← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 25976-2024 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 10/09/2024
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber denied the disobedience claim due to the claimant's lack of standing and the unreasonable passage of over 16 years of procedural inactivity, ordering the file to be archived.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar la gestión de desobediencia por falta de legitimación del gestionante y por haber transcurrido un plazo irrazonable de más de 16 años de inactividad procesal, ordenando el archivo del expediente.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber dismisses the disobedience claim filed by Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco regarding the 2006 ruling that ordered the resolution of sewage contamination on his property in Cocaleca, Zaragoza de Palmares. The Chamber finds that the claimant lacks standing because the original petitioner was Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Moreover, the Chamber emphasizes that the case file remained inactive for over 16 years, from March 2007 to October 2023, without the interested party taking any action to demand compliance. Applying the precedent of ruling 2021013497, which holds that enforcement of constitutional judgments is subject to the principle of legal certainty and reasonable timeframes, the Chamber considers that the elapsed period exceeds any reasonable parameter, analogous to the general 10-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the claim is rejected and the file is ordered archived, without examining the merits of compliance.La Sala Constitucional desestima la gestión de desobediencia planteada por Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco respecto a la sentencia del 2006 que ordenó resolver la contaminación por aguas negras en su propiedad en Cocaleca, Zaragoza de Palmares. La Sala determina que el gestionante carece de legitimación porque el recurrente original fue Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Además, la Sala subraya que el expediente permaneció inactivo por más de 16 años, desde marzo de 2007 hasta octubre de 2023, sin que la parte interesada realizara ninguna actuación para reclamar el cumplimiento de lo ordenado. Aplicando el precedente de la sentencia 2021013497, que establece que la ejecución de sentencias constitucionales está sujeta al principio de seguridad jurídica y a plazos razonables, la Sala considera que el plazo transcurrido excede cualquier parámetro razonable, análogo a la prescripción común de 10 años. En consecuencia, se rechaza la gestión y se archiva el expediente, sin entrar a analizar el fondo del cumplimiento.
Key excerptExtracto clave
III.- ON THE CLAIM FILED. Here, Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco alleges non-compliance with ruling no. 2006007984 of 8:47 a.m. on June 2, 2006. However, the Chamber notes that this claimant lacks standing in these proceedings, since the original petitioner and protected party is Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Furthermore, the record does not show that Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco appears as legal representative in this case. In any event, the Chamber observes that almost 18 years have passed since ruling no. 2006007984 was issued. Likewise, this Court emphasizes that the file remained inactive since March 2007 – when interlocutory ruling no. 2007003450 was issued – and it was not until October 2023, i.e., more than 16 years later, that the Chamber was approached to allege non-execution of the order, such that during that period the claimant omitted to take any action to demand compliance with what was ordered by this Chamber. In this regard, it is necessary to cite what was established by this Chamber in interlocutory ruling no. 2021013497 [...] In that sense, for example, Article 873 of the Civil Code subjects the enforcement of judgments in general to the common statute of limitations, which corresponds to the 10 years provided for in Article 868 of that code. Therefore, since a period far exceeding the common prescription period has elapsed, and in the absence of any special rule providing for a longer period or special regulation, the claim must be dismissed.III.- SOBRE LA GESTIÓN PLANTEADA. En la especie, Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco acusa incumplimiento de la sentencia nro. 2006007984 de las 8:47 horas del 2 de junio de 2006. Ahora bien, la Sala observa que tal gestionante no tiene legitimación en el proceso de marras, toda vez que el recurrente y amparado es Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Además, de los autos no se extrae que Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco figure como apoderado judicial en el sub examine. Y, en todo caso, la Sala observa que en el sub iudice han transcurrido casi más de 18 años desde que se emitió la sentencia nro. 2006007984 de las 8:47 horas del 2 de junio de 2006. Asimismo, este Tribunal enfatiza que el expediente se mantuvo inactivo desde marzo de 2007 –cuando se dictó la sentencia interlocutoria nro. 2007003450 de las 17:12 horas del 12 de marzo de 2007- y no fue sino hasta octubre de 2023, es decir, más de 16 años después, que se acude ante esta Cámara para alegar la inejecución de lo dispuesto, de forma tal que durante ese plazo la parte accionante omitió realizar acción alguna a efectos de reclamar el cumplimiento de lo ordenado por esta Sala. Al respecto, resulta menester traer a colación lo establecido por esta Cámara mediante sentencia interlocutoria nro. 2021013497 [...] En ese sentido, por ejemplo el artículo 873 del Código Civil somete la ejecución de las sentencias en general al plazo común, el cual corresponde a los 10 años contemplados en el ordinal 868 de ese cuerpo normativo. Por lo que al haber transcurrido un plazo muy superior al previsto como plazo de prescripción común y ante la inexistencia de alguna norma especial que contemple algún periodo superior o alguna regulación especial al respecto, lo que corresponde es desestimar la gestión.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En relación con este asunto, es menester explicar que el proceso de ejecución de una sentencia constitucional no es una excepción para la aplicación del principio de seguridad jurídica."
