← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 31515-2024 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 25/10/2024
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is partially granted: the request to enforce the concession cancellation is denied (legality matter), and the municipality is ordered to determine within two months whether the gates are on public roads and, if so, to demolish them.Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso: se rechaza la ejecución de la cancelación de la concesión (legalidad) y se ordena a la municipalidad definir en dos meses si los portones están en vía pública y, de ser así, demolerlos.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber partially grants an amparo filed by a resident against the District Municipal Council of Cóbano. The petitioner claimed the municipality has failed to enforce a 2019 decision canceling a concession to company Colemu S.A. and ordering demolition of illegal structures in a protected area of Santa Teresa beach, and that it has not removed gates blocking free passage on public roads. The Chamber rejects the main claim concerning enforcement of the concession cancellation as a pure legality matter for ordinary courts, noting the petitioner did not prove specific environmental harm. However, it upholds the grievance about the gates and orders the municipality to determine within two months whether they are on public roads and, if so, to demolish them, since the right to free transit is at stake.La Sala Constitucional resuelve un recurso de amparo interpuesto por un vecino contra el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano. El recurrente alegaba que la municipalidad no ha ejecutado el acuerdo de 2019 que canceló la concesión a la empresa Colemu S.A. y ordenó demoler estructuras ilegales en zona protegida de playa Santa Teresa, y que tampoco ha retirado portones que obstruyen el libre tránsito por vías públicas. La Sala declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso: rechaza la pretensión principal sobre ejecutar la cancelación de la concesión por tratarse de un asunto de mera legalidad que debe discutirse en la vía ordinaria, y porque el recurrente no demostró un daño ambiental concreto. Sin embargo, acoge el agravio sobre los portones y ordena a la municipalidad definir, en dos meses, si se encuentran en vía pública y, en caso afirmativo, demolerlos, por estar en juego el derecho a la libertad de tránsito.
Key excerptExtracto clave
IV. REGARDING THE AGREEMENT TO CANCEL THE CONCESSION GRANTED TO COLEMU S.A. ... Having analyzed all the foregoing, this Constitutional Court does not find any merit to uphold this part of the appeal and, therefore, the main request made by the petitioner. This is primarily because it is not for this Chamber, as it is a matter of mere and pure legality, to examine the merits of the case under study, to verify the legality of the concession granted to Colemu S.A., or whether the agreement ordering its cancellation is in accordance with law (or not) and whether, therefore, it must be executed immediately, as the petitioner claims. ... V. REGARDING THE GATES ALLEGEDLY PLACED ON A PUBLIC ROAD. ... Consequently, this Constitutional Chamber is of the opinion that this specific point of the amparo must indeed be upheld, so that the authorities of the District Municipal Council of Cóbano carry out –within the time limit set in the operative part of this judgment– the pertinent steps to determine whether the aforementioned gates are or are not on a public road, thereby illegitimately obstructing the transit of citizens – and, if it is determined that these structures are indeed on that road, to proceed with their demolition.IV.- SOBRE EL ACUERDO DE CANCELACIÓN DE LA CONCESIÓN OTORGADA A COLEMU S.A. ... Ahora bien, analizado todo lo anterior, este Tribunal Constitucional no considera que exista mérito alguno para acoger este extremo del recurso y, por ende, la petición principal formulada por el recurrente. Lo anterior, medularmente, en el tanto no le corresponde a esta Sala, por tratarse de un tema de mera y pura legalidad, analizar por el fondo el caso sometido a estudio, verificar la legalidad de la concesión otorgada a Colemu S.A., así como si el acuerdo que ordenó su cancelación está ajustado a derecho (o no) y si, por ende, este debe ser ejecutado de forma inmediata, tal y como lo pretende el accionante. ... V.- EN CUANTO A LOS PORTONES COLOCADOS PRESUNTAMENTE EN UNA VÍA PÚBLICA. ... Por consiguiente, esta Sala Constitucional es del criterio que este preciso punto del amparo sí debe ser acogido, en aras que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano realicen –dentro del plazo que se dirá en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia–, las gestiones pertinentes para definir si los referidos portones se encuentran o no en una vía pública, impidiendo o no ilegítimamente el tránsito de los administrados–, siendo que, de determinarse que dichas estructuras sí están en esa vía, se proceda con su demolición.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"no le corresponde a esta Sala, por tratarse de un tema de mera y pura legalidad, analizar por el fondo el caso sometido a estudio."
"it is not for this Chamber, as it is a matter of mere and pure legality, to examine the merits of the case under study."
Considerando IV
"no le corresponde a esta Sala, por tratarse de un tema de mera y pura legalidad, analizar por el fondo el caso sometido a estudio."
Considerando IV
"el recurrente, en los escritos presentado ante esta Sala, no hizo referencia a algún problema ambiental en concreto sufrido en la zona de interés."
"the petitioner, in the briefs submitted to this Chamber, made no reference to any specific environmental problem suffered in the area of interest."
Considerando IV
"el recurrente, en los escritos presentado ante esta Sala, no hizo referencia a algún problema ambiental en concreto sufrido en la zona de interés."
Considerando IV
"está de por medio el acceso y libre tránsito de las personas a través de una vía eventualmente pública. De ahí que, la determinación de esta condición sí resulta de suma relevancia en términos de constitucionalidad."
"what is at stake is the access and free transit of people through a potentially public road. Hence, the determination of this condition is indeed highly relevant in constitutional terms."
Considerando V
"está de por medio el acceso y libre tránsito de las personas a través de una vía eventualmente pública. De ahí que, la determinación de esta condición sí resulta de suma relevancia en términos de constitucionalidad."
Considerando V
Full documentDocumento completo
IV.ON THE AGREEMENT TO CANCEL THE CONCESSION GRANTED TO COLEMU S.A. As a first aspect and core point of this amparo proceeding, the petitioner states that he comes before this Chamber because the authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano, to date, after several years have elapsed, have failed to execute the agreement adopted in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019, through which, in turn, it was resolved to decree the cancellation of the concession granted to the company Colemu S.A. on Santa Teresa beach and it was also ordered to demolish structures built on public zone (rancho and grill), as well as a gate that is located outside the concessioned area and the revocation of a construction permit for a wall located outside the concessioned area. He claims that there are no reasons to have delayed, for so many years, the execution of said agreement and continue tolerating the environmental damage that is produced.
