← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 20774-2023 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 25/08/2023
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Court denied the amparo, ruling that the disputes over permits and the wildlife seizure must be resolved in ordinary administrative and contentious-administrative proceedings.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el amparo, remitiendo las disputas sobre permisos y el decomiso de vida silvestre a la vía administrativa y contencioso-administrativa ordinaria.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo action filed by a foundation representative against SINAC and ACOSA for revoking a state natural heritage use permit, denying a sanctuary‑type zoo permit, and seizing wildlife. The petitioner alleged a violation of the right to a healthy environment under Article 50 of the Constitution, arguing that the revocation was improper and that the seizure included free‑roaming animals without technical justification. The Court held that the claims did not reveal a clear or imminent environmental harm but rather raised ordinary legality issues concerning permits and administrative actions, which must be litigated in ordinary administrative and contentious‑administrative proceedings. The claim of administrative delay was also dismissed, with the Court stressing that the new permit application requires substantive review and that the administrative‑contentious jurisdiction provides an adequate remedy. Separate opinions addressed the right to prompt administrative justice.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso de amparo interpuesto por la representante de una fundación contra el SINAC y ACOSA, por la revocatoria de un permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado, la denegatoria de un permiso de zoológico tipo santuario y el decomiso de animales silvestres. La recurrente alegó vulneración al derecho a un ambiente sano (Art. 50 constitucional), sosteniendo que la revocatoria fue indebida y que el decomiso incluyó animales en libertad sin sustento técnico. La Sala consideró que los cuestionamientos no revelaban una infracción notoria al ambiente como bien tutelado, sino controversias propias de la legalidad ordinaria sobre permisos y actuaciones administrativas, remitiendo a las vías contenciosa y administrativa. También rechazó el reclamo por mora administrativa, indicando que la nueva solicitud de permiso requiere análisis y que la justicia contencioso-administrativa es el cauce idóneo para resolver esas situaciones. Se emitieron votos salvados y notas sobre el derecho a justicia pronta y cumplida.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In the matter at hand, the petitioner's claims are in reality disagreements with the actions and decisions of the authorities, namely the revocation of the use permit over State Natural Heritage granted in 2017, the denial of a permit for a non‑profit zoo‑type wildlife management site, and the seizure of the animals in her care. Although it is alleged that these actions violate Article 50 of the Constitution, the evidence shows, contrary to the petitioner's assertions, that the decisions were due to her own non‑compliance with the operating permits that had been granted and that such deficiencies affected the animal species and their natural environment. With this in mind, the Court must warn the petitioner that it is not its role to review whether the challenged actions comply with the applicable legal framework – a task belonging to ordinary administrative or judicial channels – since this Court is not a legality controller of the Administration's actions or decisions. The very claims advanced by the petitioner – whether the revocation of the State Natural Heritage use permit, the denial of the zoo‑sanctuary permit, and the seizure of the animals (including where they were taken and whether their return is warranted) – are matters of ordinary legality that must be discussed and resolved in the channels specifically provided by law for such cases, because they do not amount to a clear‑cut, manifest infringement or probable risk to the environment as a protected legal interest. Only in cases where, under the precautionary and preventive principles, the Court would examine potential breaches of the right enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution would it intervene.En el sub lite, lo planteado por la recurrente son en realidad inconformidades con las actuaciones y resoluciones realizadas por las autoridades recurridas, a decir, la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo. En ese sentido, si bien se alega que tales actuaciones lesionan el artículo 50 constitucional; lo cierto es que, de la prueba aportada a los autos, se comprueba que, contrario a lo afirmado por la accionante, las decisiones adoptadas obedecieron al incumplimiento de la misma accionante en los permisos de funcionamiento que se le habían concedido en su oportunidad y que por tales falencias, se afectaban las especies animales y su entorno natural. Teniendo claro lo anterior, se impone advertir a la accionante, que no le compete a esta Sala revisar si lo pretendido se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común -administrativa o jurisdiccional-, ya que esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración. Las pretensiones mismas que la accionante expone –procedencia o no de la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo (lugar al que fueron llevados y si procede su devolución)- son propias de la legalidad ordinaria y debe discutirse y resolverse en las vías que la ley ha previsto específicamente para estos casos, por cuanto no suponen una infracción notoria, palmaria o riesgo probable al ambiente, como bien jurídico tutelado, casos en los cuales, al socaire de los principios precautorio y preventivo, esta Sala ingresa a analizar posibles lesiones al derecho tutelado en el canon 50 constitucional.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"“…no le compete a esta Sala revisar si lo pretendido se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común -administrativa o jurisdiccional-, ya que esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración.”"
"“…it is not for this Court to review whether the challenged actions conform to the applicable legal framework – a task belonging to ordinary administrative or judicial channels – since this Court is not a legality controller of the Administration’s actions or decisions.”"
Considerando III
"“…no le compete a esta Sala revisar si lo pretendido se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común -administrativa o jurisdiccional-, ya que esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración.”"
Considerando III
"“Las pretensiones mismas que la accionante expone (…) son propias de la legalidad ordinaria y debe discutirse y resolverse en las vías que la ley ha previsto específicamente para estos casos, por cuanto no suponen una infracción notoria, palmaria o riesgo probable al ambiente, como bien jurídico tutelado…”"
"“The very claims advanced by the petitioner (…) are matters of ordinary legality that must be discussed and resolved in the channels specifically provided by law for such cases, because they do not amount to a clear‑cut, manifest infringement or probable risk to the environment as a protected legal interest…”"
Considerando III
"“Las pretensiones mismas que la accionante expone (…) son propias de la legalidad ordinaria y debe discutirse y resolverse en las vías que la ley ha previsto específicamente para estos casos, por cuanto no suponen una infracción notoria, palmaria o riesgo probable al ambiente, como bien jurídico tutelado…”"
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Date of Resolution: August 25, 2023, at 09:30 Case File: 23-007105-0007-CO Type of Matter: Amparo appeal Judgment with Dissenting Vote Judgment with Separate Note Relevance Indicators Relevant Judgment Judgment with protected data, in accordance with current regulations Content of Interest:
Strategic Themes: Environmental, Economic Social Cultural and Environmental Rights Type of Content: Majority Vote Branch of Law: 4. GUARANTEE MATTERS Topic: ENVIRONMENT Subtopics:
WILDLIFE.
020774-23. ENVIRONMENT. THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS THAT WERE IN A ZOO IN OSA IS QUESTIONED. IT IS DECLARED WITHOUT MERIT, AS IT IS A MATTER OF LEGALITY. VCG09/2023 “(…) III.- ON THE MERITS. - The petitioner states that in November 2022, she was notified of the revocation of the permit for the operation of a wildlife management site under the zoo category in the name of Foundation [Name443 002]; however, she considers that it was actually an expiration of the permit and not a revocation. She states that, on December 19, 2022, ACOSA officials arrived at the site and seized all the animals that were in cages, without any type of meeting to reach an agreement for the protection of the animals. She affirms that, among the seized animals, they also took three wild animals that had been rescued, but lived in freedom. She alleges that all the seized animals were taken to ZOOAVE. She indicates that the seizure carried out by the officials of the Osa Conservation Area violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. She requests that the return of the animals that were in freedom to their natural habitat be ordered.
From the reports rendered by the representatives of the respondent authority -which are considered given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction- and the body of evidence, it is credited that on November 14, 2017, the Osa Conservation Area issued Resolution No. SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, in which it resolved to grant the petitioner a preliminary-phase use permit to develop training activities in an area of 5.05 hectares, located in Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Only 13 mobile and dismountable cages were authorized to be located within the forest area, which had to be properly conditioned, to house 23 wildlife individuals, in order to continue with the environmental feasibility process before SETENA. Likewise, it was indicated that according to the provisions of Decree number 35868-MINAET, called Regulation of Article 18 of the Forestry Law No. 7575 and modification of Articles 2 and 11 of the Regulation of the Forestry Law No. 7575, Executive Decree No. 25721-MINAE, said permit may not be assigned, transferred, or donated, will be granted under precarious conditions and therefore does not imply any right of possession or property over the land, and may be revoked when the State so determines for reasons of coexistence, opportunity, or public interest, in accordance with Article 154 of the General Law of Public Administration No. 6227.
Likewise, it is shown that, on November 23, 2022, the Osa Conservation Area of SINAC, through resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, ordered the following: “Revoke the preliminary-phase use permit granted through Resolution No. SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, to Foundation [Name443 002], legal identification number [Value CED992], represented by Mrs. [Name443 003], passport number [Value 004], in her capacity as president, to develop training activities in an area of 5.05 hectares, located in Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Grant a prudential period of 3 months for the eviction and demolition of the existing infrastructure on the property over which the use permit on State Natural Heritage was granted, according to administrative file D-TEC-ASP-071. This permit was revoked for non-compliance with technical specifications; it is not based on the type of materials to be used but on the characteristics of the constructions carried out, for example, the cages shown are built with a block and cement base requiring excavation and preventing the cage from being mobile.
Furthermore, the infrastructure does not have facilities to meet the needs of disabled persons (Law No. 7600); nor does it have the necessary equipment and a plan to act in case of emergency; nor have the periodic reports every six months on the execution of the plan been submitted to ACOSA for adequate oversight of the use permit. The Environmental Feasibility granted by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat in Resolution No. 2978-2018-SETENA, was issued based on a registered plan that does not correspond to the file, with an area of 17 ha 6387 m2. The use permit granted according to Resolution No. SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 was for an area of 5.05 hectares, according to the sketch presented as part of the requirements for its approval. These discrepancies jeopardize the condition of guaranteeing the integrity of the assigned area, to establish effective means and mechanisms of control and protection, the responsibility and obligation of which fall on both the permittee and SINAC, in accordance with current regulations.”; a decision that was notified to the petitioner at the address indicated for such purposes.
Therefore, on November 28, 2022, the petitioner filed a revocation appeal with a subsidiary appeal against resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022. Also, it is shown that, through resolution No. SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-095-2022 at 14 hours 30 minutes on December 13, 2022, the petitioner was denied the operating permit for a wildlife management site under the category of non-profit sanctuary-type Zoo. Furthermore, it is credited that, on December 16, 2022, through resolution SINAC-ACOSA-DR-R-102-2022, the revocation appeal filed against resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022 was declared without merit, and it was ordered to elevate the appeal to the National Council of Conservation Areas. Likewise, it is shown that, on December 19, 2022, the respondent authorities, with the support of personnel from the Coast Guard Service, and personnel from the Tropical Wildlife Rescue Center (CRVST) in the name of the Nature Restoration Foundation, proceeded to seize the animals; given that, to safeguard the integrity of the animals, veterinarian Laura Brenes Chávez, SINAC veterinarian, and veterinarian Isabel Hagnauer Barrantes, regent veterinarian of the Nature Restoration Foundation (ZOAVE), participated in this operation; in addition to Ms.
