarding work plans and investment, but this validity is not limited temporarily; rather, it is subject to the conditions of the water and hydraulic capacity of a supply system and the demand in the service provision required. In turn, through resolution SUB-G-GSG-UEN-GA-ISO-2013-2698, the content of the technical study submitted by the ASADA of Tierra Blanca was endorsed. It is verified that the hydraulic work known as the 500m3 metallic tank was built between 1985 and 1988. It is constructed of steel sheets. Since its construction process, there is no evidence that the steel material was properly treated. Therefore, given its deterioration between 2016 and 2018, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca, with its Board of Directors in office, made the decision to apply an internal lining of fiberglass, which presented adhesion problems one year after its application.
Upon removing the material, it was possible to evidence that the damage from oxidation and corrosion is very severe, meaning that treating the walls to restore an optimal surface for the placement of any lining material would be an excessive cost for the aqueduct (acueducto) and would generate considerable weakening of the steel material. It is corroborated that the Central East Regional Office for Attention to ASADAs (Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers did not grant the operational endorsement (aval de funcionamiento), but rather an acceptance in the reception of completed hydraulic works (recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas). Likewise, through official communication GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05313, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca was notified that the request for reception of completed hydraulic works for the 415m3 tank project was not approved, because the ORAC did not participate in the approval process for the project, nor in the construction process, to guarantee the quality of the works carried out and attest to the adequate construction practices.
Even with the denial of the reception of works by the ORAC, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca and the Board of Directors in office for that period decided to continue with the construction process and process the corresponding permits for the supposed completion of the work, for which the Federated College (Colegio Federado) and the Municipality of Cartago granted the respective permits for the continuity of the project execution. Finally, it is verified that the act of reception of works (acto de recepción de obras) has not been carried out by the Central East Regional Office for Attention to ASADAs of the ICAA, as it does not have all the technical information required for this purpose.
VII.First of all, it should be noted that, according to what the respondent authorities report under oath, the water that flows is not due to leaks from the tanks, but rather it is a product of underground waters in the area.
On the other hand, although the plaintiffs assert that the soil studies provided by the ASADA do not satisfy the concern that the tank structure, the soils, and the retaining wall (muro de contención) have the capacity to support the 600 tons of additional weight, according to the body of evidence contained in the electronic case file, it is verified that the construction of the 415 m3 tank has, since August 2019, had a soil mechanics study, which supports the soil capacity and required the construction of piles to seat said tank and establish the optimal conditions for construction.
Likewise, as the petitioners accuse, the ASADA ordered the new tank to be put into operation; however, it is proven that the Central East Regional Office for Attention to ASADAs of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers did not grant the operational endorsement (aval de funcionamiento), but rather an acceptance in the reception of completed hydraulic works.
Now, although the petitioners are correct in pointing out that the ASADA of Tierra Blanca was notified that the request for reception of completed hydraulic works for the 415m3 tank project was not approved, because the ORAC did not participate in the approval process for the project, nor in the construction process, to guarantee the quality of the works carried out and attest to the adequate construction practices, and even with the denial of the reception of works by the ORAC, the ASADA of Tierra Blanca and the Board of Directors in office for that period decided to continue with the construction process and process the corresponding permits for the supposed completion of the work, for which the Federated College (Colegio Federado) and the Municipality of Cartago granted the respective permits for the continuity of the project execution, it is verified that the act of reception of works (acto de recepción de obras) has not been carried out by the Central East Regional Office for Attention to ASADAs of the ICAA, as it does not have all the technical information required for such purposes (see reports).
In another vein, the petitioners allege that the CNE was informed about the administrative and technical inconsistencies presented by the 415 m3 tank project, and the lack of information on possible risks to the population; on this aspect, the president of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias) reports that it is not part of the CNE's competencies to address situations pertaining to the ordinary capacities of the ASADAs and the Water and Sewer Institute (Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados).
On the other hand, the plaintiffs allege that the application for and approval of the project before the Federated College of Engineers and Architects CFIA (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos CFIA) and the Municipality of Cartago was based on an expired technical study (more than 5 years); ergo, according to what the respondent ASADA reports, for processing construction permits before various public entities, said study has an objective validity of 5 years, associated with the five-year planning carried out by ASADAs regarding work plans and investment, but this validity is not limited temporarily; rather, it is subject to the conditions of the water and hydraulic capacity of a supply system and the demand in the service provision required.