"In this regard, it must be explained that the enforcement process of a constitutional judgment is not an exception to the application of the principle of legal certainty."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
"En relación con este asunto, es menester explicar que el proceso de ejecución de una sentencia constitucional no es una excepción para la aplicación del principio de seguridad jurídica."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
"Se descarta así la posibilidad de que una parte recurrente acuda ante este Tribunal a solicitar el cumplimiento de un mandato tras haber transcurrido un plazo abiertamente excesivo sin que se realizara actividad procesal alguna dentro del expediente, pues tal actuar lesionaría el principio constitucional de seguridad jurídica."
"Thus, the possibility is ruled out that a petitioner may come before this Court to request compliance with an order after an openly excessive period has elapsed without any procedural activity in the case file, as such conduct would violate the constitutional principle of legal certainty."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
"Se descarta así la posibilidad de que una parte recurrente acuda ante este Tribunal a solicitar el cumplimiento de un mandato tras haber transcurrido un plazo abiertamente excesivo sin que se realizara actividad procesal alguna dentro del expediente, pues tal actuar lesionaría el principio constitucional de seguridad jurídica."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
"el artículo 873 del Código Civil somete la ejecución de las sentencias en general al plazo común, el cual corresponde a los 10 años contemplados en el ordinal 868 de ese cuerpo normativo."
"Article 873 of the Civil Code subjects the enforcement of judgments in general to the common statute of limitations, which corresponds to the 10 years provided for in Article 868 of that code."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
"el artículo 873 del Código Civil somete la ejecución de las sentencias en general al plazo común, el cual corresponde a los 10 años contemplados en el ordinal 868 de ese cuerpo normativo."
Considerando III, citando sentencia 2021013497
Full documentDocumento completo
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at ten thirty hours on the tenth of September of two thousand twenty-four.
Subsequent proceeding filed by ÁLVARO FRANCISCO PACHECO PACHECO, identification number 0107190961, regarding judgment no. 2006007984 of 08:47 hours on June 2, 2006.
Whereas:
The foregoing is because, during the conceptualization of this project, both collection and treatment alternatives were analyzed. The alternatives for each of these two components were analyzed independently, so that the best overall solution was the one that integrated the best collection alternative with the best treatment alternative. As stated, the Cocaleca sector is not included in the project managed by the Institute. It is a fact that these are stormwater discharges that may possibly be affecting the protected party's property, as a result of their channeling for road-related works, in which my client has had no participation, nor is it legally required to solve the problem, since the AyA's actions, in adherence to the principle of legality, are consistent with its Constitutive Law in articles 1 and 2, addressing in this case the issuance of technical standards for stormwater sewer systems, as well as the approval of the construction plan designs submitted to it for that purpose by local governments.
On the other hand, based on what the protected party indicates, these are developments that are presumed to have been approved with a treatment system of septic tanks and drainage for wastewater treatment, in which case they must have had approval from the Ministry of Health. According to the factual framework, it is to be presumed that the neighbors dispose of wastewater into the ditches on their own. It is precisely this irresponsible conduct by the neighbors that endangers their health, as it is clear that, in accordance with the provisions of the General Health Law, in its articles 285 and following, the maintenance and disposal of wastewater and stormwater through individual systems corresponds to each property owner, without their failure to comply with these duties being justified in any way.
Additionally, it is appropriate to make the following points: The problem in this community is due to the fact that some neighbors, without any authorization and outside the framework of current laws, have connected the wastewater from their homes to the ditches instead of directing it to the septic tank and drainage fields. This situation causes these waters, having no outlet, to saturate the roads to the extreme that the waters end up surfacing, affecting their own homes, those of the neighbors, and the health of everyone involved. That although it is true, according to its Constitutive Law, the AyA is responsible for resolving everything related to the supply of potable water and the collection and evacuation of wastewater, it must also be understood that it is not possible for the AyA to technically or financially resolve all the problems of illegal wastewater disposal carried out by the residents of a subdivision themselves, as is the case with the issue that has arisen in the community, since that duty, as it involves septic tanks, legally corresponds to each property owner, the Ministry of Health, and the Municipality.
That, in adherence to the foregoing, the regulations established in the General Health Law in its article 287 cannot be ignored, which states the responsibility of each home or business owner to have a disposal system for their own wastewater in those places where there is no sanitary sewer system in operation: 'Every person, natural or juridical, who owns homes or establishments or buildings in which persons carry out their activities, shall be responsible for ensuring that such properties have a system for the disposal of excreta and black and gray water approved by the Ministry, and the users of homes, establishments, or buildings shall be obliged to maintain said system in good working condition.' That on the other hand, article 288 of the same Law states the following: 'Every owner is obliged to connect the excreta, black water, and gray water disposal system of their property to the sanitary sewer in places where it is in operation, except in cases of exception that the pertinent regulations recognize as admissible.' In this particular case, it is clear that there is not even a planned sanitary sewer network, because that development or developments must have been approved with a septic tank and drainage field system, and in due course, there must have been acceptance of works by the Municipality, and at no time can it be presumed, nor can anyone attempt to discharge wastewater into the ditch banks, thereby causing on their own the problem of environmental pollution and health impact now alleged.