He explains that this cancellation was issued after it was verified that the referenced company had incurred several violations of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Law and the provisions contemplated in the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan (e.g., having built in protected environmental zones, built buildings without permits, having invaded the public zone and having installed gates in places that provide access to public roads). He affirms that this act was challenged before the Administrative Litigation Court by the mentioned concessionaire company, but it was dismissed, confirming the challenged act.
He also claims that the respondents have sought a way to avoid the execution of said agreement, that is, to revoke the referenced act, which, however, is no longer possible to do. He also mentions that, despite having gone to the Administrative Litigation Court to order the execution of the referenced agreement, said action was rejected (for lack of standing of the applicant). He maintains, then, that the execution of said agreement is, therefore, a necessary measure to comply with the constitutional mandate to ensure a healthy environment. In his view, the respondents have breached their duty to repair the environmental damage caused by Colemu S.A., despite there being a final administrative agreement that allows doing so.
He requests, consequently, that this amparo proceeding be granted and that the respondent authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano be ordered to execute the agreement adopted in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019. Indeed, in a subsequent writing, the petitioner reaffirms that this is the main claim in bringing this amparo proceeding.
Having reviewed the record, it is proven that, certainly, after an administrative procedure carried out in the Municipal District Council of Cóbano (for alleged irregularities committed by the company Colemu, as concessionaire), in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019, said council, as decision-making body, ordered the following:
"(…) Issue the Final Act of Proven and Unproven Facts in its entirety and consequently; / Order the immediate demolition of the structures erected in the public zone, namely rancho and grill, in front of the concessioned parcel. / Demolish the gate called No. 2 that is outside the concessioned area and that invades the protection zone. / Revoke the construction permit for the wall for having been authorized in an area outside the concessioned parcel. / Decree the cancellation of concession No. 1768-2000. Represented by Mrs. CARLOTA DORRING MEADOWS, residence card number 175200002119. / Having submitted this resolution for consultation to the competent authorities, provided for in the cited regulations. And once this cancelation agreement is final and enforceable, inform the Public Registry so that it proceeds with the cancellation of the respective registration entry in the name of the concessionaire COLEMU S.A. (…)".
Equally, it was proven that the respondent council, on December 17, 2019, rejected the appeal for revocation filed by Colemu S.A. against the cited agreement and that, for its part, the Administrative Litigation Court (Third Section), as non-hierarchical controller of legality, through Judgment No. 66-2022 of 4:22 p.m. on February 24, 2023, dismissed the appeal also filed by said concessionaire, thus exhausting the administrative channel.
In addition to the above, it is recorded that, during this year 2024, the respondents have questioned or reconsidered their competence to revoke the referenced concession, as well as the grounds that led to adopting the referenced agreement. Thus, it was accredited that the Municipal Intendant, on March 7, 2024 and by official letter No. INT-074-2024, requested the ICT's opinion on the legal viability of revoking the act that ordered the cancellation of the cited concession and on the power that the council possesses to that effect. This latter letter was addressed by the ICT through official letter No. AL-A-0317-2024 of March 12, 2024, referring to the powers that the referenced district council possesses on the matter. Likewise, it is recorded that in session No. 12-2024 of July 23, 2024, the respondent council (composed of the new membership), took note of the opinion of the Permanent Commission of Legal Affairs related to the concession granted to Colemu S.A. which ordered: "(…) It is opined that this Collegiate Body DOES NOT have the power to resolve said situation since it is not within its power to revoke an agreement that followed due process unless a judicial instance so determines or fundamental errors are found that led to the cancellation of the concession.
THAT IS ALL (…)". By virtue of the foregoing, it was accredited that the referenced council ordered its legal advisor to expand the opinion issued in order to clearly understand the matter. As verified, from this session and, based on the provisions in official letters No. INT-074-2024 and No. AL-A-0317-2024, the need arose to carry out a legal review of the administrative procedure that ordered the cancellation of the concession.
Thus, it was verified that the cited Legal Affairs Commission, on August 27, 2024, ordered the following:
"(…) OPINION No. 01 CONSIDERING: That the Council has forwarded OFFICIAL LETTER INT-2024-138 from the Municipal Intendancy and OFFICIAL LETTER AI-A-0317-2024 from the ICT. This commission, nor the Municipal Council, or the administration have the power to annul an agreement that followed due process, unless a judicial instance so determines. Or in any case, that administratively absolute or relative fundamental errors are found in the administrative procedure as a final recommendation to the Municipal Council, to annul the concession. THEREFORE. This permanent commission of Legal Affairs based on article 34 subsection g, and 49 of the Municipal Code OPINES, recommends to the Council: 1. Assign a legal professional to study the administrative procedure that gave rise to the cancellation of the COLEMU concession, in order to determine if it complied with the regulatory framework. THAT IS ALL. The opinion is submitted to voting and is approved in all its parts (…)".
And that, in ordinary session No. 019-24, article VI, subsection c) of September 10, 2024, the respondent Council of Councilors ordered the following:
"(…) AGREEMENT No. 6. With five votes in favor IT IS AGREED: "5.1 Accept the opinion presented by the legal affairs commission and forward it to the Municipal Intendancy so that it assigns a legal professional to study the administrative procedure that gave rise to the cancellation of the COLEMU concession, in order to determine if it complied with the regulatory framework (…)".
For its part, what was reported by the respondent authorities to this jurisdiction is of interest, in the sense that:
"(…) in view of the existence of official letters INT-074-2024 of March 7, 2024 and AL-A-0317-2024, of March 12, 2024, in which it can be ambiguously corroborated that the same Administration that orders the cancellation of the concession requests the Costa Rican Tourism Institute to pronounce on the matter, given that there may be nullity defects in the processing of the administrative procedure; it would be irresponsible on the part of the new Administration assumed as of May 1, 2024, taking into account the continuity of responsibility in administrative matters, to proceed in an accelerated and arbitrary manner with the registry deregistration without reviewing the procedure carried out in accordance with the principle of legality and the principle of due process, enshrined in articles 11, 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (…)".
Now, having analyzed all the above, this Constitutional Court does not consider that there is any merit whatsoever to grant this part of the appeal and, therefore, the main petition formulated by the petitioner.