In turn, the plaintiffs argue that the project does not have permits from SETENA; however, according to what the mayor of the Municipality of Cartago reports, land use (uso de suelo) was effectively granted to the respondent ASADA, ergo it was conditioned in a high-density residential zone in Tierra Blanca, according to the Zoning Regulation of the Cartago Master Plan (Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Cartago), from which it was concluded that the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) from SETENA is not required.
It is necessary to reiterate that, according to report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-02814 (see evidence), each cubic meter of water has an approximate weight of one ton, meaning that both structures built on the land of the ASADA of Tierra Blanca would reach a total weight of ± 455 tons (415 tons, from the 415m3 tank and 40 tons from the 40m3 tank) and not the 600 tons, according to the petitioners; on the other hand, a wall height of 5m in elevation is mentioned, ergo according to the evidence provided to the case file, there is a setback (retiro) of the tank with respect to the property of Mr. and Mrs. Aguilar Gómez and Mr. Aguilar Arias. Likewise, regarding the elevation of the buildings established on the petitioners' property, the walls do not exceed the level of the roofs, which are no more than 4m in elevation from the finished floor to the roof truss ridge.
Finally, although the plaintiffs are correct in stating that the ASADA of Tierra Blanca built the work without the endorsement (aval) of the ICAA, it is reiterated that the act of reception of works (acto de recepción de obras) has not been carried out by the Central East Regional Office for Attention to ASADAs of the ICAA, as not all the technical information required for it to enter into operation exists.
For the reasons set forth above, the Chamber considers that the amparo (amparo) must be dismissed with regard to this point, as a violation of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs is not reliably verified. That said, of course, the petitioners have the possibility of litigating said points in the corresponding ordinary jurisdiction, a venue where they have greater facilities than in this summary amparo proceeding to formulate all the arguments and evidentiary elements they deem pertinent for the defense of their interests.
The petitioners allege that, from the moment construction of the tank began, they have attempted to obtain information and documentation from the ASADA, but it has been denied on multiple occasions, on the grounds that it is the Eastern Sector East of Cartago office of the ICAA that holds the corresponding documentation. It is indeed verified that on February 22, March 4, and April 5, all in 2022, the petitioners requested information in writing from the respondent ASADA.
Now, although the ASADA of Tierra Blanca prepared official communication ASADAPRES-009-2022, responding to the petitioners' information request dated February 22, 2022, official communication ASADAPRES-013-2022, responding to the applicants' filing dated March 4, 2022, and official communication ASADAPRES-0016-2022 in response to the missive dated March 21, 2022 (see evidence visible in the electronic case file from July 18, 2022), there is no record that the respondent ASADA notified those responses to the petitioners. Therefore, on this point, the appeal (recurso) is granted in accordance with the operative part of this judgment.
The parties are cautioned 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 removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not removed within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic Case File before the Judicial Branch" (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial), in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Therefore (Por tanto):
The appeal (recurso) is partially granted, solely with respect to the filings presented by the petitioners on February 22, March 4, and April 5, all in 2022, before the Administrative Association of the Aqueduct and Sanitary Sewer of Tierra Blanca de Cartago (Asociación Administradora del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Tierra Blanca de Cartago). Vera Céspedes Quesada, in her capacity as president of the Administrative Association of the Aqueduct and Sanitary Sewer (ASADA) of Tierra Blanca de Cartago, or whoever holds that position, is ordered to issue the pertinent orders, carry out all actions within the scope of her powers, and coordinate whatever is necessary so that, within a period of THREE DAYS, counted from notification of this judgment, the petitioners are notified—through the means indicated for that purpose—of official communications ASADAPRES-009-2022 dated February 22, 2022, official communication ASADAPRES-013-2022 dated March 4, 2022, and official communication ASADAPRES-0016-2022 dated March 21, 2022.