That in support of the previous point and in accordance with article 286 of the General Health Law, the Ministry of Health has the power to order the execution of drainage works to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection. 'Every person, natural or juridical, is obliged to carry out the drainage works ordered by the health authority in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to sanitize those that exist on their property.' It is based on this article that the Ministry of Health has a legal tool by which it can compel, via a health order (orden sanitaria), those owners of the subdivisions to rehabilitate, rebuild, or failing that, even construct their respective septic tanks and drainage fields. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that from the beginning of the works, it is presumed that those homes were approved with a wastewater treatment system corresponding to a septic tank plus drainage field, which, used correctly, allows for adequate treatment and prevents problems of environmental pollution and public health.
But if what is ordered is not complied with, the bad practice occurs of connecting to planned sanitary networks or to ditch banks, seeking to avoid the costs, in this case, of septic tank maintenance, causing their own health problem and, at the same time, transferring the problem of environmental pollution to third parties, so that others resolve the matter for them. In due course, it was the Municipality's responsibility to verify non-compliance with the technical and legal regulations in force in those aspects.
It is emphasized that the Local Government holds the constitutional authority in matters of Land-Use Planning (Ordenamiento Territorial), and in that sense, it must not authorize constructions in very vulnerable areas without an adequate soil study, prone to flooding or even landslides, and that therefore should not support any construction that implies a risk or some danger to their owners and to third parties. From that point of view, the Municipality, as the entity responsible for Land-Use Planning, has an enormous responsibility to avoid risk situations for a community. In the area, there is a problem due to the lack of attention to the stormwater sewer system by its operator and administrator, so they do not have the minimum conditions for rainwater management, which generate greater flooding problems in the area, pollution, and a high risk to those properties. Indeed, as stated by the appellant, the Municipality is the party obliged to ensure that its jurisdiction has an adequate stormwater sewer system, as it is a matter of competence for local governments, but with greater reason, it is responsible for ensuring that the lands in its jurisdiction comply with current regulations, so that neighboring properties are not affected by runoff or the vulnerability of their lands, or worse still, that due to the lack of stabilization works or stormwater disposal, the physical, material, and environmental integrity of the surrounding properties is altered.
The Institute has no direct intervention in stormwater sewer works, from an essentially legal standpoint, and based on the principle of legality, which sets the limit of its actions in public function, articles 1 and 2 of the AyA's Constitutive Law provide that the Institute must issue regulations on stormwater sewerage.
In any case, regarding what was pointed out about the municipal obligation in matter of stormwater sewerage, we wish to clarify to the Constitutional Chamber the proper handling of certain concepts, so as not to confuse competences and networks of the different services. In this regard, two concepts must be differentiated: Sanitary Sewer System (Alcantarillado Sanitario) and Stormwater Sewer System (Alcantarillado Pluvial). From the glossary of the 'Wastewater Discharge and Reuse Regulation' (Reglamento de Vertido y Reuso de Aguas Residuales), published in La Gaceta 55, Alcance 8 of Monday, March 19, 2007, under the number of Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 33601-MINAE-S we extract: 'Alcantarillado pluvial: Public network of pipes used to collect and transport rainwater to its discharge point. Alcantarillado sanitario: Public network of pipes used to collect and transport residual water to its treatment and discharge point.' In this case and in accordance with what is expressed in the Reforma Ley Constitutiva Servicio Nacional Acueductos y Alcantarillado No. 5915, in its article No.2, subsection g). ' Directly administer and operate the aqueduct and sewer systems throughout the country, which will be gradually assumed taking into account convenience and resource availability.
The systems currently administered and operated by municipal corporations may continue under their charge, as long as they provide an efficient service; Under no concept may the administration of the aqueduct and sanitary sewer systems of the Metropolitan Area be delegated. Nor may the administration of systems for which there is financial responsibility be delegated while this corresponds directly to the Institute. The institution is empowered to agree with local bodies on the administration of such services or to administer them through administrative boards of mixed integration between the Institute and the respective communities, provided this is conducive to the better provision of services and in accordance with the respective regulations. For the same reasons and with the same characteristics, regional administrative boards involving several municipalities may also be created;..' Therefore, it is clear that the aforementioned problem is a Stormwater problem, and that on this point the AyA has no intervention; rather, as has already been pointed out, it is a municipal competence, and therefore, the responsibility of that Institution for the proper channeling of stormwater.
At the site of the events, the wastewater disposal system is via septic tank, there is no sanitary sewer network. The Constitutional Chamber has already indicated that Municipalities, when they collect municipal taxes, include the line item corresponding to the maintenance and operation of the stormwater network (red pluvial), so it would be logical to think that this line item should be used in the maintenance and operation of each Municipality's stormwater network, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in Voto 2001-2320, in Considerando IV, which literally states: 'IV.– Thus, from what is stated in the aforementioned Law and concerning municipal competence by reason of subject matter, this Constitutional Tribunal considers that the party that should have addressed the complaint filed by the protected party in safeguard of the right to health was the Municipality of Alajuelita, not only because the problem in question falls within the so-called 'local interest' of its canton, but also because according to Acueductos y Alcantarillados, that municipality is responsible for administering the stormwater sewer system where the fault is located.