Angie Sánchez Núñez, Master in Wildlife Management and Conservation, from the Executive Secretariat of SINAC. Finally, it is shown that, once the seizure of the animals was carried out, the seizure report was drawn up, signed, and a copy of the signed and sealed document was delivered to the petitioner; with the animals being delivered in custody to the Tropical Wildlife Rescue Center (CRVST) in the name of the Nature Restoration Foundation, approved by administrative resolution No. SINAC-ACC-OA-re-1389-2022, which is one of the management sites that is up to date.
In the sub lite, what the petitioner raises are actually disagreements with the actions and resolutions carried out by the respondent authorities, namely, the revocation of the use permit on State Natural Heritage that had been granted to her in 2017, the denial of the operating permit for a wildlife management site under the category of non-profit sanctuary-type Zoo, and the seizure of the animals in her charge. In this sense, although it is alleged that such actions violate Article 50 of the Constitution; the truth is that, from the evidence provided to the case file, it is proven that, contrary to what the claimant asserts, the adopted decisions were due to the non-compliance by the claimant herself with the operating permits that had been granted to her in due time, and that because of such deficiencies, the animal species and their natural environment were being affected. Having clarified the above, it is necessary to warn the claimant that it is not the responsibility of this Chamber to review whether what is sought conforms or not to the current legal regulations, a task proper to the ordinary administrative or jurisdictional channels, since this Chamber is not a controller of the legality of the Administration's actions or resolutions.
The very claims that the claimant sets forth –the appropriateness or not of the revocation of the use permit on State Natural Heritage that had been granted to her in 2017, the denial of the operating permit for a wildlife management site under the category of non-profit sanctuary-type Zoo, and the seizure of the animals in her charge (the place to which they were taken and whether their return is appropriate)– are matters of ordinary legality and must be discussed and resolved in the venues that the law has specifically provided for these cases, since they do not imply a notorious, manifest violation or probable risk to the environment, as a protected legal right, cases in which, under the shelter of the precautionary and preventive principles, this Chamber undertakes to analyze possible injuries to the right protected in Article 50 of the Constitution. For this reason, the petitioner must raise her disagreement or the corresponding claim before the respondent authority, or in the competent jurisdictional venue, venues in which she may, in an ample manner, discuss the merits of the matter and assert her claims. Consequently, the appeal regarding this point must be dismissed, as is hereby done.
As a second claim, the claimant points out that, on January 9, 2023, she filed a new application for State Natural Heritage; however, it is pending resolution. On this matter, it is shown that the petitioner's request that has not yet been resolved -as observed from the evidence provided- cannot be classified under the assumptions of pure and simple requests for information, since from the reading of the petition it is clear that the petitioner's claim is that the respondent Authority grant her a use permit on State Natural Heritage. That is, in order to respond to her request, the accused authority is obliged to analyze and carry out a series of assessments to determine the appropriateness or not of her concern. In this sense, this Chamber considers that the petitioner's request is characteristic of an administrative proceeding, which is why the following considerations are made.
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AS AN EXPEDITIOUS AND FULFILLED MECHANISM FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL SITUATIONS OF THE ADMINISTERED. The Constitutional Chamber, since its founding, has used broad admissibility criteria in view of the absence of expeditious and swift procedural channels for the protection of substantial legal situations grounded in the infra-constitutional legal system or parameter of legality, which have an indirect connection with fundamental rights and the Law of the Constitution. On this matter, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Constitution, by its supremacy, super-legality, and direct and immediate efficacy, indirectly grounds any imaginable substantial legal situation of persons. However, under better consideration and upon the enactment of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Law No. 8508 of April 24, 2006) and its entry into force as of January 1, 2008, it has become clear that now the litigants have a plenary and universal contentious-administrative jurisdiction, extremely expeditious and swift due to the various procedural mechanisms that this legislation incorporates into the legal system, such as the shortening of deadlines to carry out the various procedural acts, the breadth of standing, precautionary measures, the numerus apertus of deducible claims, orality –and its sub-principles of concentration, immediacy, and swiftness-, the single instance with appeal in expressly limited situations, intra-procedural conciliation, the unified process, the preferential processing process or “amparo of legality”, the purely legal processes, the new enforcement measures (coercive fines, substitute or commissarial enforcement, seizure of assets from the fiscal domain and some from the public domain), the broad powers of the body of enforcement judges, the extension and adaptation of the effects of jurisprudence to third parties, and the flexibility of the cassation appeal.
All these novel procedural institutes have the manifest purpose and objective of achieving procedural economy, swiftness, promptness, and the effective or fulfilled protection of the substantial legal situations of the administered, all with the guarantee of basic fundamental rights such as due process, defense, and the adversary principle. In sum, the new contentious-administrative jurisdiction is a suitable channel, due to its new characteristics of simplicity, swiftness, and promptness, for the amparo and effective protection of the substantial legal situations of the administered in which it is required to gather evidence or define some matters of ordinary legality.
AN EVIDENT MATTER OF ORDINARY LEGALITY. It is evident that determining whether the public administration complies or not with the deadlines established by the General Law of Public Administration (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 request of a party– or to hear the appropriate administrative appeals, is an evident matter of ordinary legality which, henceforth, can be discussed and resolved before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction with the application of the principles that nourish the constitutional jurisdiction, such as those of vicarious standing, the possibility of material defense –that is, to appear without legal representation– and of gratuitousness for the appealing party. Consequently, the outright rejection is imposed, and the petitioner is advised that if she sees fit, she may resort to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. (…)” ... See more Content of Interest:
Type of Content: Separate Note Branch of Law: 1. POLITICAL CONSTITUTION WITH JURISPRUDENCE Topic: 041- Effective judicial protection. Prompt and fulfilled justice Subtopics:
NOT APPLICABLE.
VII.Note from Magistrate Castillo Víquez, regarding prompt and fulfilled administrative justice. I have supported this Court's thesis that when the litigant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and fulfilled justice in administrative proceedings, those who must hear the legal dispute are the Contentious-Administrative Courts and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Law Regulating the Right to Petition, it has been established that this right is susceptible to judicial protection through the amparo action established by Article 32 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, in relation to Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the Administration's material actions, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting their fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted regulation does not imply that this Court must modify its jurisprudential line, which, based on numeral 7 of its Law, is responsible for defining exclusively its own competence.
Therefore, except for those legal-constitutional disputes that have been recognized by this same Chamber as exceptional cases, which are properly heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo guarantee process, in other cases, and for the reasons given by this Court (Judgment No. 2008-02545 at 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), the competent authorities are the Judges of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is in accordance with numeral 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal norms based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
VCG09/2023 ... See more Content of Interest:
Type of Content: Separate Note Branch of Law: 6. LAW OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION ANNOTATED WITH JURISPRUDENCE Topic: 033- Active Standing Subtopics:
NOT APPLICABLE.
I must warn that since judgment no. 2019-2355 at 9:30 a.m. on February 12, 2019, in my dissenting vote, I indicated the following position regarding amparo appeals when they have been filed on behalf of a legal entity:
“…in Advisory Opinion 22-16 of February 26, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicated that although some States recognize the right to petition for legal entities with special conditions, such as unions, political parties, or representatives of indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, or specific groups, the truth is that “Article 1.2 of the American Convention only enshrines rights in favor of natural persons, so legal entities are not holders of the rights enshrined in said treaty.” On the other hand, in the same advisory opinion, the Inter-American Court established that, in certain particular contexts, natural persons can exercise their rights through legal entities (for example, through a media outlet, as occurred in the case Name32579 and others v. Venezuela); however, for this to be protectable before the inter-American system, “the exercise of the right through a legal entity must involve an essential and direct relationship between the natural person requiring protection from the inter-American system and the legal entity through which the violation occurred, since a simple link between both persons is not sufficient to conclude that the rights of natural persons are indeed being protected and not those of the legal entities.
Indeed, it must be proven beyond the simple participation of the natural person in the activities inherent to the legal entity, so that said participation is substantially related to the rights alleged to have been violated.” (emphasis added)(OC. 22/16)”.
In the present case, from the filing brief and the evidence provided, it is inferred that there is an essential relationship between the petitioner natural person and the legal entity she represents. Ergo, it is appropriate to hear the alleged transgression on the merits.
VCG09/2023 ... See more Content of Interest:
Type of Content: Dissenting Vote Branch of Law: 4. GUARANTEE MATTERS Topic: PROMPT RESOLUTION Subtopics:
ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY.
IX.Partial dissenting vote of Magistrate Cruz Castro. Although in the past I have held the majority criterion of the Court, under a better consideration of the fundamental rights being claimed, I consider that administrative delay constitutes an injury to a fundamental procedural guarantee, a reason for which I change the criterion I had expressed, admitting the possible infringement of the right to prompt and fulfilled administrative justice, separating myself from the view of the majority of the Court, in the sense that –save for few exceptions- this type of reproach must be resolved in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. On the contrary, I consider that one of the rights that this jurisdiction is called to protect is that of prompt and fulfilled justice, expressly enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitution. This is in accordance with the scope of competence assigned to this Court in matters of protection of fundamental rights, in attention to the provisions of Articles 10 and 48 of the Political Constitution.
While I understand the importance of the reforms to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction since the entry into force of Law 8508 of April twenty-fourth, two thousand six, the truth is that said situation does not justify the referral to that instance of matters that concern this Chamber's competence, which has demonstrated over the years that it is a swift and effective means for the protection of the fundamental rights of the country's inhabitants. Consequently, I partially dissent from the vote in relation to the right to prompt and fulfilled administrative justice.
VCG09/2023 ... See more * CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty-three.
Amparo appeal processed in case file No. 23-007105-0007-CO, filed by [Name 001], residence identification card [CED168], on behalf of [Name317 002], legal identification number [CED161], against the NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS (SINAC), the CONSERVATION AREA Name14042, and the MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
Whereas:
She states that over time this female monkey developed a bond with her similar to that created with members of the troop, as a logical consequence of having rescued her so young; nevertheless, she remained in the wild. She recounts that to greet her the monkey would show her glands, this being the way these animals greet each other. She adds that this is the female monkey from the video case explained above. She indicates that the confiscation carried out by the officials of the Osa Conservation Area (Área de Conservación de Osa) resulted from an ill-considered initiative that also violates the principle of substantiation (principio de fundamentación) of every administrative act, endangering not only the animals that were in the wild, but also causing effects on the rest of the troop. She states that the three monkeys were captured by offering them cookies, and at some point they even considered using darts, but the veterinarian who works for [Nombre317 002] did not allow it.
She recounts that the fact is that they took three free animals and caged them at ZOOAVE, where the overcrowding (hacinamiento) suffered by the animals is well known to all. She adds that the unnecessary harm caused to the individual, in this case, by separation from the troop, change of habitat, diet, and other factors, is also described in the doctrine, which the SINAC officials disregarded at all times. She indicates that the most serious aspect of all is that no opinion from primatologist specialists, nor any agreement on the relocation was involved in these actions of capturing free animals so that these individuals would not suffer or to prepare for the change of environment. She states that there are no primatologists in Costa Rica, which is why she requested the opinion of a renowned primatologist from the University of Tennessee, Ph.D. Pamela Ashmore who, in a letter to the Minister of Environment and Energy, stated the following: "I understand that the confiscation of the adult female spider monkey (Ateles goeffroyi) identified as 'Nombre14048' may have been the result of good intentions, but I suspect there was a misunderstanding regarding the identification of the social behaviors exhibited by this primate.