The respondents are warned that, in accordance with the provisions of article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (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 in an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), and fails to comply with it or have it complied with, provided the offense is not more severely punished. The ASADA of Tierra Blanca de Cartago is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in execution of judgment before the corresponding civil jurisdiction. In all other respects, the appeal (recurso) is dismissed. Notify.- Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del dieciocho de noviembre de dos mil veintidos .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente N° 22-014208-0007-CO, interpuesto por FERNANDO AGUILAR GÓMEZ, cédula de identidad 0301930536 y JAIRO DE JESÚS AGUILAR ARIAS, cédula de identidad 0304350006, contra la ASOCIACIÓN ADMINISTRADORA DEL ACUEDUCTO Y ALCANTARILLADO SANITARIO (ASADA) DE TIERRA BLANCA DE CARTAGO, EL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CARTAGO Y LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS Y EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Resultando:
Los residuos de materiales, que son mínimos se retiraran una vez que haya finalizado la construcción del tanque 415m3, que no ha finalizado, ya que se encuentra a un 90% ni siquiera encuentra en operación. Ellos son conocedores que la filtración de aguas se debe al agua subterránea que es de origen natural y no de filtraciones de los tanques…”. “… Esto mismo fue analizado por la Dirección de Urbanismo de la Municipalidad de Cartago que indicó sobre la denuncia presentada por el señor Jairo Aguilar Arias, por medio del oficio de fecha 12 de julio de 2022, número DU-OF-609-2022, lo siguiente: “Con vista en los oficios de marras supra indicados, es posible concluir que el tanque objeto de estudio, cuenta con todos los requerimientos técnicos para la instalación, estabilidad y permanencia del mismo, por lo que el suscrito no tiene competencia para objetar los informes que se citan…”. “… El actor no indica que el tanque nuevo 415m3, como el tanque 40 m3, se encuentran retirados del muro que se señala que tiene el desplome de 3 centímetros aproximadamente 6 a 7 metros de distancia.
De lo anterior, se acredita que tanto en los oficios de respuesta supra indicados, como la documentación solicitada a la ASADA y la denuncia interpuesta a nivel municipal fue debidamente atendidos a los recurrentes …”. “… Es cierto que la propiedad de la ASADA de Tierra Blanca adquirió el derecho desde 2007, ya que posteriormente, se individualizó la propiedad, se está construyendo el tanque de 415 m3. Efectivamente, se construyó un tanque de 415.m.3 y de fibra de vidrio. Lo cual resulta mejor que un tanque de metal que es más pesado. El estudio No. SUB-G-GSG-UEN-GA-ISO-2013-2698, denominado “Diagnóstico de la situación y propuesta de Mejoras” del Acueducto de Tierra Blanca de Cartago. El cual fue avalado por AYA en el Departamento de Verificación de la documentación resolución de Proyectos el 11 de febrero de 2020, del cual se aporta copia. Esta representación no entiende la base para indicar que el citado estudio esta caduco.
Ya que si bien se recomienda actualizar los diagnósticos cada 5 años, ello no es óbice para de decir que está caduco…”. “… Por documentos que ha referido el señor Jairo a la Dirección de Urbanismo de la Municipalidad de Cartago y por correo a la ASADA se indica ello. Pero como bien lo indica es un muro que colinda con la servidumbre municipal, y la construcción es municipal. Cabe indicar que si resulta oportuno la reconstrucción del mismo la ASADA puede colaborar con la construcción del mismo, en conjunto con la entidad municipal…”. “…Ahora bien, como se indicó el agua que brota no obedece a filtración de los tanques o de alguna naciente en específico, sino que ello es producto de aguas subterráneas de la zona…”. “…la construcción del tanque 415 m3 cuenta con su estudio de la mecánica de suelos de agosto de 2019, que sustenta la capacidad de suelo y obliga a la construcción de pilotes para asentar el citado tanque y establecer las condiciones óptimas para la construcción de dicho tanque…”.
“… En lo que corresponde al periodo en que se comenzó a esta administración de la ASADA no nos consta lo indicado desde el año 2013. Lo que sí podemos indicar es que existe el informe del Ministerio de Salud indicado…”. “… a nivel de la Asada de Tierra Blanca una vez que se hayan concluido las obras constructivas del citado tanque se procederá a gestionar el aval para que funcione dicho tanque 415 m3 que no se ha finalizado. El cual es parte de la Propuesta de Optimización para el uso del espacio interno del Tanque Metálico y el uso del Tanque de PRFV de 415m3, según oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270…”. “… Es cierto que la Junta Directiva de la Asada decidió, no como indica el recurrente “descontinuar”, el uso del tanque denominado tanque metálico que tenía una capacidad de 500 m3. Ello debido a que el mismo ya había cumplido su vida útil, sino con el fin de proteger la Salud Pública. Dicho tanque tenía serios problemas de oxidación, y el tratamiento que requería para curar el tanque, es decir su grosor, por lo cual y por recomendación del mismo informe técnico Propuesta de Optimización para el uso del espacio interno del Tanque Metálico y el uso del Tanque de PRFV de 415m3, según oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270, se optó por modificar su uso de tanque a bodega e instalar en su interior tres tanques de polietileno y se piensa incluir hasta dos más 2 más para almacenar el agua y con esto dar un mejor servicio al ramal que alimenta.