Regarding the actions of the sued Institute, the Chamber does not consider that it has any responsibility in the violation of the fundamental rights of Mr. Cruz Vega, because, although it is true that as an autonomous governing entity in the matter, it has the duty to resolve problems that arise in relation to the supply of potable water, the collection and evacuation of black water and stormwater in urban areas, it is also true that this is a priority duty of the municipalities when, as in the present case, they have the administration of the aqueducts and sewers of the canton; or when, as also happens here, the problem to be solved involves the protection of fundamental rights whose remedy does not require special or technical knowledge that only a specific entity can provide. For this reason, the appeal must be declared with merit, for the violation of the right to health committed by the Municipality of Alajuelita to the detriment of the protected party.
Por tanto: The appeal is declared with merit. The Municipality of Alajuelita is ordered to fix the stormwater sewer system of the La Aurora urbanization that is causing the reported problem, within eight days, counted from the notification of this resolution. Said Municipality is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which will be settled in execution of sentence in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.' ... On the other hand, Resolución 2015-018951 of Expediente 15-007187-0007-CO, indicates: '...It corresponds to the municipalities the administration of local interests and services in each canton, in accordance with the provisions of article 169 of the Political Constitution. From this derives the competence of the municipalities to plan and monitor the urban development of their locality. This includes the duty to establish a comprehensive urban planning policy that guarantees development consistent with the efficient functioning of a system for the provision of potable water and the collection, treatment, and final disposal of wastewater.
Likewise, from the foregoing derives the obligation to adopt the measures required to provide the canton with an adequate stormwater sewer system, in order to guarantee its inhabitants the right to health and an environment free from pollution. Regarding the specific issue of municipal obligations in matter of stormwater sewerage, in judgment number 2008-04210 of 13:59 hours of March 14, 2008, this Chamber stated: '(…) This Tribunal, in reiterated jurisprudence, has recognized that the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right derived from article 50 of the Constitution, according to which, it not only enshrines the right of every citizen to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also obliges the State to guarantee the exercise of said right, through the means established for this purpose by current legislation. Specifically, as this Chamber has stated in judgment number 2005-009900 of ten hours of July twenty-ninth, two thousand five, the Municipality must build the necessary infrastructure to make the waters flow adequately, in order to guarantee the right to health and an environment free from pollution and without harming third parties: '(…)…\".
(folio 00130) 19. In response to official communication MS-DRRSCO-DARS-P-0545-2023, official communication DRC-07-2023-1886 (0653) is received from CONAVI, Gerencia de Conservación de Vías y Puentes, who state: In response to the official communication cited in the reference received on September 14, 2023, by which information is requested regarding how the culverts located in front of the residence of Mr. Escatolini Solorzano that discharge onto the property of Félix Morera Rojas and in front of the entrance to the synthetic field of Los Pacheco on Ruta Nacional 714, Cocaleca sector, are constituted, we inform you that an inspection was carried out at the site mentioned in your communication, observing the following: • There is untreated wastewater (aguas servidas) exiting a condominium-type residential street through concrete-lined ditches and discharging into catch basins located within the right-of-way of Ruta Nacional 715.
These residences are located diagonally across from Calle Chuta. The untreated wastewater (aguas servidas) that reaches the catch basins, whose function is the collection of stormwater from the right-of-way, is conveyed through a concrete pipe approximately 40 cm in diameter and through an open channel parallel to Ruta Nacional 715, heading towards Zaragoza. The foregoing occurs due to the topography of the site, since the natural incline of the land is in that direction, seeking the low point of the Route, to finally discharge into a water collector in front of the entrance to the Los Pacheco Synthetic Field. The longitudinal and transversal storm sewer system for evacuating stormwater (agua pluvial) from the highway was observed to be in good working order. However, in the absence of rain, it was observed that it evacuates untreated wastewater (aguas servidas), so it is suggested that, as a corrective measure, the generators of that type of residual water be requested to take measures for the treatment of such waste to comply with the provisions of the Reglamento de Vertido y Reuso de Aguas Residuales Decreto Ejecutivo No.33601 in its article 62..' 20.
Official communication GSP-RCO-PAL-2023-00268 is received from the Unidad Cantonal de Palmares of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, wherein they report that during an inspection visit to the denounced area, a property with cadastral map A 0769536-2002 was identified as apparently discharging residual water. The foregoing for our intervention. 21. According to technical report MS-DRRSCO-DARS-P-RS-721-2023, what was stated by AyA is verified, and sanitary order No. MS-DRRSCO-OS-DARS-P-183-2023 is issued, in order to ensure the sanitary disposal of water coming from the residence of Mr. Carlos Luis Chango Wong and Mrs. Daisy Chango Naranjo. 22. By means of official communication MS-DRRSCO-DARSP-1303-2023 addressed to CONAVI and in response to official communication DRC-07-2023-1886 (0653), a joint inspection visit to the denounced site was requested. 23. To follow up on complaint D-P-090-2023, the Engineer from this local level was incorporated in order to strengthen the technical criteria issued regarding the case.