The greeting behavior shown toward a staff member of Nombre14042 was not what a pet spider monkey would have exhibited, but rather that typical of a free-ranging spider monkey troop. Furthermore, I understand that this primate has never been caged, and the fact that she is now forced to live in an unfamiliar captive environment will surely have long-term detrimental effects on this adult female. She is likely terrified and depressed, not knowing what has happened to her conspecifics or the humans with whom she is familiar, which will undoubtedly cause her social and psychological distress that, unfortunately, may lead to her death." She recounts that from the described facts, several questions then arise: what is more important? A permit that can be updated and obtained, or the lives of the animals and the protection of ecosystems. She adds that, without downplaying the importance of the requirements, which she accepts must be met, it appears that in this case, the issue of the permit, which is always feasible to obtain, is considered more important than the disruption of the ecological balance and the very lives of the individuals at the refuge.
She indicates that it suffices to briefly recall the case of the lion Nombre14049, who lived with a special health condition for which he was treated at the Simón Bolívar Zoo by a wildlife veterinarian he had known for years. She states that the relocation of this animal from Simón Bolívar to Zooave, amid publicity and media noise and distancing him from the place he knew and the people who had cared for him all his life, caused his rapid death less than three months after being moved (Lascares, 2017). She recounts that in the case of the female monkey Nombre14050, at the time she was removed from the site, she was recovering from an injury to her left eye that occurred in October 2022 and, furthermore, had special needs; she suffered from chronic injuries probably associated with autoimmune processes of undetermined cause (she was examined by multiple veterinarians), and this stressful situation could have triggered a flare-up that other veterinarians and curators will have to take time to decipher.
She adds that she is worried that the case of Nombre14049 will be repeated, given that the well-being of the animal is not a priority. She indicates that the female spider monkey, who had lived 19 years in the wild at the site, was the only one of that species that could be easily approached by strangers and captured precisely because of having established a relationship at a very early age (less than one week old) with her caregiver; she is the only one of all the primates at the site that tends to trust humans (a very common case in primates worldwide when they are raised from such an early age by people) (Nombre14051, 2021; Nombre3052 and Nombre14052, 2023). She states that, upon reviewing the elements of proportionality—suitability (idoneidad), necessity (necesidad), and proportionality in the strict sense (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto)—it is then mandatory to ask: was it suitable to take animals that were in captivity because the petitioner did not have her permit up to date?
Was it necessary for the animals that were in the wild to be transferred, with the consequent risk of death, to a zoo that did not meet the requirements for their survival, including those animals that were indeed in captivity but were also being forced to leave their own habitat? Would it not have been more prudent to prevent the delay in updating the permit? She deems that the measure contravenes the principle of proportionality in its third element, since it is not proportionate because said provision empties the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
• The infrastructure must have facilities to cover the needs of persons with disabilities (Ley N°7600). • Every development must have the necessary equipment and a plan to act in case of emergency. • In duly justified cases, the pruning of branches will be permitted, but under no justification will the cutting of trees be permitted; projects must be designed and adjusted so that they do not require the cutting of trees, without exception. • Submit periodic reports on the execution of the plan, for the proper oversight of this use permit; Nombre14042 requires a report every 6 months. While it is true that the appellant is correct on this point, in Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, she was advised: That according to the provisions of Decree number 35868-MINAET, called Reglamentación del artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal N°7575 y modificación de los artículos 2 y 11 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal N°7575, Decreto Ejecutivo N°25721-MINAE, said permit may not be assigned, transferred, or donated, it shall be granted under precarious condition (condición precaria) and therefore does not imply any right of possession or ownership over the land, and may be revoked when the State so determines for reasons of coexistence, opportunity, or public interest, in accordance with article 154 of the Ley General de administración Pública N°6227.
SECOND. The appellant indicates that "she was notified by means of an official letter stating the revocation of the permit, asserting that in any case what really happened was that the permit expired." The appellant is not correct since said notification was made by means of administrative resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022 and this stipulated the revocation of the permit granted in the previous phase for not having complied with the technical specifications, as detailed below: On November 23, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., the undersigned Paula Mena Corea, in her capacity as director of Área de Conservación de Osa, of SINAC, notified Mrs. [Nombre317 003], with passport number [Valor 004], of United States nationality, legal representative of [Nombre317 005], with legal identification number [Valor CED201], of resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, to the designated email address, as recorded in the file, ...1381.
The resolution ordered the following: Revoke the use permit in the previous phase granted by Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, to Fundación [Nombre317 002], legal identification number [Valor CED198], represented by Mrs. [Nombre317 003], passport number [Valor 004], in her capacity as president, to develop training activities in an area of 5.05 hectares, located at Dirección3038 , . Grant a prudential period of 3 months for the eviction and demolition of the existing infrastructure on the property over which the use permit on Patrimonio Natural del Estado was granted, according to administrative file D-TEC-ASP-071. This permit was revoked for non-compliance with the technical specifications; it is not based on the type of materials to be used but on the characteristics of the constructions carried out, for example, the cages shown are built with a block and cement base that require excavation and prevent the cage from being mobile.
Furthermore, the infrastructure does not have facilities to cover the needs of persons with disabilities (Ley N°7600); nor does it have the necessary equipment and a plan to act in case of emergency; nor have the periodic reports every six months on the execution of the plan for the proper oversight of the use permit been submitted to Nombre14042. The Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) granted by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental in Resolution N°2978-2018-SETENA, was issued based on a registered plan that does not correspond to the file, with an area of 17ha 6387 m2. The use permit granted by Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 was over an area of 5.05 hectares, according to a sketch submitted as part of the requirements for its approval. These discrepancies jeopardize the condition of guaranteeing the integrity of the assigned area, to establish effective means and mechanisms of control and protection, the responsibility and obligation of which lies with both the permit holder (permisionario) and SINAC, in accordance with current regulations.
THIRD. Regarding what was alleged by the appellant: "She adds that this permit is important because there she carries out her economic activity (tours, research, and others) and, furthermore, her dwelling house (casa de habitación) is on that site, which is pending resolution." This allegation is not correct since according to the provisions of Decree number 35868-MINAET, called Reglamentación del artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal N°7575 y modificación de los artículos 2 y 11 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal N°7575, Decreto Ejecutivo N°25721-MINAE, said permit may not be assigned, transferred, or donated, it shall be granted under precarious condition (condición precaria) and therefore does not imply any right of possession or ownership over the land, and may be revoked when the State so determines for reasons of coexistence, opportunity, or public interest, in accordance with article 154 of the Ley General de administración Pública N°6227.
It is important to remember that the area in question is Patrimonio Natural del Estado, and, therefore, these are public domain assets (bienes demaniales), where the appellant cannot claim to have acquired rights to have her dwelling house (casa de habitación), nor to carry out economic activities, without the proper permits. FOURTH. The appellant states "that she currently submitted a new application for Patrimonio Natural del Estado on January 9, 2023." While the appellant submitted a new application for a use permit in 2023, as reported above, the denial of the use permit was carried out through administrative resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, following due process according to article 346 of the Ley General de Administración Pública; the resolution is subject to an appeal for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) and appeal (apelación). The appellant filed both appeals and the appeal for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) was duly answered by resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-0102-2022, duly notified to the appellant.
Regarding the appeal (recurso de apelación), it was elevated to the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, a higher body, in order for it to resolve said appeal, which to date has not received a response, which is why a new application cannot be initiated for Nombre317 of Mrs. [Nombre317 003]. FIFTH. The appellant submitted an application for a zoo permit (holding of rescued animals that cannot return to their habitat). While the appellant submitted the application for a zoo permit, as part of the planning processes for Wildlife Management Sites (Sitios de Manejo de Vida Silvestre), a commission of experts, appointed by the Minister of Environment and Energy through official letters DM-0599-2020 and DM-0641-2020, to respond to functional directive FGR-451-2020 of the Fiscalía General de la República, was required to carry out an administrative, legal, and technical analysis of the Wildlife Management Site (Sitio de Manejo de Vida Silvestre) called Centro de Rescate [Nombre 002].
The documentary and technical field analysis was issued through official letter COMISION-FGR-451-013-2021 and was carried out by three members of the commission, namely Bach. José Joaquín Vargas Mora, Natural Resources Manager and head of the Wildlife Program of the Área de Conservación Tortuguero, Msc. Jorge Gonzales Villalobos, Master in Wildlife Management, and Master in Wildlife Management Msc. Carol Sánchez Núñez, who accompanied the inspection process. During the field visit to the management site, ACOSA officials collaborated, including Ilsia Olivares Hernández, as the technician responsible for inspections at the management site, and Ing. Olger Méndez Fallas, as the director of Natural Resources. As can be seen, this was a high-level commission composed of professionals with proven knowledge and credibility. The field visit to verify the management conditions of the site, by this commission, was carried out on September 24, 2020, and the report resulting from it concludes that: the Rescue Center only operated for a year and a half with authorization from SINAC; once the Rescue Center permit expired, the site did not have a professional manager (regente) or veterinary advisor for the proper management of the wild species housed; the wildlife management site operated as a rescue center but allowed volunteers and visitors direct contact with the animals; the management site, unable to renew the rescue center permit, decided to opt for a Sanctuary-Type Zoo permit (Zoológico Tipo Santuario), however, it was proven that the infrastructure and animal management conditions were not suitable to authorize this permit; it is noted that the site anticipates receiving visitors, yet it lacks conditions such as a dock, trails in good condition, barriers in the enclosures, and there are no environmental education and enrichment programs for the animals housed; it is evident that there are animal management conditions that contravene current legislation, such as the pet-ification (mascotización) of individuals of the Mono Nombre14050 species and the feeding of free-ranging wildlife.
All these anomalies are the responsibility of the permit holder (permisionario) since ignorance of the regulations associated with wildlife management centers cannot be SIXTH. claimed. Regarding what the appellant indicates about the video on the beach when she was arriving in the boat with other people, where the interaction of the primates and Mrs. [Nombre317 003] is observed, as well as what she stated about the filing of a complaint by the Área de Conservación de Nombre14042 in the judicial venue. The appellant is not correct since, according to what was stated in the previous point, there is evidence of imprinting (improntacion) activities; regarding the video in question, regardless of who took it, it is evident that several individuals of the spider monkey species (Mono araña) (two spider monkeys, one of which is carrying a baby), have undergone a process of pet-ification (mascotización), which is defined by the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre as: Pet-ification (Mascotización): a process by which a wild animal is removed from its natural environment to keep it as a pet (mascota), in permanent contact with humans, which causes variations in its diet and environment, stimulates the loss of instinctive behaviors inherent to its nature, deteriorates its social behavior, its health, and harms its quality of life.
For its part, the term pet (mascota) is defined in the Reglamento a la Ley de Conservación a la Vida Silvestre in article 4: Pet (Mascota): a specimen of wild fauna, as established in articles 1, 2, and 5 of the LCVS, that has been subjected to a process of pet-ification (mascotización) and domestication by humans. The animal is kept, temporarily or permanently, outside its natural habitat as a species, or it is encouraged to abandon it temporarily. It is in permanent or recurring contact with humans, depends partially or totally on this relationship for its survival, presents an attitude of closeness toward people with affectionate behaviors, and is treated as an object of affection, companionship, assistance, or recreation. As a consequence of these actions, the animal may present or come to present variations in its diet, behavior, and natural needs, and temporary or permanent loss of behaviors typical of its species.