Lo cual no parece una medida adecuada y cumplir con los requerimientos de continuidad y calidad del servicio público que presta la ASADA…”. “… La Asada adquirió el derecho 002 la finca inscrita en el Partido de Cartago matricula 29782-000 el 20 de febrero de 2007 bajo el plano de catastro No. C-21339872-2019. Posteriormente se procedió a individualizar el derecho mediante el plano de Catastro No. C-218685-2020 y se le dio el nuevo número de matrícula, del citado partido, bajo el número 265126-000…”. “… El tanque en cuestión tiene un área de construcción de 98 metros cuadrados. Además, que el uso de suelo dado por la Municipalidad el 21 de mayo de 2020, indica que es de uso condicionado en Zona habitacional de la alta densidad en Tierra Blanca, según el Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Cartago. Con lo cual se llega a la conclusión de que no se requiere el estudio d impacto ambiental de Setena…”.
“… La Junta Directiva anterior faltó a solicitar el acompañamiento que debe dar el ICAA- oficina Sector Oriental Este de Cartago. Pero los planos constrictivos, que es otro departamento del ICAA, lo otorgó como indicamos. Efectivamente, cuando el Ingeniero Esteba, Marín llegó a hacer el estudio de recepción de obras emitió el informe de inspección oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05313 de fecha 14 de noviembre del 2020, en el cual señaló falencias y solicitó el cumplimiento de información. El cual se cumplió emitió el informe de la Propuesta de Optimización para el uso del espacio interno del Tanque Metálico y el uso del Tanque de PRFV de 415 m3, según oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-0270 que modifica el informe anterior…”. Solicita que se declare sin lugar el recurso.
Redacta el Magistrado Cruz Castro; y,
Considerando:
El artículo 57 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, establece que el recurso de amparo cabrá contra las acciones u omisiones de sujetos de Derecho Privado, cuando éstos actúen o deban actuar en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas, o, se encuentren, de derecho o de hecho, en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resulten claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales de los amparados. En el caso en estudio, la ASADA recurrida, se encuentran en el segundo de los supuestos establecidos por el artículo de cita, de ahí que el recurso fuera admitido.
Los recurrentes alegan la existencia de un tanque de agua de 415 toneladas (415m3) y el tanque de agua de 40 toneladas que están en el terreno de la ASADA, lo que podría poner en peligro a la población circundante y las propiedades cercanas. Añaden que también se expuso ante las instituciones recurridas la afectación existente por residuos de materiales, filtración de los tanques, estancamientos y corrientes de agua viva, Arguyen que se construyó un muro con acuerdo de la municipalidad y el dueño colindante. Afirman que en la actualidad, la estructura del muro está desgastada, presenta un declive de hasta 3 cm, sufre decapitamiento de las paredes y corrientes de agua viva en la base, que es producto de una naciente y filtración de los mismos tanques. Cuestionan que la limpieza del terreno y construcción de los tanques iniciaron en el año 2019, aun cuando la documentación del CFIA y de la Dirección de Urbanismo de la Municipalidad de Cartago se firmó en el año 2013, sin aval del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA).
Por otra parte, acusan que desde el momento en que se inició la construcción del tanque, se ha intentado obtener información y documentación de la ASADA, pero ha sido denegada en múltiples ocasiones. Agregan que a inicios del año 2022, se efectuó nueva solicitud de información, pero no se les entregó de forma completa lo requerido. Señalan que la Junta Administradora de la ASADA, decidió descontinuar el funcionamiento de un antiguo tanque de metal, cuya capacidad es de 500 toneladas, que fue construido en metal hace aproximadamente 40 años, pero fue restaurado de forma indebida. Reclaman que la ASADA ordenó poner en funcionamiento el nuevo tanque, sin considerar la gradiente geográfica de la población, y sin proporcionarle información a los usuarios. Resaltan que se remitió la denuncia No. 07-03-2022 a las autoridades recurridas, y en especial se le infirmó a la CNE sobre las inconsistencias administrativas y técnicas que presenta el proyecto del tanque de 415 m3 , y la falta de información sobre los posibles riesgos a la población.