Therefore, the visit coordinated with CONAVI was carried out with the officials Bach. Ana Lorena Lobo and Ing. Arturo Sánchez, as well as Engineer Gustavo Alvarado from CONAVI. As a result of said visit, technical report MS-DRRSCO-DARS-P-RS-779-2023 is issued, which concludes: 1- The storm sewer system (sistema de alcantarillado pluvial) is from previous years, therefore it was not designed in accordance with current legislation; furthermore, during the route of the network, perforations and illegal connections to the stormwater system (sistema pluvial) are identified. 2- The storm sewer system (sistema de alcantarillado pluvial) does not have registered plans and designs, the reason for which the location at the denounced point was defined is unknown. But additionally, Article 20 of the Ley General de Caminos indicates: 'All possessors of real estate, by any title, are obligated to receive and allow to flow within their properties, the waters from the roads whenever the slope of the land so determines, and, when their lands are immediately adjacent to the drains of a road, they must keep these drains clean, in perfect state of service, and free of obstacles.' Recommendations: 1- It is recommended, by way of a Sanitary Order, to request CONAVI to properly level the existing storm sewer (alcantarillado pluvial), in order to avoid ponding in different areas of the system. 2- Continue carrying out tests with the tracer called fluorescein in the residences of this sector, in order to determine if they discharge their residual water and black water into the stormwater network system (sistema de red pluvial), which enters the property of the complainant. 24.
The following schedule is prepared to follow up on the case: [presents table]... IN SYNTHESIS: Regarding 'disobedience' Although prima facie a disobedience on the part of the petitioner could be denounced for a supposed failure to comply with what was ordered in the 2006 judgment, a deeper analysis dismisses said disobedience as summarized below: 1. The authorities carried out proceedings in due time in compliance with what was ordered, so there was no total refusal to comply. 2. Almost 17 years have passed, a reasonable period to understand that specific problem at that moment as overcome. 3. There is no proof of intent (dolo), rebellious will, or repeated non-compliance, so technically the criminal offense of disobedience to authority does not apply. 4. Multiple inspection visits to the site have been carried out with inter-institutional participation. 5. Several fluorescein tests have been performed in neighboring residences to rule out contamination. 6.
Periodic follow-up has been provided to the complainant, informing him of the proceedings. 7. Engineering support from the regional level was requested and obtained due to the technical complexity of the case. 8. The municipalities of Palmares and CONAVI were consulted about the sewer system (sistema de alcantarillado). 9. Recently, a residence that was discharging black water (aguas negras) into the stormwater system (sistema pluvial) was verified and sanctioned. 10. A new schedule of future actions was prepared. 11. The foregoing demonstrates clear diligence on the part of the health authority to investigate, clarify, and resolve this environmental problem, ruling out any inattention or negligence thereto. 12. Technical complexity of the contamination: The origin of the residual water is difficult to determine considering that: • There is a surrounding urbanization with multiple residences that could contaminate. • The storm sewer system (sistema de alcantarillado pluvial) is old and has illegal connections. • Updated plans for this sewer network (red de alcantarillado) are not available. • The topography directs the contaminated water toward the petitioner's property. • Therefore, the health authority carries out constant inspections and tests to find the origin of the contamination or order the respective corrections, within the framework of its competences. 13.
Reasonable compliance with the ruling and necessary time: Although the Sala Constitucional ordered this environmental problem to be resolved since 2006, the recent and diligent actions of the authority demonstrate a commitment to comply with said mandate. Nevertheless, the technical complexity of this case, with multiple possible sources of contamination, prevents an immediate solution to the problem, making it reasonable to grant an additional period to continue with the inspections, tests, and corrections in progress, according to the proposed schedule. 14. Current proceedings Far from any negligent attitude towards their duties, the health authorities have ordered new technical approaches: Incorporation of specialized professionals to investigate the contamination…".
Drafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,
Considering:
"The appeal is declared WITH MERIT solely for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Mario Alberto Rojas Salas, in his capacity as Alcalde of the Municipalidad de Palmares; Eney Solís Soto, in his capacity as Director of the Area Rectora de Salud de Palmares, Región Central Occidente of the Ministerio de Salud; and Olman Chacón Garita, in his capacity as Subgerente General of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever holds those positions in their stead, are ordered to resolve the problem caused by the discharge of contaminated water on the petitioner's property located in La Cocaleca, Zaragoza de Palmares, within a period of two months starting from the notification of this judgment. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that they must comply with or enforce, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished.
The State, the Municipalidad de Palmares, and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados are condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be settled in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. As for the rest, the appeal is declared without merit. LET this resolution be NOTIFIED to Mario Alberto Rojas Salas, Eney Solís Soto, and Olman Chacón Garita, or to whoever holds those positions in their stead, PERSONALLY. Let it be communicated".
Said judgment was notified to the alcalde of Palmares on August 17, 2006, to the director of the Area Rectora de Salud de Palmares on August 31, 2006, and to the subgerente general of the Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados on November 27, 2006.
II.By means of interlocutory judgment no. 2007003450 of 17:12 hours on March 12, 2007, a disobedience proceeding filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
In the case at hand, Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco alleges non-compliance with judgment no. 2006007984 of 8:47 hours on June 2, 2006.