The above, essentially, insofar as this Chamber is not responsible, as it is a matter of mere and pure legality, for analyzing the merits of the case submitted for study, verifying the legality of the concession granted to Colemu S.A., as well as whether the agreement that ordered its cancellation is in accordance with the law (or not) and if, therefore, it must be executed immediately, as the petitioner intends. This, mainly, if one takes into account that, as accredited from the evidence provided to the record and from the report rendered under the solemnity of oath, at this time there are doubts about the procedure established years ago (that led to the issuance of the cancellation agreement under study), which, in turn, motivated the respondents –before this amparo was notified–, to agree to appoint a legal professional to study and examine the latter in order to determine whether or not it complied with the regulatory framework.
Under this scenario, as stated, this constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute the task that has been ordered to be carried out (assigned to said legal professional), to examine the legality or not of the concessionaire's action (specifically its obligations regarding the contract signed to carry out its activities in the zona marítimo terrestre) and, also, the procedure established that led to the issuance of the cancellation agreement in question. It is not materially or reasonably possible to enter into a complicated and slow evidentiary system, through the summary amparo procedure, to elucidate the referenced aspects indicated by the protected party.
In that same order of considerations, it is of utmost importance to highlight that the petitioner, in the writings presented to this Chamber, made no reference to any particular environmental problem suffered in the area of interest. The petitioner merely referred, grosso modo, to a general impact on the environment due to the non-execution of the agreement under study, without mentioning or specifying what is the alleged environmental damage or damages produced in the area by the permanence of Colemu S.A. as concessionaire. Indeed, it is not recorded that the petitioner had filed a formal complaint before the respondent council regarding any particular environmental damage suffered at the mentioned site.
Thus, the generic and abstract disagreement that the petitioner formulates regarding the non-execution of the cited municipal agreement, must be raised, if deemed appropriate, before the ordinary administrative and jurisdictional legality channels created especially for this purpose since, as stated, it exceeds the summary nature of the amparo proceeding, as well as the competence of this Court granted by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and the Political Constitution itself.
Subsidiarily or in parallel to the main grievance, the petitioner also specifically claims that the company Colemu S.A. has privatized two public roads by placing gates, which prevents the passage of pedestrians and vehicles to the public zone. He explains that these roads lead specifically to the beach and a parking area provided for in the Santa Teresa Beach Regulatory Plan. He alleges that the authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano have not carried out any action to resolve said situation and demolish, therefore, those illegitimate structures.
On this particular aspect, it is proven that the petitioner filed a complaint with the ICT regarding the existence of a gate (and not two as alleged in this amparo), at the public accesses over boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan located on the parcel concessioned to Colemu S.A. It is also recorded that, by virtue of the above, the ICT issued official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 dated July 26, 2024, through which it requested the respondent council to report on the existence of said structure, according to the following terms:
"(…) Subject: Request for clarification to address complaint of the existence of a gate that prevents free access of people to the public zone at Santa Teresa Beach near boundary marker 503. Petition: For the reasons stated above and in order to provide a prompt and timely response to the complainant, I respectfully request that, in your capacity as administrators of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre in your jurisdiction, inform us about: 1. The current condition of the access to the Santa Teresa beach sector, specifically at the access established by the current Regulatory Plan that ends at IGN boundary marker No. 503, according to the image provided. 2. In the event that the denounced gate observed in the photographs provided by the complainant exists; the same that evidently would be preventing the free transit access of people to the public zone, indicate the actions and the timeframe in which said actions would be implemented to enforce the law and restore said public access to the public zone (…)".
Likewise, it was proven that, in August 2024, the respondent authorities ordered an inspection at the site under study, "(…) which indicated the existence of the mentioned gate (…)". Therefore, on September 4, 2024, the company Colemu S.A. was notified of an administrative warning to remove within forty-eight hours the gates that obstruct access to the public street and the public pedestrian path "(…) which must have free access due to their public domain character (…)".
In addition to the above, it is recorded that, through official letter No. ZMT-260-2024 of September 4, 2024, the Coordinator of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the respondent council responded to the ICT official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024. In this document, reference was made to the inspection carried out in August of that same year and to the removal warning for the referenced gates notified to the company Colemu.
It was verified that on September 11, 2024, an inspector from the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the respondent council carried out a new inspection at the referenced site and verified that the warning issued to Colemu S.A. had not been complied with. Likewise, it was proven that, a few days later, on September 16, 2024, the referenced company presented to the respondent party the called Technical Report Geospatial Study of Gates/Accesses, where it is detailed that there is an error on the part of the administration regarding the georeferencing of the public accesses indicated in the warning and the location of the gates.
As accredited, by virtue of the above, by official letter No. ZMT-272-2024 of September 16, 2024, the Coordinator of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the council brought to the ICT's attention the study provided by the referenced company and noted that it was "(…) necessary to transfer these documents to the Surveyor Engineer of this Department in order to be reviewed and provide the corresponding report, in accordance with the constitutional principle of due process (…)". It was also stated that, once the documents provided by the company were analyzed and the report was made by the surveyor of that department, the actions to be followed by the administration would be determined.
Equally, it was accredited that through official letter No. ZMT-274-2024 of September 19, 2024, the coordinator of the cited Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre annulled the administrative warning issued to Colemu S.A. on September 4 of that same year "(…) until this Coordination has the Technical Report from the Surveyor Engineer of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre regarding the Technical Report Georeferencing Study of Gates/Accesses presented by the company in order to proceed in accordance with the Constitutional Principle of Due Process (…)". The foregoing was reported to the ICT through official letter No. ZMT-278-2024 of September 23, 2024, and it was clarified that "(…) Once the technical report is completed by the institutional engineer, a reasoned and substantiated resolution will be issued on this specific matter, assessing whether the gates are indeed on a public road and the Administration must act or if it is a substantive issue regarding the concessionaire that must be elevated to the Council of Councilors (…)".
Also, it is recorded that on October 3, 2024, the Coordinator of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre, in order to respond to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, requested the surveyor engineer of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre to carry out a topographic survey on the public accesses at boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan, in order to "(…) confirm whether the gates are indeed obstructing public accesses (…)". Therefore, as clarified, as of the date the report was rendered by the respondent authorities, i.e., October 4, 2024, procedures were being carried out to address the clarification requested by the ICT through the official letter of July 26, 2024, specifically, by the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre, which is in charge of carrying out the mentioned topographic survey at the site.