También, advirtieron que los estudios de suelos aportados por la ASADA no satisfacen la preocupación de que la estructura del tanque, los suelos y el muro de contención, tengan capacidad para soportar las 600 toneladas de peso adicional. Alegan que dentro de las inconsistencias en los procedimientos administrativos que conlleva el proyecto mencionado están:
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 el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
En cuanto a la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias (CNE):
En cuanto a la ASADA de Tierra Blanca de Cartago:
En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Cartago:
En relación al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados:
En relación al Área Rectora de Salud de Cartago:
Este Tribunal ha señalado que el derecho de petición y pronta respuesta, encierra una doble vertiente, ya que implica no sólo el derecho que ostenta todo ciudadano para dirigirse a cualquier funcionario o entidad oficial, con el fin de exponer un asunto de su interés, o bien solicitar determinada información, sino además obliga a la Administración a recibir y responder las mismas dentro del plazo de diez días, de acuerdo con el artículo 27, de la Constitución Política y el numeral 32, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por lo anterior, debe emitir la respuesta oportuna, sin denegación de ninguna especie, empero cabe la excepción de que no pueda cubrir la petición dentro del plazo referido, en consecuencia, deberá comunicar la imposibilidad para resolver y fijará un plazo razonable dentro del cual atenderá la solicitud. Por su parte, el artículo 30, de la Constitución Política recoge el derecho de las personas de acceder a la información de interés público en poder de las autoridades y -consecuentemente- el deber de estas de entregar dicha información de forma inmediata si lo pedido está disponible y todo lo anterior sin perjuicio la existencia de posibles excepciones en las que la información debe reservarse en atención a la protección de derechos e intereses relevantes, reconocidos formalmente
Los recurrentes alegan la existencia de un tanque de agua de 415 toneladas (415m3) y el tanque de agua de 40 toneladas que están en el terreno de la ASADA, lo que podría poner en peligro a la población circundante y las propiedades cercanas. Añaden que también se expuso ante las instituciones recurridas la afectación existente por residuos de materiales, filtración de los tanques, estancamientos y corrientes de agua viva, Arguyen que se construyó un muro con acuerdo de la municipalidad y el dueño colindante. Afirman que en la actualidad, la estructura del muro está desgastada, presenta un declive de hasta 3 cm, sufre decapitamiento de las paredes y corrientes de agua viva en la base, que es producto de una naciente y filtración de los mismos tanques. Cuestionan que la limpieza del terreno y construcción de los tanques iniciaron en el año 2019, aun cuando la documentación del CFIA y de la Dirección de Urbanismo de la Municipalidad de Cartago se firmó en el año 2013, sin aval del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA).
Señalan que la Junta Administradora de la ASADA, decidió descontinuar el funcionamiento de un antiguo tanque de metal, cuya capacidad es de 500 toneladas, que fue construido en metal hace aproximadamente 40 años, pero fue restaurado de forma indebida. Reclaman que la ASADA ordenó poner en funcionamiento el nuevo tanque, sin considerar la gradiente geográfica de la población, y sin proporcionarle información a los usuarios. Resaltan que se remitió la denuncia No. 07-03-2022 a las autoridades recurridas, y en especial se le infirmó a la CNE sobre las inconsistencias administrativas y técnicas que presenta el proyecto del tanque de 415 m3 , y la falta de información sobre los posibles riesgos a la población. También, advirtieron que los estudios de suelos aportados por la ASADA no satisfacen la preocupación de que la estructura del tanque, los suelos y el muro de contención, tengan capacidad para soportar las 600 toneladas de peso adicional. Alegan que dentro de las inconsistencias en los procedimientos administrativos que conlleva el proyecto mencionado están:
VI.Del estudio de los autos, se acredita que la ASADA de Tierra Blanca adquirió una propiedad desde el año 2007 y posteriormente, se individualizó. En dicho predio es donde se está construyendo el tanque de 415 m3 de fibra de vidrio. Según se constata el agua que brota no obedece a filtraciones de los tanques o de alguna naciente en específico, sino que ello es producto de aguas subterráneas de la zona. Se verifica que la construcción del tanque 415 m3 cuenta desde de agosto de 2019, con el estudio de la mecánica de suelos, que sustenta la capacidad del suelo y obliga a la construcción de pilotes para asentar el citado tanque y establecer las condiciones óptimas para la construcción del mismo. Asimismo, el uso del tanque denominado tanque metálico que tenía una capacidad de 500 m3, cumplió su vida útil, pues tenía serios problemas de oxidación, por lo que por recomendación del informe técnico “Propuesta de Optimización para el uso del espacio interno del Tanque Metálico y el uso del Tanque de PRFV de 415m3, según oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-00270”, se optó por modificar su uso de tanque a bodega, e instalar en su interior tres tanques de polietileno para almacenar el agua y con esto dar un mejor servicio al ramal que alimenta la ASADA.