Behaviors that could have been corrected if at the time the site had had trained professionals as dictated by current regulations (managing biologist (biólogo regente) in wildlife and veterinarian). Regarding the complaint, the appellant is indeed correct since there is currently a case in process at the Juzgado Contravencional de Golfito, being followed under case 22-000246-1097-FC for violation of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. SEVENTH. The appellant indicates that Mr. Rafael Gutiérrez, director of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, issued the following general instruction: "Close, within a maximum period of three months, the management sites that are operating without a permit and without requirements such as the figure of the manager (regente)." The appellant is correct since, on October 26, 2022, Mr. Rafael Gutiérrez Rojas received the report issued based on the inspection carried out by COMISION-FGR-451-021-2020.
In the exercise of his functional direction, he ordered, in his sixth instruction of said directive: “Close, within a maximum period of three months, the management sites that are operating without a permit and without requirements such as the figure of the manager (regente) and proceed to the relocation of the animals in authorized sites, for which the site management closure plan established in the management plan shall be applied, and the resources and funds mentioned may be used, as well as coordination with other institutions to support the actions.” Regarding operation without a permit and requirements such as a manager (regente): On October 21, 2022, official Ilsia Olivares Hernández of the Technical Directorate of the Área de Conservación Osa, through official letter SINAC-ACOSA-D-PVS-063-2022, consulted the executive secretary about the registration of Mrs. Nombre14043 , identification number CED7174, in the SINAC manager registry (libro de regencias).
On October 27, 2022, Mr. Nombre14053 received certification SINAC-SE-CUSBSE-022-2022, in which he certifies: the biologist Nombre14043 , identification number CED7174, was removed from the SINAC wildlife manager registry (libro de regentes de vida silvestre) as of April 2021, through administrative resolution R-CUSBSE-SE-REGENTES-EXCLUIR-066-2021 at 1:05 p.m. on April 8, two thousand twenty-one, therefore she is not currently authorized to carry out wildlife manager (regente de vida silvestre) duties. EIGHTH. Regarding what was indicated by the appellant concerning the operation carried out on December 19, 2022, with the greatest irresponsibility and devoid of any technical support, as well as what was stated about the seizure (decomiso) in which no individuals were recorded in the seizure report (acta de decomiso). The appellant is not correct since this seizure (decomiso) was carried out because the appellant did not comply with the provisions of the Ley de Conservación a la Vida Silvestre and its Regulations, furthermore, the use permit on Patrimonio Natural del Estado was not granted, and there was a mandate issued by COMISION-FGR-451-2020, as well as official letter SINAC-DE-634-2020 which provides a mandatory instruction for compliance with wildlife regulations and the organization of the institutional process.
This is why the denial resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-095-2022 was issued. This operation was carried out with the support of personnel from the Coast Guard Service (Servicio de Guardacostas), the Executive Secretariat of SINAC, and personnel from the Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza; To safeguard the integrity of the animals, this operation involved the veterinary physician Laura Brenes Chávez, SINAC veterinarian, and the veterinary physician Isabel Hagnauer Barrantes, veterinary manager (regente veterinaria) of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza (ZOAVE); in addition to Mrs. Angie Sánchez Núñez, Master in Wildlife Management and Conservation, from the Executive Secretariat of SINAC. Upon arriving at the site, official Danny Pizarro Ruiz, from the Control and Protection Program of ACOSA, complied with the legal formalities, proceeded to introduce himself to Mrs. [Nombre317 003], explaining the reason for our presence, and subsequently, taking into account that Mrs. [Nombre317 003] did not wish to accompany us in the development of the operation, sending in her representation members who work with her: Luis Nieto Vasquez, identification number CED7175, Jeffrey Perez Fernandez, identification number CED7176, and Olivier Chavarria Arauz, identification number CED7177, we proceeded with it.
The operation was carried out quickly, safeguarding the integrity of both the participants and the wild animals; a total of 26 individuals of various wildlife species were captured. Once the animals were seized (decomisado), the seizure report (acta de decomiso) was prepared, signed, and a copy of the signed and sealed document was delivered to Mrs. [Nombre317 001]; Report No. 245-2022 is attached. We transferred them to Golfito, to the office of the Regional Directorate of ACOSA, and proceeded to prepare the formal documents for delivery into custody to the Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, approved by administrative resolution N°SINAC-ACC-OAre-1389-2022, which is one of the management sites that is up to date, with veterinary physician Dr. Isabel Hagnauer and the managing biologist (regente bióloga) Martha Venegas Vargas. As indicated in report ZACRESCATE-035-2023, "they have international certification from the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS, for its acronym in English http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/).
This accreditation ensures that the organization meets validated protocols of a true rescue center and is providing humane, ethical, and responsible care to the animals, complying with standards of operation, administration, veterinary care, and animal welfare subject to cross-review. This accreditation also provides a clear and reliable means for the public, governmental, and private entities to recognize RWRC-Zoave as a solid and sustainable organization that deserves national and global support." NINTH. Regarding what was indicated by the appellant concerning the opinion issued by the apparent primatologist Ph.D. Pamela Ashmore, the accreditation of Mrs. Ashmore for Costa Rica is not demonstrated through duly apostilled documents. TENTH. The appellant indicates that the primates were captured while they were on the free path. Indeed, as indicated by the appellant, these primates, which correspond to 1 spider monkey and 2 titi monkeys, were captured and seized (decomisados) because they exhibited imprinting (improntacion) behaviors, as indicated in report ZA-CRESCATE-035-2023, "Regarding the current state of the animals (Table 2), none of these individuals are releasable; the behavioral observations determined that they show constant interest in interacting with people (Photos 5 and 6), and this very thing was observed on the day of capture as they did not seek to move away from people and even approached seeking food."
Drafted by Magistrate Garita Navarro; and,
Considering:
I.Object of the appeal. - It states that in November 2022, they notified her of the revocation of the permit for the operation of a wildlife management site under the zoo category (zoológico) for Fundación [Nombre317 002], however, she considers that it was actually an expiration (caducidad) of the permit and not a revocation. She states that, on December 19, 2022, officials from Nombre14042 arrived at the site and seized (decomisaron) all the animals that were in cages, without any type of meeting to reach an agreement for the protection of the animals. She affirms that, among the seized animals, three wild animals that were rescued but lived in freedom were also taken. She argues that all the seized animals were taken to ZOOAVE. She indicates that the seizure (decomiso) carried out by the officials of the Área de Conservación de Osa violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. She points out that, on January 9, 2023, she submitted a new application for PNE; however, it is pending resolution. She requests that the animals that were in freedom be ordered returned to their natural habitat.
Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed as duly proven, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:
Furthermore, the infrastructure does not have facilities to cover the needs of persons with disabilities (Ley N°7600); nor does it have the necessary equipment and a plan to act in case of emergency; nor have the periodic reports every six months on the execution of the plan for the proper oversight of the use permit been submitted to Nombre14042. The Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) granted by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental in Resolution N°2978-2018-SETENA, was issued based on a registered plan that does not correspond to the file, with an area of 17ha 6387 m2. The use permit granted by Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 was over an area of 5.05 hectares, according to a sketch submitted as part of the requirements for its approval. These discrepancies jeopardize the condition of guaranteeing the integrity of the assigned area, to establish effective means and mechanisms of control and protection, the responsibility and obligation of which lies with both the permit holder (permisionario) and SINAC, in accordance with current regulations.”; a decision that was notified to the protected party at the means indicated for such purposes. (see reports and evidence provided).
- The appellant states that in November 2022, they notified her of the revocation of the permit for the operation of a wildlife management site under the zoo category (zoológico) for Fundación [Nombre317 002], however, she considers that it was actually an expiration (caducidad) of the permit and not a revocation. She states that, on December 19, 2022, officials from Nombre14042 arrived at the site and seized (decomisaron) all the animals that were in cages, without any type of meeting to reach an agreement for the protection of the animals. She affirms that, among the seized animals, three wild animals that were rescued but lived in freedom were also taken. She argues that all the seized animals were taken to ZOOAVE. She indicates that the seizure (decomiso) carried out by the officials of the Área de Conservación de Osa violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. She requests that the animals that were in freedom be ordered returned to their natural habitat.
From the reports provided by the representatives of the respondent authority—which are taken as under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction—and from the body of evidence, it is accredited that on November 14, 2017, the Área de Conservación Nombre14042 issued Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, in which it resolved to grant the protected party a use permit in the previous phase (permiso de uso en fase previa) to develop training activities in an area of 5.05 hectares, located in Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Only 13 mobile and disassemblable cages were authorized to be located within the forest area and were to be properly enriched, to house 23 wildlife individuals. In order for her to continue with the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) process before SETENA. Likewise, she was advised that according to the provisions of Decree number 35868-MINAET, called Reglamentación del artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal N°7575 y modificación de los artículos 2 y 11 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal N°7575, Decreto Ejecutivo N°25721-MINAE, said permit may not be assigned, transferred, or donated, it shall be granted under precarious condition (condición precaria) and therefore does not imply any right of possession or ownership over the land, and may be revoked when the State so determines for reasons of coexistence, opportunity, or public interest, in accordance with article 154 of the Ley General de administración Pública N°6227.
Likewise, it is established that, on November 23, 2022, the Área de Conservación de Nombre14042 of SINAC, through resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, ordered the following: “Revoke the use permit in the previous phase (permiso de uso en fase previa) granted by Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, to Fundación [Nombre317 002], legal identification number [Valor CED198], represented by Mrs. [Nombre317 003], passport number [Valor 004], in her capacity as president, to develop training activities in an area of 5.05 hectares, located at Dirección3038 , . Grant a prudential period of 3 months for the eviction and demolition of the existing infrastructure on the property over which the use permit on Patrimonio Natural del Estado was granted, according to administrative file D-TEC-ASP-071. This permit was revoked for non-compliance with the technical specifications; it is not based on the type of materials to be used but on the characteristics of the constructions carried out, for example, the cages shown are built with a block and cement base that require excavation and prevent the cage from being mobile.
Furthermore, the infrastructure does not have facilities to meet the needs of persons with disabilities (Ley N°7600); nor does it have the necessary equipment and a plan to act in case of emergency; nor have the periodic six-month reports on the execution of the plan for proper oversight of the use permit been submitted in Nombre14042. The Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) granted by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) in Resolution N°2978-2018-SETENA was issued backed by a registered plan that does not correspond to the case file, with an area of 17 ha 6387 m2. The use permit granted pursuant to Resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 was over an area of 5.05 hectares, according to a sketch submitted as part of the requirements for its approval. These discrepancies jeopardize the condition of guaranteeing the integrity of the assigned area, in order to establish effective means and mechanisms of control and protection, the responsibility and obligation for which corresponds to both the permit holder and SINAC, in accordance with the regulations in force.”; a decision that was notified to the applicant at the address indicated for such purposes.