In addition to the above, it is necessary to mention that the respondent authorities, in said report rendered to this Chamber, have maintained and explained that (based above all on the provisions in official letters Nos. CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018 and No. CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, whose content is cited in the list of proven facts of this judgment), there is a doubt regarding the referenced structures (gates) and their precise location on boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan, for which reason it has become necessary to carry out a new inspection and a topographic survey to clarify said aspect and make the necessary decisions. On this matter, the respondents state:
"(…) there are inconsistencies in official letters CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018 and CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018 regarding public accesses, it is for this reason that the Surveyor Engineer of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre was requested to carry out internally a survey on the area of boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan. (…)
regarding official letter CYV-OF-GE-049-2018, it indicates that there is a linear offset regarding the boundary markers of the regulatory plan sheet and the boundary markers officialized by the National Geographic Institute, that means that the linear offset between the boundary markers causes the sheet of the Santa Teresa Beach Regulatory Plan to not conform to the reality of the site, which means there is a probability that the gate subject to the clarification requested by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute may not be obstructing the access and the aforementioned official letter does not clarify this presupposition, it only indicates the existence "of a considerable linear offset regarding the boundary markers". (…)
The same occurs with official letter CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, being that it is not consistent (…) The report dates June 5, 2018, the Santa Teresa Beach Regulatory Plan had its last adjustment and rectification published in the official newspaper La Gaceta number 72 of Wednesday, April 15, of the year 2015, so that by the year 2018 the current sheet was in force in which two public accesses are recorded on boundary markers 116-503, however, this official letter indicates that access #2 is not indicated in the Santa Teresa Beach Regulatory Plan, which is inconsistent and generates uncertainty because the sheet does indicate it; which is why it is necessary to resort to the Constitutional Principle of Due Process and update the topographic survey by this Municipal Council in order to clarify what is indicated by these official letters, by virtue of this it is necessary to indicate what is contemplated in article 157 of the General Law of Public Administration "At any time the Administration may rectify material or factual errors and arithmetic errors" (…)".
Having said the above, it is necessary to begin by clarifying that this Constitutional Chamber is also not responsible, given the circumstances described above and, because it is a matter of mere legality, for carrying out, through this summary amparo proceeding, an exhaustive study and determining technically –based on what the regulatory plan stipulates, the location of the boundary markers and the georeferencing process, among other aspects–, in which specific area the gates are located that were referenced above and were installed or built by the concessionaire Colemu S.A. near Santa Teresa beach, that is, whether or not they are on a road of a public nature and if, therefore, they are or are not obstructing the free passage of all persons (whether or not they are guests, users or workers of the concessioned property). This particular point, without a doubt, must be resolved by the respondent authorities, with the help of professionals and specialists in said field, as has already been ordered, as proven.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is also important to take into consideration that, in this particular case, the access and free transit of persons through an eventually public road is at stake. Hence, the determination of this condition is indeed of utmost relevance in terms of constitutionality, above all, if one takes into account that the discussion on this particular point has been ongoing for many years (as recorded in the preceding recital) and has been particularly resumed in the respondent council since July 2024, based on the complaint filed by the petitioner with the ICT.
Although, this constitutional body observes that actions have been undertaken, especially recently, aimed at effectively defining said condition, the truth is that, to date, as proven, this action has not been finally carried out, for which reason uncertainty persists on this particular point.
Consequently, this Constitutional Chamber is of the opinion that this precise point of the amparo must be granted, in the interest that the authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano carry out –within the timeframe that will be stated in the operative part of this judgment–, the pertinent procedures to define whether or not the referenced gates are on a public road, illegitimately preventing or not the transit of the administered–, given that, if it is determined that said structures are indeed on that road, their demolition shall proceed. (…)" Order the cancellation of concession No. 1768-2000. Represented by Mrs. Carlota Dorring Meadows with residence card No. 1752000212009. Having submitted this resolution for consultation to the competent authorities, as provided for in the cited regulations, and once this cancellation agreement is final and enforceable, the Public Registry shall be informed so that it may proceed with the cancellation of the respective registration entry in the name of the concessionaire COLEMU.
S.A (…)”. He maintains that said agreement was issued after it was verified that the concessionaire company had incurred multiple infractions of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) and the provisions of the regulatory plan (plan regulador). Furthermore, it was verified that “(…) the concessionaire company had incurred (sic) multiple infractions of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law and the provisions of the Regulatory Plan. Among other facts, it was demonstrated that Colemu S.A. had built on more than 550 meters in protected environmental zones, also invaded areas designated as public service zones, erected buildings without construction permits, exceeding the maximum height allowed in the Regulatory Plan, invaded the public zone, and installed access gates on two public roads provided for in the Regulatory Plan (…)”. He narrates that this agreement was challenged by Colemu S.A. before the Administrative Litigation Court.
However, said appeal was dismissed and the challenged act was confirmed through Judgment No. 66-2022 of February 24, 2023. Likewise, he points out that, against the execution of that agreement, Colemu S.A. requested a provisional precautionary measure of suspension from the Court, which was also denied through Vote No. 314-2023 of June 14, 2023. He adds that the council, in ordinary session No. 162-2023, Article VI, subsection b), instructed the Mayor’s Office (Intendencia) to hire a notary public to carry out the cancellation in the Public Registry of the registration entry of said concession; however, he points out that in March 2024 the tender was declared void, citing reasons of public interest. Since then, the current Mayor (Intendente), Ronny Montero Orozco, has suspended the contracting of the required notarial services, despite having been requested to do so. He mentions that, to date, the environmental damage continues and the illegal constructions in protected zones and the gates that impede access to public roads remain standing.