Aunado a lo anterior, el tanque nuevo tiene un área de construcción de 98 metros cuadrados. Se comprueba que el 21 de mayo de 2020, la Municipalidad de Cartago otorgó el uso de suelo a la ASADA accionada, el cual fue condicionado en zona habitacional de la alta densidad en Tierra Blanca, según el Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Cartago. Con lo cual se llegó a la conclusión, de que no se requiere el estudio de impacto ambiental de SETENA. Sin embargo, el 30 de setiembre de 2021, la empresa Fibertank CR, S.A. indicó en una nota dirigida a la ASADA recurrida, en lo que interesa lo siguiente: “De manera cordial, me dirijo a ustedes con la finalidad de subsanar algunos aspectos referentes al tanque de almacenamiento de agua potable de 415m3 que construyó nuestra empresa y a su vez exponer algunas situaciones y explicar brevemente porque el subsanar algunos aspectos no va resultar posible 1.
“Informe técnico del estudio técnico actualizado donde se justifique el requerimiento del volumen y la obra a construir”. Se constata que el 12 de julio de 2022, mediante el informe número DU-OF-609-2022, emitido por la Dirección de Urbanismo de la Municipalidad de Cartago se indicó sobre la denuncia presentada por el señor Jairo Aguilar Arias, lo siguiente: “Con vista en los oficios de marras supra indicados, es posible concluir que el tanque objeto de estudio, cuenta con todos los requerimientos técnicos para la instalación, estabilidad y permanencia del mismo, por lo que el suscrito no tiene competencia para objetar los informes que se citan…”. Por otra parte, la licencia municipal de construcción N° URPC-002086-6-2020, solicitada por la Asociación Administradora de Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Tierra Blanca, se tramitó y aprobó para la construcción del Tanque de Almacenamiento de Agua Potable de 400 m³, con un área de 95 m2.
En razón de que el tanque de abastecimiento tiene un área de 95 m², no requirió de la evaluación de impacto ambiental. Se corrobora que según las condiciones estructurales como hidráulicas en la entrada y salida del tanque, no presenta ningún problema. Además, cuenta con todos los requerimientos técnicos para la instalación, estabilidad y permanencia. En otro orden de ideas, se verifica que el 19 de julio de 2022, según documento N° GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-02814, se indicó lo siguiente: “Es importante indicar que con la premisa de que cada metro cúbico de agua posee un peso aproximado de una tonelada, estamos ante la premisa que ambas estructuras edificadas en terreno de la ASADA de Tierra Blanca alcanzarían un peso total de ± 455 toneladas (415 ton, del tanque 415m3 y 40 ton del tanque de 40m3 ) y no las 600 ton, afirmadas en el escrito, por otra parte se habla de una altura de muro de 5m de elevación y en la imagen adjunta se aprecia el retiro del tanque con respecto a la propiedad de los señores Aguilar Gómez y Aguilar Arias, y con la respecto a la elevación de las edificaciones establecidas en la propiedad de los recurrentes los muros no sobre pasan en nivel de los techos, los cuales no son mayores a los 4m de elevación de piso terminado a la cumbrera de cercha de techo.”.
Asimismo, la ASADA de Tierra Blanca utilizó el estudio técnico con fecha del 30 de octubre de 2013, para realizar la tramitología de permisos constructivos ante diferentes instancias públicas, dicho estudio posee una vigencia objetiva de 5 años, asociado a la planificación quinquenal que realizan las ASADAS en temas de planes de trabajo e inversión, pero esta vigencia no está delimitada de forma temporaria, sino está sujeta a las condiciones de la capacidad hídrica e hidráulica de un sistema de abastecimiento y la demanda en la prestación de servicio requerida. A su vez, mediante resolución SUB-G-GSG-UEN-GA-ISO-2013-2698, se avaló el contenido del estudio técnico presentado por la ASADA de Tierra Blanca. Se constata que la obra hidráulica conocida como el tanque metálico de 500m3, fue construido en el año del 1985 al 1988, este está construido en láminas de acero, desde su proceso constructivo no se tiene evidencia que el material acerado haya sido tratado de la forma correcta, por lo que dado su deterioro en el año del 2016 al 2018, la ASADA de Tierra Blanca con su Junta Directiva en ejercicio, tomo la decisión de colocarle un revestimiento interno en fibra de vidrio, el cual presentó problemas de adherencia un año después de su aplicación, al removerse el material se logró evidenciar que el daño por oxidación y corrosión son muy severos, por lo que el tratar las paredes para restablecer una superficie óptima para la colocación de cualquier material de revestimiento, sería un excesivo costo para el acueducto y generaría un debilitamiento considerable para el material acerado.