However, the Chamber observes that the petitioner lacks standing (legitimación) in the present process, since the appellant and protected party is Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Furthermore, it is not apparent from the case file that Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco appears as a legal representative in the sub examine.
And, in any event, the Chamber observes that in the sub iudice, nearly more than 18 years have passed since judgment no. 2006007984 of 8:47 hours on June 2, 2006, was issued. Likewise, this Court emphasizes that the case file remained inactive since March 2007 – when interlocutory judgment no. 2007003450 of 17:12 hours on March 12, 2007 was issued – and it was not until October 2023, that is, more than 16 years later, that this Chamber was approached to allege the non-execution of the ordered measure, such that during that period the petitioner omitted to take any action to claim compliance with what was ordered by this Chamber.
In this regard, it is necessary to bring up what was established by this Chamber through interlocutory judgment no. 2021013497 of 9:30 hours on June 11, 2021:
"X.- REGARDING THE DISOBEDIENCE PROCEEDING FILED. In the sub iudice, the petitioner files a disobedience proceeding in relation to judgment no. 1997-002456 of 11:03 hours on May 2, 1997, claiming that what was ordered by the Chamber regarding the census of possessor-owners and regarding a "land exploitation plan consistent with the regime to which the lands are subject, and which allows the legitimate owners and possessors their sustenance and subsistence while the expropriation process lasts. In addition to initiating the aforementioned expropriation process" has not been complied with. He estimates that approximately 3400 farm owners make up the population of the Reserva Forestal de Osa and that no matter how many efforts are made, it is impossible to comply with what was ordered if the State does not carry out the expropriations. He maintains that the violation of his fundamental rights persists, as the administration has not obeyed what was ordered by this Court.
He asserts that expropriation is not a party proceeding but an obligation of the administration as an interested party in the property. He considers that what was ordered is "living letter" and must be complied with. He requests that an order be issued to provide the completed census and to initiate what was ordered by the Chamber. He requests that the administration be ordered to begin the expropriation process for those affected by the declaration of the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, according to decree 8494-A. He requests that a subsistence project be developed that allows the owners and inhabitants to see the expropriation completed. He requests that the heirs of possessors and owners be recognized, as some of the original owners have already died or are of very advanced age.
On this matter, it is necessary to emphasize that in ruling no. 1997-002456 of 11:03 hours on May 2, 1997, what was ordered by this Chamber was: "The appeal is declared with merit. Consequently, the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, through the Dirección General Forestal or the Dirección del Sistema Nacional de Areas (sic) de Conservación, must, as of the notification of this resolution, proceed to comply with the provisions of Decretos Ejecutivos 8494-A, 9388-A, and 10142-A, and initiate the expropriation proceedings. The State is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be settled in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction".
Likewise, in judgment no. 2002-0010276 of 11:36 hours on October 25, 2002, it was ordered: "The proceeding filed by Mr. Elfrin López Castro is accepted. Consequently, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, in his capacity as Ministro de Ambiente y Energía or whoever holds the position – under penalty of disobedience – is ordered to, within a period of THREE MONTHS counted from the notification of this resolution, proceed to complete the census ordered by the Chamber in judgment 2456-97 of May 2, nineteen ninety-seven, at which time he must proceed to pay the corresponding compensation to the legitimate owners or possessors of the properties that are the subject of this appeal. Mr. Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi is warned that, in accordance with article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that they must comply with or enforce, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished.
Let this resolution be notified to Mr. Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi PERSONALLY". And even by judgment no. 2003-008699 of 18:15 hours on August 19, 2003, the Chamber ordered an extension – without the possibility of a further extension – of the period granted to the Ministerio de Salud until December 2003, for the purposes of completing the census of the occupants of the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce.
Now, having clarified the foregoing, the Chamber observes that in the sub iudice, more than 24 years have passed since judgment no. 1997-002456 of 11:03 hours on May 2, 1997, was issued. Likewise, the Chamber emphasizes that the last proceeding carried out within the case file by the petitioner was resolved by judgment no. 2004-002951 of 11:03 hours on March 19, 2004.
For its part, the Chamber verifies that the case file remained inactive since that date and it was not until February 11, 2021, that is, almost 17 years later, that the petitioner came to this Chamber alleging the non-execution of the provisions of ruling no. 1997-002456 of 11:03 hours on May 2, 1997. Thus, the Chamber observes that, for almost 17 years, the petitioner omitted to take any action to claim compliance with what was ordered by this Chamber.
In relation to this matter, it is necessary to explain that the enforcement process of a constitutional judgment is not an exception to the application of the principle of legal certainty. From this perspective, taking into consideration the order issued by the Chamber in the main judgment of this process and in the subsequent resolutions, as well as the fact that 17 years passed without the petitioner taking any effective action to claim compliance with what was ordered, allows the Chamber to conclude that a reasonable period for the execution of said judgment has been exceeded. In this sense, for example, article 873 of the Código Civil subjects the enforcement of judgments in general to the common period, which corresponds to the 10 years contemplated in ordinal 868 of that normative body. Therefore, since a period far exceeding that provided as the common statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción común) has elapsed and in the absence of any special rule contemplating a longer period or any special regulation in this regard, the appropriate course is to dismiss the proceeding.