Furthermore, they accuse that, despite the fact that “(…) the power to revoke the administrative act cancelling the concession has expired, more than four years having elapsed since its issuance (subsection 4 of Article 156 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)), the current Mayor and the President of the Municipal Council (sic) in session on July 23, 2024, reject the report of the Municipality’s Legal Affairs Commission that declared the revocation of the referred act inadmissible, and instruct the Council’s Legal Advisor (sic) to study a formula to be able to revoke the administrative act that, among other things, cancels the concession of Colemu S.A. (…)”. He states that, according to the minutes of session No. 12-2024 of July 23, 2024, Article VI, subsection f), in light of the recommendation of the Permanent Legal Affairs Commission that the Council did not have the authority to revoke the agreement cancelling the concession of Colemu S.A., the President requested said commission, for better resolution, to expand the opinion “in order to be able to clearly understand the issue”.
He notes that “(…) in the video of the session, approximately at minute 60, it can be seen how (sic) given the recommendation made by the Legal Advisor, the President and the Mayor formulate objections, and it can be seen that they give instructions to find a way to proceed to revoke the administrative act in question, so much so that they talk about making a consultation to the Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General) or constituting a governing body (…)”. He alleges that, despite all of the foregoing, surprisingly, in session No. 011-2024 of July 16, 2024, the Municipal Council sent the request for extension of the concession formulated by Colemu S.A. to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Commission. All of the foregoing, despite the fact that said concession, from a legal standpoint, does not exist, having been cancelled by a final administrative act. He accuses that, despite the agreement cancelling the concession and ordering the demolition of structures and gates being final, as of the date of filing this amparo, five years later, the respondent municipality has not carried out any action aimed at executing it.
He explains that, “(…) The execution of the administrative act that cancels the concession of Colemu S.A. would mean that the concessioned parcel would once again be under municipal administration, and consequently, the ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE would be repaired, demolishing the constructions that invade the protected zones, as well as enabling access to the public zone via the public roads obstructed with gates by Colemu S.A. (…)”. He maintains that the Mayor has paralyzed the contracting of the notary who would carry out the registration cancellation of the concession, the first step to expel the occupants, be able to take possession of the land, and for the municipal authorities to proceed with the demolitions of the illegal constructions, specifically those built in protected zones, as well as those that violate the maximum height provided for in the Regulatory Plan. Likewise, the gate built in a protected zone and that impedes access to a public street leading to the beach and a parking area provided for in the Playa Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan has not been demolished.
Nor has the wall built outside the concession land been demolished, nor other structures, many of which are built in protected zones as indicated in the agreement itself that cancelled the concession. He notes that, by virtue of a procedure carried out by himself, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) sent official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 of July 26, 2024, to the Mayor and the District Municipal Council, warning them to proceed with the demolition of the gate that obstructs the public road and that was placed on the north side of the land under concession (a gate that the cancellation agreement ordered demolished) and granted them a period of ten days to respond. The official letter was received on July 29, 2024; however, as of August 29, 2024, it had not been answered by the municipal officials. He explains that attempts have been made through the administrative litigation avenue to compel the Cóbano Municipal Council to execute what was ordered in agreement No. 185-2019 of November 12, 2024.
However, he indicates that through Vote No. 2024-2284 of 10:45 a.m. on April 9, 2024, the Administrative Litigation and Civil Treasury Court dismissed the proceeding, considering that the necessary legal standing was lacking. He explains that, given said dismissal, the amparo recourse is the only avenue left to him to enforce rights and put an end to the environmental damage in the maritime-terrestrial zone, thus proceeding to allow access to the public roads obstructed by officials of Colemu S.A.. He accuses that the respondents “(…) have sought to prevent the District Municipal Council (sic) from repairing the ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE inflicted by the company Colemu S.A., whose concession in the maritime-terrestrial zone has been revoked. The respondents have sought to prevent the Municipality from proceeding to execute the administrative agreement that means that it (sic) can take possession of the concessioned parcel and proceed with the demolition of the constructions that were built on more than five hundred square meters of protected zone, in addition to enabling the public roads that have been illegally obstructed by the officials of Colemu S.A. (…)”.
He maintains that the administrative agreement that orders the cancellation of the concession of Colemu S.A. and the demolition of the illegal constructions in protected zones is not only legitimate but constitutes an obligation of the State to restore and protect the ecological balance that has been affected by the concessionaire’s actions. He states that the execution of said agreement is, therefore, a necessary measure to comply with the constitutional mandate to ensure a healthy environment and to correct the irregularities that have compromised this fundamental right. Furthermore, the non-execution of this agreement could be interpreted as an omission of the State’s constitutional duty to guarantee and protect the right to the environment, which is inadmissible under Article 50 of the Constitution. He alleges that the respondents, by action and omission, have breached their duty to repair the environmental damage caused by Colemu S.A., despite the existence of a final administrative agreement, reviewed by the jurisdictional authorities, which allows it to be done, and by virtue of which the Municipality could take possession of the parcel, demolish the constructions in protected zones, and allow access to the blocked public roads.
He requests that this amparo be granted and that the respondents be ordered to proceed with the execution of the agreement adopted in ordinary session No. 185-2019, Article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019, and, once in possession of the land, proceed to repair the environmental damage produced by Colemu S.A., demolishing the constructions built in protected zones and the gates that prevent entry to the two obstructed public roads.
A., it was received and forwarded to the Council of Council Members via official communication ZMT-197-2024 (folio 582), given that, since there is an agreement that cancels the concession, this department has no standing and is incompetent to analyze or resolve substantive matters regarding the concessionaire. During regular session 013-24, article VI, subsection f, of the thirtieth day of July of the year two thousand twenty-four, issued by the Council of Council Members of this District Municipal Council, it was agreed “to await the opinion of the permanent commission on legal affairs regarding the process to be followed in the case of COLEMU S.A. in order to make a decision regarding this request” (folio 591), fully complying with the constitutional principle of due process. EIGHTH: It is not true that this Administration has not taken any action to execute the administrative act in this specific case, as has been proceeding by virtue of the aforementioned agreements of the Council of Council Members, and as the appellant himself points out.
This municipal corporation has diligently managed this matter from the moment it became aware of it. It is necessary to again indicate official communications INT-074-2024 of March 7, 2024, and AL-A-0317-2024, of March 12, 2024, which have been carried over from the past administration to the current one, which responsibly, during regular session number 019-24, article VI, subsection c, of the tenth day of September of the year two thousand twenty-four, the Council of Council Members agreed to “assign a legal professional to study the administrative procedure that gave rise to the cancellation of COLEMU’s concession, in order to determine if it complied with the regulatory framework” in order to proceed as required by Law. NINTH and TENTH. At this point, the first, second, and third facts are expanded upon. Mr. [Name 001] went to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) to consult about public access points on landmark 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Santa Teresa), specifically, the parcel concessioned in the name of the company Colemu, S. A. IT IS NOT TRUE that the ICT warned this Administration to proceed with the demolition of a gate.