Due to the foregoing, on November 28, 2022, the applicant filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022. Likewise, it is noted that, by resolution N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-095-2022 of 2:30 p.m. on December 13, 2022, the applicant was denied the operating permit (permiso de funcionamiento) for a wildlife management site (sitio de manejo de vida silvestre) under the category of Non-profit Sanctuary-type Zoo (Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario). Additionally, it is established that, on December 16, 2022, by resolution SINAC-ACOSA-DR-R-102-2022, the motion for revocation filed against resolution SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022 was declared without merit and the appeal was ordered to be elevated to the National Council of Conservation Areas (Consejo Nacional de Área de Conservación). Furthermore, it is noted that, on December 19, 2022, the respondent authorities, with the support of Coast Guard Service (Servicio de Guardacostas) personnel and personnel from the Tropical Wildlife Rescue Center (Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical, CRVST) at Nombre317 of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, proceeded to seize the animals; considering that, to safeguard the integrity of the animals in this operation, the veterinarian Laura Brenes Chávez, veterinarian of SINAC, and the veterinarian Isabel Hagnauer Barrantes, veterinary regent of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza (ZOAVE), participated; in addition to Ms.
Angie Sánchez Núñez, Master in Wildlife Management and Conservation, from the Executive Secretariat (Secretaría Ejecutiva) of SINAC. Finally, it is noted that, once the seizure of the animals was carried out, the seizure record was drawn up, it was signed, and a copy of the signed and sealed document was delivered to the claimant; the animals were delivered into custody to the Tropical Wildlife Rescue Center (CRVST) at Nombre317 of Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, approved by administrative resolution N°SINAC-ACC-OA-re-1389-2022, which is one of the management sites that is up to date.
In the case at bar, what is raised by the claimant are really disagreements with the actions and resolutions carried out by the respondent authorities, namely, the revocation of the use permit on State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) that had been granted to her in 2017, the denial of the operating permit for a wildlife management site under the category of Non-profit Sanctuary-type Zoo, and the seizure of the animals under her charge. In that sense, although it is alleged that such actions violate Article 50 of the Constitution; the truth is that, from the evidence provided in the record, it is verified that, contrary to what the plaintiff asserts, the decisions adopted were due to the non-compliance of the plaintiff herself with the operating permits that had been granted to her in due course and that, due to such shortcomings, the animal species and their natural environment were affected.
Having clarified the foregoing, it is necessary to warn the plaintiff that it is not within the purview of this Chamber to review whether what is sought conforms or not to the current legal regulations, a task proper to the ordinary means—administrative or jurisdictional—since this Chamber is not a comptroller of the legality of the Administration's actions or resolutions. The very claims that the plaintiff sets forth—the propriety or not of the revocation of the use permit on State Natural Heritage that had been granted to her in 2017, the denial of the operating permit for a wildlife management site under the category of Non-profit Sanctuary-type Zoo, and the seizure of the animals under her charge (the place where they were taken and whether their return is proper)—are matters of ordinary legality and must be discussed and resolved through the means that the law has specifically provided for these cases, since they do not constitute a notorious, manifest violation or probable risk to the environment, as a protected legal interest, cases in which, under the shelter of the precautionary and preventive principles, this Chamber proceeds to analyze possible injuries to the right protected in Article 50 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the claimant must raise her disagreement or the corresponding claim before the respondent authority, or before the competent jurisdictional venue, venues where she will be able, in an ample manner, to discuss the merits of the matter and assert her claims. Consequently, the appeal regarding this point must be dismissed, as is hereby done.
As a second claim, the plaintiff points out that, on January 09, 2023, she filed a new application for State Natural Heritage; however, it is pending resolution. On this point, it is noted that the plaintiff’s application that has not yet been resolved—as observed from the evidence provided—cannot be classified within the assumptions of pure and simple requests for information, since from reading the motion it is clear that the applicant's claim is that the respondent Authority grant her a use permit on State Natural Heritage. That is, in order to be able to respond to her request, the respondent authority is obligated to analyze and carry out a series of assessments to determine the propriety or not of her inquiry. In that sense, this Chamber considers that the petitioner’s request is characteristic of an administrative proceeding, which is why the following considerations are made.
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AS A SWIFT AND DUE MECHANISM FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL SITUATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), since its founding, has used broad admissibility criteria in view of the absence of expeditious and swift procedural channels for the protection of substantial legal situations that are grounded in the infra-constitutional legal system or legality parameter, and that have an indirect connection with fundamental rights and the Law of the Constitution. On this point, one must not lose perspective that the Constitution, due to its supremacy, super-legality, and direct and immediate efficacy, indirectly grounds any imaginable substantial legal situation of individuals. However, upon better consideration and in light of the enactment of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo) (Ley No. 8508 of April 24, 2006) and its entry into force as of January 1, 2008, it has become clear that now justiciable parties have a plenary and universal contentious-administrative jurisdiction, which is extremely expeditious and swift due to the various procedural mechanisms that this legislation incorporates into the legal system, such as the shortening of time frames for performing the various procedural acts, the breadth of standing, precautionary measures, the numerus apertus of deducible claims, orality—and its subprinciples of concentration, immediacy, and swiftness—the single instance with an appeal only in expressly limited situations, intra-procedural conciliation, the unified proceeding, the preferential proceeding or “amparo de legalidad,” proceedings based purely on law, the new enforcement measures (coercive fines, substitutive or commissarial enforcement, seizure of fiscal domain property and some public domain property), the broad powers of the body of enforcement judges, the extension and adaptation of the effects of case law to third parties, and the flexibility of the cassation appeal.
All these novel procedural institutes have as their express end and purpose to achieve procedural economy, swiftness, promptness, and the effective or due protection of the substantial legal situations of individuals, all with a guarantee of basic fundamental rights such as due process, defense, and the adversarial principle. In sum, the new contentious-administrative jurisdiction is a suitable channel, due to its new characteristics of simplicity, swiftness, and promptness, for the amparo and effective protection of the substantial legal situations of individuals in which it is necessary to gather evidence or define some issues of ordinary legality.
AN EVIDENT ISSUE OF ORDINARY LEGALITY. It is evident that determining whether the public administration meets or fails to meet the time frames established by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (articles 261 and 325) or the sectoral laws for special administrative proceedings, to resolve by final act an administrative proceeding—initiated ex officio or at the request of a party—or to hear the appropriate administrative appeals, is an evident issue of ordinary legality that, henceforth, can be discussed and resolved before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction with the application of the principles that nourish the constitutional jurisdiction, such as those of vicarious standing, the possibility of material defense—that is, to appear without legal counsel—and of gratuity for the claimant. Consequently, outright rejection is required, and the petitioner is to be instructed that if she deems it appropriate, she may resort to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.
VII.Note by Judge Castillo Víquez, regarding prompt and due administrative justice. I have supported this Court's thesis that when a justiciable party alleges a violation of the right to prompt and due justice in the administrative venue, those who must hear the legal controversy are the Contentious-Administrative Courts and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Law Regulating the Right of Petition, it has been established that this right is subject to judicial protection through the amparo remedy established by Article 32 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), in relation to Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the material actions of the Administration, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting their fundamental rights.
In my view, the recently enacted regulation does not imply that this Court must modify its jurisprudential line; this Court, based on numeral 7 of its Law, is exclusively responsible for defining its own jurisdiction. Therefore, except for those legal-constitutional controversies that have been recognized by this very Chamber as exceptional circumstances that may be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional proceeding of amparo, in other cases, and for the reasons that this Court has given (judgment N° 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), the competent judges are those of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is in accordance with numeral 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal norms based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
I must warn that since judgment no. 2019-2355 of 9:30 a.m. on February 12, 2019, in my dissenting vote, I indicated the following position regarding amparo remedies when they have been filed on behalf of a legal entity:
“…in Advisory Opinion 22-16 of February 26, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicated that although some States recognize the right of petition for legal entities under special conditions, such as unions, political parties, or representatives of indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, or specific groups, the fact is that “Article 1.2 of the American Convention only enshrines rights in favor of natural persons, so legal entities are not holders of the rights enshrined in said treaty.” On the other hand, in the same advisory opinion, the Inter-American Court provided that, in certain particular contexts, natural persons may exercise their rights through legal entities (for example, through a media outlet, as occurred in the case of Nombre295 et al. v. Venezuela); however, in order for this to be protectable before the inter-American system, “the exercise of the right through a legal entity must involve an essential and direct relationship between the natural person requiring protection from the inter-American system and the legal entity through which the violation occurred, since a simple link between both persons is not sufficient to conclude that the rights of natural persons and not of legal entities are actually being protected.
In effect, it must be proven beyond the simple participation of the natural person in the activities of the legal entity, so that such participation relates substantially to the rights alleged as violated.” (emphasis added) (OC. 22/16).” In the present case, from the petitioning brief and the evidence provided, it follows that there is an essential relationship between the natural person claimant and the legal entity she represents. Hence, it is appropriate to examine the merits of the alleged transgression.
IX.Partial dissenting vote of Judge Cruz Castro. Although in the past I have held the majority criterion of the Court, upon better consideration of the fundamental rights being claimed, I consider that administrative delay constitutes an injury to a fundamental procedural guarantee, which is why I change the criterion I had expressed, admitting the possible infringement of the right to prompt and due administrative justice, separating myself from the majority view of the Court, in the sense that—save for very few exceptions—this type of reproach must be resolved in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. On the contrary, I consider that one of the rights this jurisdiction is called upon to protect is that of prompt and due justice, expressly enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitution. This is in accordance with the scope of jurisdiction assigned to this Court in matters of protection of fundamental rights, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 48 of the Political Constitution.
Although I understand the importance of the reforms of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction since the entry into force of Ley 8508 of April twenty-fourth, two thousand six, the fact is that such circumstance does not justify the referral to that instance of matters that deal with subject matter within the jurisdiction of this Chamber, which has demonstrated over the years that it is a swift and effective means for the protection of the fundamental rights of the country's inhabitants. Consequently, I partially dissent with regard to the right to prompt and due administrative justice.
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 withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on Electronic Case Files before the Judicial Branch" (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the 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 N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
THEREFORE:
The appeal is declared without merit. Judge Castillo Víquez records a note. Judge Rueda Leal records a note. Judge Cruz Castro partially dissents with regard to the right to prompt and due administrative justice.
Nombre290 V. President Fernando Cruz C. Paul Rueda L. Jorge Araya G. Nombre319 V. Nombre8889 G. Jose Roberto Garita N.
FILE N° 23-007105-0007-CO Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección40 , Dirección41 , 100 mts.Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Reception of matters from vulnerable groups: Dirección42 , San José, Dirección43 , Dirección44 , calles 19 y 21, Dirección45 Classification prepared by the CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER of the Judicial Branch. Its reproduction and/or distribution in an onerous form is prohibited. It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 26-03-2026 06:31:41.
Sentencia con Voto Salvado Sentencia con nota separada Indicadores de Relevancia Sentencia relevante Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente Contenido de Interés:
Temas Estrategicos: Ambiental,Der Económicos sociales culturales y ambientales Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: 4. ASUNTOS DE GARANTÍA Tema: AMBIENTE Subtemas:
FAUNA.