Se corrobora que la Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados no otorgó el aval de funcionamiento, si no una aceptación en la recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas. Asimismo, mediante el oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05313, se notificó a la ASADA de Tierra Blanca, que no se aprobaba la solicitud de recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas para el proyecto del tanque 415m3, ya que la ORAC no fue participe del proceso de aprobación para el proyecto, ni parte del proceso constructivo, para garantizar la calidad de los trabajos realizados y dar fe de la adecuadas practicas constructivas. Aún con la negativa en la recepción de obras por parte de la ORAC, la ASADA de Tierra Blanca y la Junta Directiva en ejercicio para ese periodo, decidió seguir con el proceso constructivo y tramitar los permisos correspondientes para la supuesta culminación de la obra, el cual el Colegio Federado y la Municipalidad de Cartago otorgaron los permisos respectivos para la continuidad en la ejecución del proyecto.
Finalmente, se constata que el acto de recepción de obras no se ha llevado a cabo, por parte de la Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS del ICAA, al no contar con toda la información técnica requerida para tal efecto.
VII.En primer lugar, cabe señalar que según informan bajo juramento las autoridades recurridas, el agua que brota no obedece a filtraciones de los tanques, sino que ello es producto de aguas subterráneas de la zona.
Por otra parte, a pesar de que los accionantes aseguran que los estudios de suelos aportados por la ASADA no satisfacen la preocupación de que la estructura del tanque, los suelos y el muro de contención, tengan capacidad para soportar las 600 toneladas de peso adicional, según el acervo probatorio que consta en el expediente electrónico, se verifica que la construcción del tanque 415 m3 cuenta desde de agosto de 2019, con el estudio de la mecánica de suelos, que sustenta la capacidad del suelo y obligó a la construcción de pilotes para asentar el citado tanque y establecer las condiciones óptimas para la construcción.
Asimismo, según acusan los recurrentes, la ASADA ordenó poner en funcionamiento el nuevo tanque; sin embargo, se comprueba que la Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados no otorgó el aval de funcionamiento, si no una aceptación en la recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas.
Ahora si bien llevan razón los amparados al señalar que se notificó a la ASADA de Tierra Blanca que no se aprobaba la solicitud de recepción de obras hidráulicas terminadas para el proyecto del tanque de 415m3, ya que la ORAC no fue participe del proceso de aprobación para el proyecto, ni parte del proceso constructivo, para garantizar la calidad de los trabajos realizados y dar fe de la adecuadas practicas constructivas, y aún con la negativa en la recepción de obras por parte de la ORAC, la ASADA de Tierra Blanca y la Junta Directiva en ejercicio para ese periodo, decidió seguir con el proceso constructivo y tramitar los permisos correspondientes para la supuesta culminación de la obra, el cual el Colegio Federado y la Municipalidad de Cartago otorgaron los permisos respectivos para la continuidad en la ejecución del proyecto, se verifica que el acto de recepción de obras no se ha llevado a cabo, por parte de la Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS del ICAA, al no contar con toda la información técnica requerida para tales efectos (ver informes).
En otro orden de ideas, alegan los recurrentes que se informó a la CNE sobre las inconsistencias administrativas y técnicas que presenta el proyecto del tanque de 415 m3, y la falta de información sobre los posibles riesgos a la población; sobre este aspecto informa el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias que no es parte de las competencias de la CNE atender situaciones propias de las capacidades ordinarias de las ASADAS y del Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.
Por otra parte, alegan los accionantes que la solicitud y aprobación del proyecto ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos CFIA y la Municipalidad de Cartago se sustentó en un estudio técnico vencido (más de 5 años); ergo, según informa la ASADA recurrida, para realizar la tramitología de permisos constructivos ante diferentes instancias públicas, dicho estudio posee una vigencia objetiva de 5 años, asociado a la planificación quinquenal que realizan las ASADAS en temas de planes de trabajo e inversión, pero esta vigencia no está delimitada de forma temporaria, sino está sujeta a las condiciones de la capacidad hídrica e hidráulica de un sistema de abastecimiento y la demanda en la prestación de servicio requerida.