Consequently, the possibility that a petitioner may come before this Court to request compliance with a mandate after a clearly excessive period has elapsed without any procedural activity within the case file is thus ruled out, because such action would harm the constitutional principle of legal certainty.
In light of the foregoing, the proper course is to dismiss the disobedience proceeding filed and order the archiving of the case file". (The emphasis is supplied).
Thus, the transcribed precedent is applicable to the sub iudice, since the case file remained inactive for more than 16 years before the petitioner came before this Constitutional Court to take any action to claim compliance with what was ordered by this Chamber, so it is proper to dismiss the present proceeding.
The parties are warned that if 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, has been provided, they must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The proceeding filed is dismissed.
Fernando Castillo V. President Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Reception of matters for vulnerable groups: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 and 21, avenidas 8 and 6 It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 15:22:39.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas treinta minutos del diez de setiembre de dos mil veinticuatro .
Gestión posterior formulada por ÁLVARO FRANCISCO PACHECO PACHECO, cédula de identidad 0107190961, en relación con la sentencia nro. 2006007984 de las 08:47 horas del 2 de junio de 2006.
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,
Considerando:
“Se declara CON LUGAR el recurso únicamente por violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En consecuencia, se ordena a Mario Alberto Rojas Salas, en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Palmares; a Eney Solís Soto, en su condición de Director del Area Rectora de Salud de Palmares, Región Central Occidente del Ministerio de Salud; y a Olman Chacón Garita en su condición de Subgerente General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, o a quienes en sus lugares ejerzan esos cargos, resolver el problema ocasionado por el desfogue de aguas contaminadas en la propiedad del recurrente ubicada en la Cocaleca, Zaragoza de Palmares, dentro del plazo de dos meses contados a partir de la comunicación de esta sentencia. Lo anterior, bajo el apercibimiento de que, con base en lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado.
Se condena al Estado, a la Municipalidad de Palmares, y al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. NOTIFIQUESE esta resolución a Mario Alberto Rojas Salas, Eney Solís Soto y a Olman Chacón Garita o a quienes en sus lugares ejerzan esos cargos en forma PERSONAL. Comuníquese”.
Tal sentencia fue notificada al alcalde de Palmares el 17 de agosto de 2006, al director del Área Rectora de Salud de Palmares el 31 de agosto de 2006 y al subgerente general del Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados el 27 de noviembre de 2006.
II.Mediante sentencia interlocutoria nro. 2007003450 de las 17:12 horas del 12 de marzo de 2007, se desestimó una gestión de desobediencia planteada por el recurrente.
En la especie, Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco acusa incumplimiento de la sentencia nro. 2006007984 de las 8:47 horas del 2 de junio de 2006.
Ahora bien, la Sala observa que tal gestionante no tiene legitimación en el proceso de marras, toda vez que el recurrente y amparado es Alexander Pacheco Pacheco. Además, de los autos no se extrae que Álvaro Francisco Pacheco Pacheco figure como apoderado judicial en el sub examine.
Y, en todo caso, la Sala observa que en el sub iudice han transcurrido casi más de 18 años desde que se emitió la sentencia nro. 2006007984 de las 8:47 horas del 2 de junio de 2006. Asimismo, este Tribunal enfatiza que el expediente se mantuvo inactivo desde marzo de 2007 –cuando se dictó la sentencia interlocutoria nro. 2007003450 de las 17:12 horas del 12 de marzo de 2007- y no fue sino hasta octubre de 2023, es decir, más de 16 años después, que se acude ante esta Cámara para alegar la inejecución de lo dispuesto, de forma tal que durante ese plazo la parte accionante omitió realizar acción alguna a efectos de reclamar el cumplimiento de lo ordenado por esta Sala.
Al respecto, resulta menester traer a colación lo establecido por esta Cámara mediante sentencia interlocutoria nro. 2021013497 de las 9:30 horas del 11 de junio de 2021:
“X.- SOBRE LA GESTIÓN DE DESOBEDIENCIA PLANTEADA. En el sub iudice, el gestionante plantea gestión de desobediencia en relación con la sentencia n.° 1997-002456 de las 11:03 horas del 2 de mayo de 1997, pues reclama que no se ha cumplido lo ordenado por la Sala en cuanto al censo de poseedores propietarios ni lo referente a un “plan de explotación de la tierra acorde con el régimen que están sometidos los terrenos, y que les permita a los propietarios y poseedores legítimos su sustento y subsistencia mientras dura el trámite expropiatorio. Además de dar inicio al trámite de expropiación anteriormente mencionado”. Estima que aproximadamente 3400 dueños de fincas conforman la población de la Reserva Forestal de Osa y por más esfuerzos que se realicen, se requiere es imposible cumplir con lo ordenado si el Estado no realiza las expropiaciones. Sostiene que se mantiene la violación a sus derechos fundamentales, pues la administración no ha obedecido lo dispuesto por este Tribunal.