020774-23. AMBIENTE. SE CUESTIONA DECOMISO DE ANIMALES, QUE SE ENCONTRABAN EN UN ZOOLÓGICO DE OSA. SE DECLARA SIN LUGAR, POR SER UN ASUNTO DE LEGALIDAD. VCG09/2023 “(…) III.- SOBRE EL FONDO. - Manifiesta la recurrente que en noviembre de 2022 le notificaron la revocatoria del permiso para funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría zoológico a Nombre443 de la Fundación [Nombre443 002], sin embargo, considera en realidad se trató de una caducidad del permiso y no de una revocatoria. Refiere que, el 19 de diciembre de 2022 funcionarios de ACOSA llegaron al sitio y decomisaron todos los animales que estaban en jaulas, sin ningún tipo de reunión para llegar a un acuerdo para la protección de los animales. Afirma que, dentro de los animales decomisados, también se llevaron a tres animales silvestres que eran rescatados, pero vivían en libertad. Aduce que, todos los animales decomisados fueron llevados al ZOOAVE. Indica que el decomiso que llevaron a cabo los funcionarios del Área de Conservación de Osa, atenta contra el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Solicita se ordene devolver los animales que se encontraban en libertad a su hábitat natural.
De los informes rendidos por los representantes de la autoridad recurrida -que se tiene dado bajo fe de juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción- y del elenco probatorio, se tiene por acreditado14 de noviembre de 2017, el Área de Conservación Osa emitió la Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, en donde resolvió otorgar a la amparada, permiso de uso en fase previa para desarrollar actividades de capacitación en un área de 5.05 hectáreas, ubicadas en Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Únicamente se autorizaron 13 jaulas móviles y desarmables para ser ubicadas dentro del área de bosque y que debían estar debidamente ambientadas, para hospedar 23 individuos de vida silvestre. A fin de que continue con el trámite de viabilidad ambiental ante SETENA. De igual forma, se le indicó que según lo estipulado en el Decreto número 35868-MINAET, denominado Reglamentación del artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal N°7575 y modificación de los artículos 2 y 11 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal N°7575, Decreto Ejecutivo N°25721-MINAE, dicho permiso no podrá ser cedido, traspasado o donado, será otorgado en condición precaria por ende no implica derecho alguno de posesión o propiedad sobre el terreno, y podrá ser revocado cuando el Estado así lo determine por razones de convivencia, de oportunidad o de interés público, de conformidad con el artículo 154 de la Ley General de administración Pública N°6227.
De igual forma, se tiene que, el 23 de noviembre de 2022 el Área de Conservación de Osa del SINAC mediante resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, dispuso lo siguiente: “Revocar el permiso de uso en fase previa otorgado mediante Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, a Fundación [Nombre443 002], cédula jurídica [Valor CED992], representada por la señora [Nombre443 003], pasaporte número [Valor 004], en su calidad de presidenta, para desarrollar actividades de capacitación en un área de 5.05 hectáreas, ubicadas en Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Dar un plazo prudencial de 3 meses para el desalojo y demolición de la infraestructura existente en el predio sobre el cual se otorgó el permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado, según expediente administrativo D-TEC-ASP-071. Este permiso fue revocado por el incumplimiento de las especificaciones técnicas, no se fundamenta en el tipo de materiales a utilizar sino en las características de las construcciones realizadas, por ejemplo, las jaulas que se muestran están construidas con una base de block y cemento que requieren excavación y evitan que la jaula sea móvil.
Además, la infraestructura no cuenta con facilidades para cubrir las necesidades de personas discapacitadas (Ley N°7600); ni tampoco cuenta con los equipos necesarios y un plan para actuar en caso de emergencia; tampoco se han presentado en ACOSA los informes periódicos cada seis meses sobre la ejecución del plan para la adecuada fiscalización del permiso de uso. La Viabilidad Ambiental otorgada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental en la Resolución N°2978-2018- SETENA, se emitió respaldada a un plano registrado que no corresponde al expediente, con un área de 17ha 6387 m2. El permiso de uso otorgado según Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 fue sobre un área de 5.05 hectáreas, según croquis presentado como parte de los requisitos para su aprobación. Estas discrepancias ponen en riesgo la condición de garantizar la integridad del área asignada, para establecer los medios y mecanismos efectivos de control y protección, cuya responsabilidad y obligación le corresponde tanto al permisionario como al SINAC, de acuerdo con la normativa vigente.”; decisión que, le fue notificada a la amparada al medio señalado para tales efectos.
Por lo anterior, el 28 de noviembre de 2022 la amparada interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022. Igualmente, se tiene que, mediante resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-095-2022 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 13 de diciembre de 2022, se le denegó a la amparada el permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario. Por otra parte, se acredita que, el 16 de diciembre de 2022 mediante resolución SINAC-ACOSA-DR-R-102-2022 se declaró sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto contra la resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022 y se dispuso elevar el recurso de apelación ante el Consejo Nacional de Área de Conservación. Asimismo, se tiene que, el 19 de diciembre de 2022 las autoridades recurridas con el apoyo de personal de Servicio de Guardacostas, y personal del Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) a Nombre443 de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, procedieron a decomisar los animales; siendo que, para salvaguardar la integridad de los animales en este operativo participaron la médico veterinaria Laura Brenes Chávez, veterinaria de SINAC y el médico veterinaria Isabel Hagnauer Barrantes, regente veterinaria de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza (ZOAVE); además de la señora Angie Sánchez Núñez, Master en Manejo y conservación de Vida Silvestre, de la Secretaría Ejecutiva del SINAC.
Finalmente, se tiene que, una vez realizado el decomiso de los animales, se procedió a confeccionar el acta de decomiso, se procedió a firmar y se entregó copia del documento firmado y sellado a la recurrente; siendo que, los animales fueron entregados en custodia al Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) a Nombre443 de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, aprobado mediante resolución administrativa N°SINAC-ACC-OA-re-1389-2022, el cual es uno de los sitios de manejo que se encuentra al día.
En el sub lite, lo planteado por la recurrente son en realidad inconformidades con las actuaciones y resoluciones realizadas por las autoridades recurridas, a decir, la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo. En ese sentido, si bien se alega que tales actuaciones lesionan el artículo 50 constitucional; lo cierto es que, de la prueba aportada a los autos, se comprueba que, contrario a lo afirmado por la accionante, las decisiones adoptadas obedecieron al incumplimiento de la misma accionante en los permisos de funcionamiento que se le habían concedido en su oportunidad y que por tales falencias, se afectaban las especies animales y su entorno natural.
Teniendo claro lo anterior, se impone advertir a la accionante, que no le compete a esta Sala revisar si lo pretendido se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común -administrativa o jurisdiccional-, ya que esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración. Las pretensiones mismas que la accionante expone –procedencia o no de la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo (lugar al que fueron llevados y si procede su devolución)- son propias de la legalidad ordinaria y debe discutirse y resolverse en las vías que la ley ha previsto específicamente para estos casos, por cuanto no suponen una infracción notoria, palmaria o riesgo probable al ambiente, como bien jurídico tutelado, casos en los cuales, al socaire de los principios precautorio y preventivo, esta Sala ingresa a analizar posibles lesiones al derecho tutelado en el canon 50 constitucional.
Por ello, deberá la parte recurrente plantear su inconformidad o el reclamo que corresponda ante la autoridad recurrida, o en la vía jurisdiccional competente, vías en las cuales podrá, en forma amplia, discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones. En consecuencia, el recurso en cuanto a este extremo debe desestimarse, como en efecto se hace.
Como segundo reclamo, señala la accionante que, el 09 de enero de 2023 presentó una solicitud nueva para el Patrimonio Natural del Estado; sin embargo, la misma está pendiente de resolución. Sobre el particular, se tiene que la solicitud de la parte accionante que todavía no han sido resuelta -según lo observado de la prueba aportada- no puede encuadrarse en los supuestos de peticiones puras y simples de información, pues de la lectura de la gestión se desprende que la pretensión de la amparada es que la Autoridad recurrida, le otorgue un permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Es decir, para poder dar respuesta a su solicitud, la autoridad accionada está obligada a analizar y efectuar una serie de valoraciones para determinar la procedencia o no de su inquietud. En ese sentido, considera esta Sala que la petición del recurrente es propia de una gestión administrativa, razón por la cual se realizan las siguientes consideraciones.
NUEVA JUSTICIA ADMINISTRATIVA MECANISMO CÉLERE Y CUMPLIDO PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE SITUACIONES JURÍDICAS SUSTANCIALES DE LOS ADMINISTRADOS. La Sala Constitucional, desde su fundación, ha utilizado criterios amplios de admisibilidad en vista de la ausencia de cauces procesales expeditos y céleres para la protección de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales que tienen asidero en el ordenamiento jurídico infra-constitucional o parámetro de legalidad, que guardan conexión indirecta con los derechos fundamentales y el Derecho de la Constitución. Sobre el particular, no debe perderse de perspectiva que la Constitución por su supremacía, súper-legalidad y eficacia directa e inmediata da fundamento indirecto a cualquier situación jurídica sustancial imaginable de las personas. No obstante, bajo una mejor ponderación y ante la promulgación del Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (Ley No. 8508 de 24 de abril de 2006) y su entrada en vigencia a partir del 1° de enero de 2008, ha quedado patente que ahora los justiciables cuentan con una jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa plenaria y universal, sumamente expedita y célere por los diversos mecanismos procesales que incorpora al ordenamiento jurídico esa legislación, tales como el acortamiento de los plazos para realizar los diversos actos procesales, la amplitud de la legitimación, las medidas cautelares, el numerus apertus de las pretensiones deducibles, la oralidad –y sus subprincipios concentración, inmediación y celeridad-, la única instancia con recurso de apelación en situaciones expresamente tasadas, la conciliación intra-procesal, el proceso unificado, el proceso de trámite preferente o “amparo de legalidad”, los procesos de puro derecho, las nuevas medidas de ejecución (multas coercitivas, ejecución sustitutiva o comisarial, embargo de bienes del dominio fiscal y algunos del dominio público), los amplios poderes del cuerpo de jueces de ejecución, la extensión y adaptación de los efectos de la jurisprudencia a terceros y la flexibilidad del recurso de casación.
Todos esos institutos procesales novedosos tienen por fin y propósito manifiesto alcanzar la economía procesal, la celeridad, la prontitud y la protección efectiva o cumplida de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los administrados, todo con garantía de derechos fundamentales básicos como el debido proceso, la defensa y el contradictorio. En suma, la nueva jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa es un cauce idóneo, por sus nuevas características de simplicidad, celeridad y prontitud para el amparo y protección efectiva de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los administrados en las que se requiera recabar prueba o definir algunas cuestiones de legalidad ordinaria.