According to official communication DPD-ZMT 387-2024 of Friday, July 26, 2024, it indicates a request for clarification to respond to a complaint. (…) As is evident from said communication, the warning the appellant refers to does not exist, as this request is solely about public access points corresponding to landmark 503 of the Playa Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan. It was processed in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department (Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre) as it has no standing on substantive matters regarding the cancellation of the concession in the name of the company Colemu S. A. It was processed via a field inspection, which indicated the existence of the mentioned gate, and an Administrative Warning (Advertencia Administrativa) was notified to the company to remove said gates, without positive results, such that the Administration had to proceed with their removal; prior to executing the Administrative Warning, representatives of the company appeared at the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department and provided a Technical Report Georeferencing Study of Gates/Access Points (Informe Técnico Estudio de Georreferenciación de Portones/Accesos), which details that there is an error by the Administration regarding the georeferencing of the public access points indicated in the warning and the location where the gates are located.
With this premise, it is necessary to indicate the following: (…) By virtue of the principle of due process mentioned above, it is necessary to grant the administered party their right to defense, right to be heard, and the opportunity to present their arguments, as well as the evidence they consider pertinent, so that the Administration does not incur in a violation of the constitutional rights held by the inhabitants of this District. It is required that the topographical communication presented by the company be evaluated by the institutional engineer in order to respond and argue whether his/her criteria are in accordance with the law or, on the contrary, what is stipulated therein does not match the sheet corresponding to the Playa Santa Teresa Coastal Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Costero Playa Santa Teresa). Subsequently, on September 27, 2024, Mr. [Name 001] sent via email to the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department official communication JDG-1325-23/24 of September 11, 2024, issued by the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y de Arquitectos), which details that Engineer Juan Carlos Gómez Rojas, the engineer who prepared the report submitted by the company, is suspended, which is why a certification regarding the professional status of Eng.
Gómez Rojas was requested from the CFIA in order to clarify the validity of said report. This certification is being processed. (…) By virtue of the foregoing, and in order to respond to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute regarding the clarification, the Topographical Engineer of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department was asked to conduct the topographical survey internally, without taking into account the report submitted by Eng. Gómez on behalf of Colemu S. A., so as not to cause possible defects or nullities, lacking certainty to this day about the validity of his professional acts. Precisely at this point, it is necessary to take into account what is indicated in the first, second, and third facts, in accordance with the constitutional principle of Due Process mentioned above and the Constitutional Principle of Reasonableness and Proportionality, regarding which this honorable Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated the following in rulings 6805-11, 3950-12 (…) The Law cannot be irrational; likewise, its application must not be arbitrary.
The acts carried out by the Administration must be, as stated in article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), subject to the legal order, carrying out those acts and services authorized by the legal system, according to the hierarchy of sources. It is for this reason that the present process is being conducted in accordance with the Principle of Due Process. This Administration cannot and must not act in the hasty and arbitrary manner proposed by the appellant, given that there are inconsistencies in official communications CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018, and CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, regarding public access points. It is for this reason that the Topographical Engineer of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department was asked to conduct an internal survey of the area at landmark 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan. As mentioned in the first fact regarding official communication CYV-OF-GE-049-2018, it indicates that there is a linear offset concerning the landmarks on the regulatory plan sheet and the landmarks formalized by the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional), meaning that the linear offset between the landmarks causes the Playa Santa Teresa regulatory plan sheet not to match the reality of the site, which means there is a possibility that the gate subject to the clarification requested by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute may eventually not be obstructing the access, and the aforementioned communication does not clarify this premise but only indicates the existence “of a considerable linear offset regarding the landmarks.” Article 132 of the General Law of Public Administration states that the content of the administrative act must be lawful, possible, clear, and precise and covers all issues of fact and law arising from the motive, even if they have not been debated by the interested parties, in addition to being proportional to the legal purpose and corresponding to the motive, when both are regulated.
Moreover, article 35 of Law 6043 on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley 6043 sobre Zona Marítimo Terrestre) states that the Municipalities shall keep under their custody and administration the areas of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone. It is not appropriate for the Administration to act contrary to the provisions of the regulations, contrary to our Magna Carta (Carta Magna), and contrary to the jurisprudence cited by this honorable Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The same occurs with official communication CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, as it lacks congruence when stating the following: (…) The report is dated June 5, 2018. The Playa Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan had its latest adjustment and rectification published in the official newspaper La Gaceta number 72 of Wednesday, April 15, 2015, such that by the year 2018 the current sheet was in effect, which records two public access points on landmarks 116-503.
However, this communication indicates that access #2 is not indicated in the Playa Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan, which is inconsistent and creates uncertainty because the sheet does indicate it. For this reason, it is necessary to resort to the Constitutional Principle of Due Process and update the topographical survey by this Municipal Council in order to clarify what was stated in these communications. By virtue of this, it is necessary to indicate what is contemplated in article 157 of the General Law of Public Administration: “At any time the Administration may rectify material or factual errors and arithmetic ones.” SHEET OF THE PLAYA SANTA TERESA REGULATORY PLAN (…) By virtue of what has been developed above, the appellant is not correct in indicating that this Administration has been negligent in managing the case at hand, since from the moment it became aware of it, it has been managed according to Law.
It is true that past administrations have not executed the agreements made; however, honorable Magistrates of this Constitutional Chamber, take into account that the current Administration took office in this Municipal Council as of May 1 of this year and, in accordance with the foregoing, the corresponding attention has been given to this case. Firstly, regarding the cancellation of the concession, the administrative procedure which the past Administration indicated possible irregularities through official communication INT-074-2024 of March 7, 2024, sent to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and having received a response via official communication AL-A-0317-2024 of March 12, 2024, is being reviewed by a legal professional. Once the corresponding result is obtained, this Administration will proceed accordingly. Secondly, regarding the clarification requested by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute about public access points via official communication DPD-ZMT 387-2024 of Friday, July 26, 2024, it is being addressed by the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department, which will be conducting a topographical survey on the site in order to clarify the content of official communications CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018, and CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, and thus proceed responsibly and diligently.