Asevera que la expropiación no es una gestión de parte, sino una obligación de la administración como interesada en la propiedad. Considera que lo ordenado es “letra viva” y se tiene que cumplir. Solicita que se ordene aportar el censo terminado y dar inicio a lo dispuesto por la Sala. Pide que se ordene a la administración que inicie el trámite expropiatorio de los afectados con la declaratoria de Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, según el decreto 8494-A. Solicita que se elabore un proyecto de subsistencia que permita a los propietarios y pobladores ver cumplida la expropiación. Pide que se reconozcan a los herederos de poseedores y propietarios, pues algunos de los propietarios originarios ya han muerto o tienen una edad muy avanzada.
Sobre el particular, resulta menester enfatizar que en el pronunciamiento n.° 1997-002456 de las 11:03 horas del 2 de mayo de 1997, lo dispuesto por esta Sala fue: “Se declara con lugar el recurso. En consecuencia, debe el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía a través de la Dirección General Forestal o Dirección del Sistema Nacional de Areas (sic) de Conservación, y a partir de la notificación de esta resolución, proceder a cumplir con lo establecido en los Decretos Ejecutivos 8494-A, 9388-A y 10142-A, e iniciar las diligencias de expropiación. Se condena al Estado al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo”.
Asimismo, en la sentencia n.° 2002-0010276 de las 11:36 horas del 25 de octubre de 2002, se dispuso: “Se acoge la gestión planteada por el señor Elfrin López Castro. En consecuencia se ordena a Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, en su calidad de Ministro de Ambiente y Energía o a quien ocupe el cargo –bajo pena de desobediencia- que en el término de TRES MESES contado a partir de la notificación de esta resolución proceda a concluir el censo ordenado por la Sala en sentencia 2456-97 del dos de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y siete, momento en el cual deberá proceder al pago de la indemnización correspondiente a los propietarios o poseedores legítimos de los inmuebles objeto de este recurso. Se le advierte al señor Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi. que, de conformidad con el artículo 71 de la Ley de esta jurisdicción, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado.
Notifíquese la presente resolución al señor Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi EN FORMA PERSONAL”. E incluso, mediante sentencia n.° 2003- 008699 de las 18:15 horas del 19 de agosto de 2003, la Sala dispuso ampliar -sin posibilidad de ulterior prórroga- el plazo otorgado al Ministerio de Salud hasta diciembre de 2003, a los efectos de completar el censo de los ocupantes de la Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce.
Ahora bien, aclarado lo anterior, la Sala observa que en el sub iudice han transcurrido más de 24 años desde que se emitió la sentencia n.° 1997-002456 de las 11:03 horas del 2 de mayo de 1997. Asimismo, la Sala enfatiza que la última gestión realizada dentro del expediente por la parte recurrente fue resuelta mediante sentencia n.° 2004-002951 de las 11:03 horas del 19 de marzo de 2004.
Por su parte, la Sala constata que el expediente se mantuvo inactivo desde esa fecha y no fue sino hasta el 11 de febrero de 2021, es decir, casi 17 años después que el recurrente acude a esta Sala alegando la inejecución de lo dispuesto mediante pronunciamiento n.° 1997-002456 de las 11:03 horas del 2 de mayo de 1997. Así las cosas, la Sala observa que, durante casi 17 años, el recurrente omitió realizar acción alguna a efectos de reclamar el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala.
En relación con este asunto, es menester explicar que el proceso de ejecución de una sentencia constitucional no es una excepción para la aplicación del principio de seguridad jurídica. Desde este panorama, tomando en consideración la orden emitida por la Sala en la sentencia principal de este proceso y en las resoluciones posteriores, así como el hecho de que transcurrieran 17 años sin que el gestionante realizara alguna actuación efectiva para reclamar el cumplimiento de lo ordenado, permite a la Sala concluir que se ha excedido un plazo razonable para la ejecución de la citada sentencia. En ese sentido, por ejemplo el artículo 873 del Código Civil somete la ejecución de las sentencias en general al plazo común, el cual corresponde a los 10 años contemplados en el ordinal 868 de ese cuerpo normativo. Por lo que al haber transcurrido un plazo muy superior al previsto como plazo de prescripción común y ante la inexistencia de alguna norma especial que contemple algún periodo superior o alguna regulación especial al respecto, lo que corresponde es desestimar la gestión.
En consecuencia, se descarta así la posibilidad de que una parte recurrente acuda ante este Tribunal a solicitar el cumplimiento de un mandato tras haber transcurrido un plazo abiertamente excesivo sin que se realizara actividad procesal alguna dentro del expediente, pues tal actuar lesionaría el principio constitucional de seguridad jurídica.
En mérito de lo anterior, lo procedente es desestimar la gestión de desobediencia planteada y ordenar el archivo del expediente”. (El énfasis es suplido).
Así las cosas, el precedente transcrito resulta aplicable al sub iudice, toda vez que el expediente se mantuvo inactivo durante más de 16 años antes de que la parte recurrente acudiera ante este Tribunal Constitucional a realizar acción alguna a efectos de reclamar el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala, por lo que procede desestimar la gestión de marras.
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:
No ha lugar a la gestión formulada.
Fernando Castillo V.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.