CUESTIÓN EVIDENTE DE LEGALIDAD ORDINARIA. Es evidente que determinar si la administración pública cumple 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 –incoado de oficio o a instancia de parte- o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes, es una evidente cuestión de legalidad ordinaria que, en adelante, puede ser discutida y resuelta ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa con la aplicación de los principios que nutren la jurisdicción constitucional, tales como los de la legitimación vicaria, la posibilidad de la defensa material –esto es de comparecer sin patrocinio letrado- y de gratuidad para la parte recurrente. Consecuentemente, se impone el rechazo de plano e indicarle el gestionante que si a bien lo tiene puede acudir a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. (…)” ... Ver más Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Nota separada Rama del Derecho: 1. CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA CON JURISPRUDENCIA Tema: 041- Tutela judicial efectiva. Justicia pronta y cumplida Subtemas:
NO APLICA.
VII.Nota del Magistrado Castillo Víquez, en cuanto a la justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales.
A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia. Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.
VCG09/2023 ... Ver más Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Nota separada Rama del Derecho: 6. LEY DE LA JURISDICCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL ANOTADA CON JURISPRUDENCIA Tema: 033- Legitimación activa Subtemas:
NO APLICA.
Debo advertir que desde la sentencia nro. 2019-2355 de las 9:30 de 12 de febrero de 2019, en mi voto salvado indiqué la siguiente postura en relación con los recursos de amparo cuando estos han sido planteados a favor de una persona jurídica:
“…en la Opinión Consultiva 22-16 del 26 de febrero de 2016, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos indicó que si bien algunos Estados reconocen el derecho de petición a personas jurídicas con condiciones especiales, como lo son los sindicatos, partidos políticos o representantes de pueblos indígenas, comunidades afrodescendientes o grupos específicos, lo cierto es que “El artículo 1.2 de la Convención Americana sólo consagra derechos a favor de personas físicas, por lo que las personas jurídicas no son titulares de los derechos consagrados en dicho tratado”. Por otro lado, en la misma opinión consultiva, la Corte Interamericana dispuso que, en ciertos contextos particulares, las personas físicas pueden llegar a ejercer sus derechos a través de personas jurídicas (verbigracia, a través de un medio de comunicación, como acaeció en el caso Nombre32579 y otros contra Venezuela); empero, a efectos de que ello sea tutelable ante el sistema interamericano, “el ejercicio del derecho a través de una persona jurídica debe involucrar una relación esencial y directa entre la persona natural que requiere protección por parte del sistema interamericano y la persona jurídica a través de la cual se produjo la violación, por cuanto no es suficiente con un simple vínculo entre ambas personas para concluir que efectivamente se están protegiendo los derechos de personas físicas y no de las personas jurídicas.
En efecto, se debe probar más allá de la simple participación de la persona natural en las actividades propias de la persona jurídica, de forma que dicha participación se relacione de manera sustancial con los derechos alegados como vulnerados.” (énfasis agregado)(OC. 22/16)”.
En la especie, del escrito de interposición y la prueba aportada se colige que existe una relación esencial entre la persona natural recurrente y la persona jurídica a quien representa. Ergo, corresponde entrar a conocer por el fondo la transgresión acusada.
VCG09/2023 ... Ver más Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Voto salvado Rama del Derecho: 4. ASUNTOS DE GARANTÍA Tema: PRONTA RESOLUCIÓN Subtemas:
MORA ADMINISTRATIVA..
IX.Voto salvado parcial del Magistrado Cruz Castro. Si bien en el pasado he sostenido el criterio de mayoría del Tribunal, bajo una mejor ponderación de los derechos fundamentales que se reclaman, estimo que la mora administrativa constituye una lesión a una garantía procesal fundamental, razón por la que cambio el criterio que había expuesto, admitiendo la posible infracción al derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida, separándome de la visión de la mayoría del Tribunal, en el sentido que –salvo contadas excepciones- este tipo de reproches deben resolverse en la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa. Por el contrario, estimo que uno de los derechos que esta jurisdicción se encuentra llamada a tutelar es el de la justicia pronta y cumplida, expresamente consagrado en el artículo 41, constitucional. Ello conforme al ámbito de competencia asignado a este Tribunal en materia de protección a derechos fundamentales, en atención a lo dispuesto en los artículos 10 y 48 de la Constitución Política.
Si bien, entiendo la importancia de las reformas de la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa a partir de la vigencia de la Ley 8508 del veinticuatro de abril de dos mil seis, lo cierto es que dicha situación no justifica la remisión a dicha instancia de los asuntos que versan sobre materia que es competencia de esta Sala, la cual ha demostrado a lo largo de los años que es un medio célere y efectivo para la tutela de los derechos fundamentales de los habitantes del país. En consecuencia, salvo parcialmente el voto en relación con el derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida.
VCG09/2023 ... Ver más SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del veinticinco de agosto de dos mil veintitres .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente No. 23-007105-0007-CO, interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de residencia [CED168 ], a favor de [Nombre317 002], cédula jurídica [CED161 ], contra el SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC), el ÁREA DE CONSERVACIÓN Nombre14042 y el MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Garita Navarro; y,
Considerando:
I.Objeto del recurso. - Manifiesta que en noviembre de 2022 le notificaron la revocatoria del permiso para funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría zoológico a Nombre317 de la Fundación [Nombre317 002], sin embargo, considera en realidad se trató de una caducidad del permiso y no de una revocatoria. Refiere que, el 19 de diciembre de 2022 funcionarios de Nombre14042 llegaron al sitio y decomisaron todos los animales que estaban en jaulas, sin ningún tipo de reunión para llegar a un acuerdo para la protección de los animales. Afirma que, dentro de los animales decomisados, también se llevaron a tres animales silvestres que eran rescatados, pero vivían en libertad. Aduce que, todos los animales decomisados fueron llevados al ZOOAVE. Indica que el decomiso que llevaron a cabo los funcionarios del Área de Conservación de Osa, atenta contra el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Señala que, el 09 de enero de 2023 presentó una solicitud nueva para el PNE; sin embargo, la misma está pendiente de resolución. Solicita se ordene devolver los animales que se encontraban en libertad a su hábitat natural.
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 recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
Además, la infraestructura no cuenta con facilidades para cubrir las necesidades de personas discapacitadas (Ley N°7600); ni tampoco cuenta con los equipos necesarios y un plan para actuar en caso de emergencia; tampoco se han presentado en Nombre14042 los informes periódicos cada seis meses sobre la ejecución del plan para la adecuada fiscalización del permiso de uso. La Viabilidad Ambiental otorgada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental en la Resolución N°2978-2018- SETENA, se emitió respaldada a un plano registrado que no corresponde al expediente, con un área de 17ha 6387 m2. El permiso de uso otorgado según Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 fue sobre un área de 5.05 hectáreas, según croquis presentado como parte de los requisitos para su aprobación. Estas discrepancias ponen en riesgo la condición de garantizar la integridad del área asignada, para establecer los medios y mecanismos efectivos de control y protección, cuya responsabilidad y obligación le corresponde tanto al permisionario como al SINAC, de acuerdo con la normativa vigente.”; decisión que, le fue notificada a la amparada al medio señalado para tales efectos. (ver informes y prueba aportada).
- Manifiesta la recurrente que en noviembre de 2022 le notificaron la revocatoria del permiso para funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría zoológico a Nombre317 de la Fundación [Nombre317 002], sin embargo, considera en realidad se trató de una caducidad del permiso y no de una revocatoria. Refiere que, el 19 de diciembre de 2022 funcionarios de Nombre14042 llegaron al sitio y decomisaron todos los animales que estaban en jaulas, sin ningún tipo de reunión para llegar a un acuerdo para la protección de los animales. Afirma que, dentro de los animales decomisados, también se llevaron a tres animales silvestres que eran rescatados, pero vivían en libertad. Aduce que, todos los animales decomisados fueron llevados al ZOOAVE. Indica que el decomiso que llevaron a cabo los funcionarios del Área de Conservación de Osa, atenta contra el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Solicita se ordene devolver los animales que se encontraban en libertad a su hábitat natural.
De los informes rendidos por los representantes de la autoridad recurrida -que se tiene dado bajo fe de juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción- y del elenco probatorio, se tiene por acreditado14 de noviembre de 2017, el Área de Conservación Nombre14042 emitió la Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, en donde resolvió otorgar a la amparada, permiso de uso en fase previa para desarrollar actividades de capacitación en un área de 5.05 hectáreas, ubicadas en Caña Blanca de Golfito, Puntarenas. Únicamente se autorizaron 13 jaulas móviles y desarmables para ser ubicadas dentro del área de bosque y que debían estar debidamente ambientadas, para hospedar 23 individuos de vida silvestre. A fin de que continue con el trámite de viabilidad ambiental ante SETENA. De igual forma, se le indicó que según lo estipulado en el Decreto número 35868-MINAET, denominado Reglamentación del artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal N°7575 y modificación de los artículos 2 y 11 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal N°7575, Decreto Ejecutivo N°25721-MINAE, dicho permiso no podrá ser cedido, traspasado o donado, será otorgado en condición precaria por ende no implica derecho alguno de posesión o propiedad sobre el terreno, y podrá ser revocado cuando el Estado así lo determine por razones de convivencia, de oportunidad o de interés público, de conformidad con el artículo 154 de la Ley General de administración Pública N°6227.
De igual forma, se tiene que, el 23 de noviembre de 2022 el Área de Conservación de Nombre14042 del SINAC mediante resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022, dispuso lo siguiente: “Revocar el permiso de uso en fase previa otorgado mediante Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017, a Fundación [Nombre317 002], cédula jurídica [Valor CED198], representada por la señora [Nombre317 003], pasaporte número [Valor 004], en su calidad de presidenta, para desarrollar actividades de capacitación en un área de 5.05 hectáreas, ubicadas en Dirección3038 , . Dar un plazo prudencial de 3 meses para el desalojo y demolición de la infraestructura existente en el predio sobre el cual se otorgó el permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado, según expediente administrativo D-TEC-ASP-071. Este permiso fue revocado por el incumplimiento de las especificaciones técnicas, no se fundamenta en el tipo de materiales a utilizar sino en las características de las construcciones realizadas, por ejemplo, las jaulas que se muestran están construidas con una base de block y cemento que requieren excavación y evitan que la jaula sea móvil.
Además, la infraestructura no cuenta con facilidades para cubrir las necesidades de personas discapacitadas (Ley N°7600); ni tampoco cuenta con los equipos necesarios y un plan para actuar en caso de emergencia; tampoco se han presentado en Nombre14042 los informes periódicos cada seis meses sobre la ejecución del plan para la adecuada fiscalización del permiso de uso. La Viabilidad Ambiental otorgada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental en la Resolución N°2978-2018- SETENA, se emitió respaldada a un plano registrado que no corresponde al expediente, con un área de 17ha 6387 m2. El permiso de uso otorgado según Resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-PU-045-2017 fue sobre un área de 5.05 hectáreas, según croquis presentado como parte de los requisitos para su aprobación. Estas discrepancias ponen en riesgo la condición de garantizar la integridad del área asignada, para establecer los medios y mecanismos efectivos de control y protección, cuya responsabilidad y obligación le corresponde tanto al permisionario como al SINAC, de acuerdo con la normativa vigente.”; decisión que, le fue notificada a la amparada al medio señalado para tales efectos.