A su vez, arguyen los accionantes que el proyecto no cuenta con los permisos de SETENA; no obstante, según informa el alcalde de la Municipalidad de Cartago, efectivamente se otorgó el uso de suelo a la ASADA accionada, ergo fue condicionado en zona habitacional de la alta densidad en Tierra Blanca, según el Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Cartago, con lo cual se llegó a la conclusión, de que no se requiere el estudio de impacto ambiental de SETENA.
Es menester reiterar que, según el informe N° GSD-UEN-GAR-2022-02814 (ver prueba), cada metro cúbico de agua posee un peso aproximado de una tonelada, por lo que ambas estructuras edificadas en terreno de la ASADA de Tierra Blanca alcanzarían un peso total de ± 455 toneladas (415 ton, del tanque 415m3 y 40 ton del tanque de 40m3 ) y no las 600 ton, según los recurrentes, por otra parte se habla de una altura de muro de 5m de elevación, ergo según la prueba aportada a los autos, existe un retiro del tanque con respecto a la propiedad de los señores Aguilar Gómez y Aguilar Arias. Asimismo, respecto a la elevación de las edificaciones establecidas en la propiedad de los recurrentes, los muros no sobre pasan en nivel de los techos, los cuales no son mayores a los 4m de elevación de piso terminado a la cumbrera de cercha de techo.
Finalmente, si bien llevan razón los accionantes al manifestar que la ASADA de Tierra Blanca construyó la obra sin el aval del ICAA, se reitera que el acto de recepción de obras no se ha llevado a cabo, por parte de la Oficina Regional Central Este de Atención de ASADAS del ICAA, al no existir toda la información técnica requerida para que entre en funcionamiento.
Por las razones esgrimidas anteriormente, la Sala estima que debe desestimarse el amparo en cuanto a este extremo, pues no se constata fehacientemente una vulneración a los derechos fundamentales de los accionantes. Ahora bien, desde luego, los recurrentes tienen la posibilidad de discutir dichos extremos en la jurisdicción ordinaria correspondiente, lugar donde cuentan con mayores facilidades que en esta vía sumaria del amparo, de formular todos los argumentos y los elementos probatorios que consideren pertinentes para la defensa de sus intereses.
Acusan los recurrentes que desde el momento en que se inició la construcción del tanque, se ha intentado obtener información y documentación de la ASADA, pero ha sido denegada en múltiples ocasiones, argumentando que es la oficina Sector Oriental Este de Cartago del ICAA, quien tiene en su poder la documentación correspondiente. Efectivamente se constata que el 22 de febrero, el 04 de marzo y el 05 de abril, todos de 2022, los recurrentes solicitaron por escrito información, a la ASADA recurrida.
Ahora, si bien la ASADA de Tierra Blanca preparó el oficio ASADAPRES-009-2022, dando respuesta a la solicitud de información de los recurrentes de fecha 22 de febrero de 2022, el oficio ASADAPRES-013-2022, dando respuesta a la gestión de los potentes de fecha 04 de marzo de 2022 y el oficio ASADAPRES-0016-2022 como respuesta a la misiva de fecha 21 de marzo de 2022 (ver prueba visible en el expediente electrónico desde el 18 de julio de 2022), no consta que la ASADA accionada le haya notificado dichas respuestas a los recurrentes. Así las cosas, en cuanto a este punto, se declara con lugar el recurso según lo dispuesto en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
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 parcialmente con lugar el recurso, únicamente respecto a las gestiones presentadas por los recurrentes en fechas 22 de febrero, el 04 de marzo y el 05 de abril, todos de 2022 ante la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Tierra Blanca de Cartago. Se ordena a Vera Céspedes Quesada, en su condición de presidenta de la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario (ASADA) de Tierra Blanca de Cartago, o a quien ocupe ese cargo, que gire las órdenes pertinentes, lleve a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y coordine lo necesario para que, en el plazo de TRES DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se les notifique a los accionantes -a través del medio señalado para ello- los oficios ASADAPRES-009-2022 de fecha 22 de febrero de 2022, el oficio ASADAPRES-013-2022 del 04 de marzo de 2022 y el oficio ASADAPRES-0016-2022 de fecha 21 de marzo de 2022.
Se advierte a los recurridos que, de conformidad con lo establecido en 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 en un recurso de amparo, y no la cumpliere o hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena a la ASADA de Tierra Blanca de Cartago al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a la presente declaratoria, los cuales se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia ante la jurisdicción civil correspondiente. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. Notifíquese.- Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.