It is important to note that the Costa Rican Tourism Institute has given its approval on this matter and the need for it to be managed according to the parameters of due process. The file through which the request from ICT is being managed is provided as evidence (…)”. They request that the appeal be declared without merit and that, furthermore, they be granted a prudential period of three months to conclude the due process initiated regarding official communication DPD-ZMT-387-2024 for clarification from the ICT on access to public roads at landmark 503 of the Playa Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan, since the topographical engineer of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department is working on the topographical survey on-site to clarify what was stated in communications No. CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018, and CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, and to have the final report on the review of the administrative procedure that ordered the cancellation of the concession (…)”.
Drafted by Magistrate Araya García; and,
CONSIDERING:
The appellant states that the representatives of the concessionaire Colemu S.A. have invaded, with various constructions, an area of the protected zone located in Playa Santa Teresa and, in turn, have installed gates that impede the passage of pedestrians and vehicles in the public area or road. He claims that, even though the District Municipal Council of Cóbano (Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano) agreed in November 2019 to cancel the concession granted to said company – in response to a series of irregularities found – and to demolish the referred structures, these specific actions have not been executed to date, as is proper, in order to safeguard the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to enable access to the public area.
Of relevance for settling this amparo appeal, the following are deemed accredited:
FACTS RELATED TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE CONCESSION TO COLEMU S.A.:
Likewise, the transaction must be registered in the General Registry of Concessions. - (…) SEVENTEENTH: LIMITATION: The concessionaire may not modify any of the clauses of this contract without prior written authorization from the Municipal Council, under penalty of rescinding the granted concession right,- (…) NINETEENTH: The concessionaire undertakes to present the corresponding declarations regarding the value of the constructions erected on the parcel and the payment of the respective tax according to article six, Subsection c) of Law seven thousand five hundred nine of May, nineteen hundred ninety-five. (…) TWENTY-FIRST: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION: The contracting parties agree that, for everything not provided for herein, the provisions contained in Law six thousand forty-three, its Regulations, and any other related laws shall govern. - TWENTY-SECOND: CANCELLATION: Breach of the previous clauses, as well as the provisions of the Law and its cited Regulations, shall give the Municipality the right, after prior consultation with the corresponding entities, to cancel this concession, with no liability or recognition of any kind on the part of the concessionaire (…)” (see file No. 23-004947-1027-CA of the Administrative Litigation and Civil Treasury Court).
It is determined that the portion of land described in the cadastral map of COLEMU S.A. for the concession, according to the regulatory plan, covers an Area of approximately 322 m not described with any zoning, see montage. It is important to emphasize that the survey carried out is based on the landmarks found in the field, which are subsequently referenced and adjusted with the landmarks from our GIS database that are those formalized by the National Geographic Institute IGN. However, the review of the zoning and the determination of encroachments and their areas is calculated based on the Playa Santa Teresa regulatory plan, and it is necessary to clarify that the landmarks of the regulatory plan and those formalized by the IGN present a considerable linear offset between them. Furthermore, the maritime terrestrial zone described in the regulatory plan does not exactly coincide with the maritime terrestrial zone generated from the extension of the line of official IGN landmarks (…)” (see report and evidence).
Indicating again that it is situated in the maritime terrestrial zone and therefore administered by us. It is clarified that access #2 (see montage) is not indicated in the Playa Santa Teresa Coastal Regulatory Plan and is located entirely in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone under municipal administration. / It is clarified that there is a parking zone indicated in the regulatory plan that will be enabled shortly by this institution for public enjoyment (…)” (see report and evidence).
It was remodeled with construction permit 252/2008. / -170/2008 The pool was built smaller than contemplated, but a perimeter terrace was built that does have the 42m2 area processed in the construction plans. The 100m wall is located in the construction plans outside the property, in front of the public street and has two gates which were built. The wall has not been built, and because it was approved outside the property, it should be annulled. / -252/2008 / Expansion of permit 170/2008. The structure in the plans was modified in reality since it was a detached structure on one side which was annexed to the existing construction. / -151/2010 / Consists of four dwelling-type structures located in a mirror layout, separated by a hallway. The ZMT inspection report reports that the height is 10, exceeding the permitted. / An expansion was built that encroaches on the side setback, according to the report of topographer Felipe Rodríguez (folio 263 ZMT file), initially it was an open eave (see folio 241 ZMT file).
Today it is enclosed. / -069/2013 / Roof cover structure that covers the open hallway between the two dwelling-type structures of permit 151/2010. / -070/2013 / Construction of a third dwelling on the side near the beach. / It is important to mention that after reviewing the physical plans found in the municipal archive, and the digital ones obtained from the CFIA, seals from the ICT and from INVU were found only on the permit processed with number 151/2010 and 070/2013. (…)” (see file No. 23-004947-1027-CA of the Administrative Litigation and Civil Treasury Court).
23-004947-1027-CA of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal) 14) By means of official letter No. CMS-367-2019 dated August 22, 2019, Colemu S.A. was notified of subsection a), article II), of extraordinary session No. 86-19 held on July 15, 2019, of the District Municipal Council, in which the following was agreed: "(...) With four votes present in favor, IT IS AGREED: \"1.1 To dispense with the commission procedure\". UNANIMOUS AND FINAL AGREEMENT. The application of article 45 of the municipal code (sic) is put to a vote, which is approved in all its parts, the previous agreement becoming DEFINITIVELY APPROVED. / 1.2. To accept the final report of proven and unproven facts issued by the external directing body of the Directing Body of the Administrative Procedure to Investigate Presumed Anomalies committed in the concession held by COLEMU S.A. and its respective recommendations, and consequently: 1.2.1.