Por lo anterior, el 28 de noviembre de 2022 la amparada interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022. Igualmente, se tiene que, mediante resolución N°SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-095-2022 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 13 de diciembre de 2022, se le denegó a la amparada el permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario. Por otra parte, se acredita que, el 16 de diciembre de 2022 mediante resolución SINAC-ACOSA-DR-R-102-2022 se declaró sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto contra la resolución SINAC-ACOSA-D-R-086-2022 y se dispuso elevar el recurso de apelación ante el Consejo Nacional de Área de Conservación. Asimismo, se tiene que, el 19 de diciembre de 2022 las autoridades recurridas con el apoyo de personal de Servicio de Guardacostas, y personal del Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) a Nombre317 de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, procedieron a decomisar los animales; siendo que, para salvaguardar la integridad de los animales en este operativo participaron la médico veterinaria Laura Brenes Chávez, veterinaria de SINAC y el médico veterinaria Isabel Hagnauer Barrantes, regente veterinaria de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza (ZOAVE); además de la señora Angie Sánchez Núñez, Master en Manejo y conservación de Vida Silvestre, de la Secretaría Ejecutiva del SINAC.
Finalmente, se tiene que, una vez realizado el decomiso de los animales, se procedió a confeccionar el acta de decomiso, se procedió a firmar y se entregó copia del documento firmado y sellado a la recurrente; siendo que, los animales fueron entregados en custodia al Centro de Rescate de Vida Silvestre Tropical (CRVST) a Nombre317 de Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, aprobado mediante resolución administrativa N°SINAC-ACC-OA-re-1389-2022, el cual es uno de los sitios de manejo que se encuentra al día.
En el sub lite, lo planteado por la recurrente son en realidad inconformidades con las actuaciones y resoluciones realizadas por las autoridades recurridas, a decir, la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo. En ese sentido, si bien se alega que tales actuaciones lesionan el artículo 50 constitucional; lo cierto es que, de la prueba aportada a los autos, se comprueba que, contrario a lo afirmado por la accionante, las decisiones adoptadas obedecieron al incumplimiento de la misma accionante en los permisos de funcionamiento que se le habían concedido en su oportunidad y que por tales falencias, se afectaban las especies animales y su entorno natural.
Teniendo claro lo anterior, se impone advertir a la accionante, que no le compete a esta Sala revisar si lo pretendido se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común -administrativa o jurisdiccional-, ya que esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración. Las pretensiones mismas que la accionante expone –procedencia o no de la revocatoria del permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado que le había otorgado en el año 2017, la denegatoria del permiso de funcionamiento de un sitio de manejo de vida silvestre bajo la categoría de Zoológico sin fines de lucro tipo santuario y el decomiso de los animales que tenía a su cargo (lugar al que fueron llevados y si procede su devolución)- son propias de la legalidad ordinaria y debe discutirse y resolverse en las vías que la ley ha previsto específicamente para estos casos, por cuanto no suponen una infracción notoria, palmaria o riesgo probable al ambiente, como bien jurídico tutelado, casos en los cuales, al socaire de los principios precautorio y preventivo, esta Sala ingresa a analizar posibles lesiones al derecho tutelado en el canon 50 constitucional.
Por ello, deberá la parte recurrente plantear su inconformidad o el reclamo que corresponda ante la autoridad recurrida, o en la vía jurisdiccional competente, vías en las cuales podrá, en forma amplia, discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones. En consecuencia, el recurso en cuanto a este extremo debe desestimarse, como en efecto se hace.
Como segundo reclamo, señala la accionante que, el 09 de enero de 2023 presentó una solicitud nueva para el Patrimonio Natural del Estado; sin embargo, la misma está pendiente de resolución. Sobre el particular, se tiene que la solicitud de la parte accionante que todavía no han sido resuelta -según lo observado de la prueba aportada- no puede encuadrarse en los supuestos de peticiones puras y simples de información, pues de la lectura de la gestión se desprende que la pretensión de la amparada es que la Autoridad recurrida, le otorgue un permiso de uso en Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Es decir, para poder dar respuesta a su solicitud, la autoridad accionada está obligada a analizar y efectuar una serie de valoraciones para determinar la procedencia o no de su inquietud. En ese sentido, considera esta Sala que la petición del recurrente es propia de una gestión administrativa, razón por la cual se realizan las siguientes consideraciones.
NUEVA JUSTICIA ADMINISTRATIVA MECANISMO CÉLERE Y CUMPLIDO PARA LA PROTECCIÓN DE SITUACIONES JURÍDICAS SUSTANCIALES DE LOS ADMINISTRADOS. La Sala Constitucional, desde su fundación, ha utilizado criterios amplios de admisibilidad en vista de la ausencia de cauces procesales expeditos y céleres para la protección de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales que tienen asidero en el ordenamiento jurídico infra-constitucional o parámetro de legalidad, que guardan conexión indirecta con los derechos fundamentales y el Derecho de la Constitución. Sobre el particular, no debe perderse de perspectiva que la Constitución por su supremacía, súper-legalidad y eficacia directa e inmediata da fundamento indirecto a cualquier situación jurídica sustancial imaginable de las personas. No obstante, bajo una mejor ponderación y ante la promulgación del Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (Ley No. 8508 de 24 de abril de 2006) y su entrada en vigencia a partir del 1° de enero de 2008, ha quedado patente que ahora los justiciables cuentan con una jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa plenaria y universal, sumamente expedita y célere por los diversos mecanismos procesales que incorpora al ordenamiento jurídico esa legislación, tales como el acortamiento de los plazos para realizar los diversos actos procesales, la amplitud de la legitimación, las medidas cautelares, el numerus apertus de las pretensiones deducibles, la oralidad –y sus subprincipios concentración, inmediación y celeridad-, la única instancia con recurso de apelación en situaciones expresamente tasadas, la conciliación intra-procesal, el proceso unificado, el proceso de trámite preferente o “amparo de legalidad”, los procesos de puro derecho, las nuevas medidas de ejecución (multas coercitivas, ejecución sustitutiva o comisarial, embargo de bienes del dominio fiscal y algunos del dominio público), los amplios poderes del cuerpo de jueces de ejecución, la extensión y adaptación de los efectos de la jurisprudencia a terceros y la flexibilidad del recurso de casación.
Todos esos institutos procesales novedosos tienen por fin y propósito manifiesto alcanzar la economía procesal, la celeridad, la prontitud y la protección efectiva o cumplida de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los administrados, todo con garantía de derechos fundamentales básicos como el debido proceso, la defensa y el contradictorio. En suma, la nueva jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa es un cauce idóneo, por sus nuevas características de simplicidad, celeridad y prontitud para el amparo y protección efectiva de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los administrados en las que se requiera recabar prueba o definir algunas cuestiones de legalidad ordinaria.
CUESTIÓN EVIDENTE DE LEGALIDAD ORDINARIA. Es evidente que determinar si la administración pública cumple 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 –incoado de oficio o a instancia de parte- o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes, es una evidente cuestión de legalidad ordinaria que, en adelante, puede ser discutida y resuelta ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa con la aplicación de los principios que nutren la jurisdicción constitucional, tales como los de la legitimación vicaria, la posibilidad de la defensa material –esto es de comparecer sin patrocinio letrado- y de gratuidad para la parte recurrente. Consecuentemente, se impone el rechazo de plano e indicarle el gestionante que si a bien lo tiene puede acudir a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa.
VII.Nota del Magistrado Castillo Víquez, en cuanto a la justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales.
A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia. Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.
Debo advertir que desde la sentencia nro. 2019-2355 de las 9:30 de 12 de febrero de 2019, en mi voto salvado indiqué la siguiente postura en relación con los recursos de amparo cuando estos han sido planteados a favor de una persona jurídica:
“…en la Opinión Consultiva 22-16 del 26 de febrero de 2016, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos indicó que si bien algunos Estados reconocen el derecho de petición a personas jurídicas con condiciones especiales, como lo son los sindicatos, partidos políticos o representantes de pueblos indígenas, comunidades afrodescendientes o grupos específicos, lo cierto es que “El artículo 1.2 de la Convención Americana sólo consagra derechos a favor de personas físicas, por lo que las personas jurídicas no son titulares de los derechos consagrados en dicho tratado”. Por otro lado, en la misma opinión consultiva, la Corte Interamericana dispuso que, en ciertos contextos particulares, las personas físicas pueden llegar a ejercer sus derechos a través de personas jurídicas (verbigracia, a través de un medio de comunicación, como acaeció en el caso Nombre295 y otros contra Venezuela); empero, a efectos de que ello sea tutelable ante el sistema interamericano, “el ejercicio del derecho a través de una persona jurídica debe involucrar una relación esencial y directa entre la persona natural que requiere protección por parte del sistema interamericano y la persona jurídica a través de la cual se produjo la violación, por cuanto no es suficiente con un simple vínculo entre ambas personas para concluir que efectivamente se están protegiendo los derechos de personas físicas y no de las personas jurídicas.
En efecto, se debe probar más allá de la simple participación de la persona natural en las actividades propias de la persona jurídica, de forma que dicha participación se relacione de manera sustancial con los derechos alegados como vulnerados.” (énfasis agregado)(OC. 22/16)”.
En la especie, del escrito de interposición y la prueba aportada se colige que existe una relación esencial entre la persona natural recurrente y la persona jurídica a quien representa. Ergo, corresponde entrar a conocer por el fondo la transgresión acusada.
IX.Voto salvado parcial del Magistrado Cruz Castro. Si bien en el pasado he sostenido el criterio de mayoría del Tribunal, bajo una mejor ponderación de los derechos fundamentales que se reclaman, estimo que la mora administrativa constituye una lesión a una garantía procesal fundamental, razón por la que cambio el criterio que había expuesto, admitiendo la posible infracción al derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida, separándome de la visión de la mayoría del Tribunal, en el sentido que –salvo contadas excepciones- este tipo de reproches deben resolverse en la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa. Por el contrario, estimo que uno de los derechos que esta jurisdicción se encuentra llamada a tutelar es el de la justicia pronta y cumplida, expresamente consagrado en el artículo 41, constitucional. Ello conforme al ámbito de competencia asignado a este Tribunal en materia de protección a derechos fundamentales, en atención a lo dispuesto en los artículos 10 y 48 de la Constitución Política.
Si bien, entiendo la importancia de las reformas de la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa a partir de la vigencia de la Ley 8508 del veinticuatro de abril de dos mil seis, lo cierto es que dicha situación no justifica la remisión a dicha instancia de los asuntos que versan sobre materia que es competencia de esta Sala, la cual ha demostrado a lo largo de los años que es un medio célere y efectivo para la tutela de los derechos fundamentales de los habitantes del país. En consecuencia, salvo parcialmente el voto en relación con el derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida.
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, éstos 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 sin lugar el recurso. El Magistrado Castillo Víquez pone nota. El magistrado Rueda Leal consigna nota. El magistrado Cruz Castro salva parcialmente el voto en relación con el derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida.
Nombre290 V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Jorge Araya G.
Nombre319 V.
Nombre8889 G.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Clasificación elaborada por SALA CONSTITUCIONALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.