To request the Administration the immediate demolition of the works erected in the public zone, namely a rancho and grill, in front of the concessioned plot. / 1.2.2. To request the Administration demolish the gate called No. 2 which is located outside the concessioned area and encroaches upon the protection zone. / 1.2.3 To revoke construction permit No. 170/2008 corresponding to a perimeter wall because it was authorized in an area outside the concessioned plot / 1.2.4 To forward to the (sic) Costa Rican Tourism Institute and the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory Services, in compliance with the provisions of article (sic) 80 of the Regulation of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043, everything related to the Administrative Procedure against the concessionaire COLEMU S.A. File [Value 002], for their respective opinion" UNANIMOUS AND FINAL AGREEMENT. The application of article 45 of the municipal code is put to a vote, which is approved in all its parts, the previous agreement becoming DEFINITIVELY APPROVED (...)" (see file No. 23-004947-1027-CA of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal) 15) By means of subsection b, article VII, of ordinary session No. 185-2019, held on November 12, 2019, the District Municipal Council of Cóbano, in its capacity as deciding body for Maritime Terrestrial Zone matters, agreed to the following: "(...) To issue the Final Act of Proven and Unproven Facts in all its terms and consequently; / To order the immediate demolition of the works erected in the public zone, namely a rancho and grill, in front of the concessioned plot. / To demolish the gate called No. 2 which is located outside the concessioned area and encroaches upon the protection zone. / To revoke the construction permit for the perimeter wall because it was authorized in an area outside the concessioned plot. / To decree the cancellation of concession No. 1768-2000.
Represented by Mrs. CARLOTA DORRING MEADOWS, residency card No. 175200002119. / Having submitted this resolution for consultation to the competent authorities stipulated in the cited regulations. And once this cancellation agreement is final and enforceable, inform the Public Registry to proceed with the cancellation of the respective registry entry in the name of the concessionaire COLEMU S.A. (...)" (see evidence and file No. 23-004947-1027-CA of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal).
Once the act is reviewed, this authority considers that it does not correspond to a firm and favorable administrative act for the following reasons. Firstly, as the District Council of Cóbano correctly indicates, the act in question does not grant a direct positive right to DOMBAS DEL PACÍFICO S.R.L; what the company has is an expectation that when the concession is cancelled it may participate by requesting the concession for said plot. Secondly, we have that the cited act establishes that the administrative file is forwarded to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute and the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory Services for compliance with the provisions of article 80 of the Regulation of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, for their respective opinion; consequently, at this moment the act does not constitute a firm and favorable act issued by the District Council of Cóbano (sic), regardless of the fact that the Administrative Litigation Tribunal Section III, by means of resolution 66-2022 at sixteen hours twenty-two minutes of February twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty-three, exhausted the administrative channel by denying the appeal filed by the company COLUME S.A. against the agreement supra cited.
Third, it does not correspond to a firm and favorable act in the terms of numeral 228 of the General Law of Public Administration and 176 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code. For greater clarity, it is important to indicate that the subjective right has been defined as the recognition of a right or power of a subject(s) that can be enforced against others, imposing obligations or duties on them, in their own interest, recognition that implies it is accompanied by the right to judicial protection. When a subject holds (sic) a subjective right, they have in their favor the guarantee of the objective law to enforce its execution through coercive means, that is, to assert the faculty that corresponds to them, this in cases where the administration or another subject intends to disturb or disregard their right. Every right corresponds to a subject who is the holder, since the subjective right is intimately linked to the person or persons to whom it belongs.
In the present case, these characteristics are not found within the act since it does not grant the party a positive right, as indicated (sic) above.- Having said that, it is clear that the deduced claim is inadmissible, since we are not in the presence of a declarative channel of rights, but rather a channel where it is sought to enforce an act, which it has already been determined (sic) is not favorable to the interests of the plaintiff, this type of claims being inadmissible within the present proceeding, which even when it is refuted as jurisdictional, in the words of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is a channel to concretize the will of the administration, which does not determine more obligations than those determined in the act sought to be enforced, a requirement that the plaintiff does not have since they do not hold (sic) a firm and favorable act. In view of the inadmissibility, the claims deduced regarding the conduct carried out by the defendant must be rejected.
If the plaintiff disagrees with the provisions or with the actions of the territorial entity, they must resort to the corresponding channel, namely the plenary proceeding, but not through the present proceeding whose only effect is to concretize the will of the administration when the issued act is firm and favorable, which is not the case here.- (...) THEREFORE: Consequently, the proceeding for ENFORCEMENT OF A FIRM AND FAVORABLE ACT filed by DOMBAS DEL PACÍFICO S.R.L. against the DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CÓBANO, PUNTARENAS, is declared WITHOUT MERIT IN ALL ITS TERMS.- It is ordered without special condemnation for costs of the enforcement of a firm and favorable act.- NOTIFY.- Vera Mora Rojas (Judge).- (...)" (see evidence).
FACTS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT CARRIED OUT BY ICT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GATES IN THE CONCESSIONED ZONE 1) On an unspecified date, the appellant filed a complaint before the Costa Rican Tourism Institute regarding the existence of a gate at the public access points at boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan located on the plot concessioned to Colemu S.A. By virtue of the foregoing, the ICT issued official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 dated July 26, 2024, addressed to the appealed Council, with the following text: "(...) Subject: Request for clarification to address a complaint about the existence of a gate preventing free public access to the public zone at Santa Teresa Beach near boundary marker 503. Prayer: Based on the foregoing and for the purpose of providing a prompt and timely response to the complainant, I respectfully request that, in your capacity as administrators of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone in your jurisdiction, you inform us about: 1.
The current condition of the access to the Santa Teresa beach sector, specifically at the access established by the current Regulatory Plan that leads to IGN boundary marker No. 503, according to the image provided. 2. If the reported gate observed in the photographs provided by the complainant exists, which evidently would be preventing free transit and access for people to the public zone, indicate the actions and the timeframe in which said actions would be implemented to enforce the law and restore said public access to the public zone (...)" (see report and evidence).
Of relevance for resolving the present amparo appeal, the following is considered unproven: Only one: That the protected party had submitted any formal request before the appealed authorities (e.g., a complaint for a specific environmental damage caused by the permanence of Colemu S.A. in the concessioned zone) and that this had not been addressed (the record).
IV.REGARDING THE CANCELLATION AGREEMENT OF THE CONCESSION GRANTED TO COLEMU S.A. As a first aspect and core point of this amparo proceeding, the appellant states that he comes before this Chamber by virtue of the fact that the authorities of the District Municipal Council of Cóbano, to date, after several years have passed, have omitted to execute the agreement adopted in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019, through which, in turn, it was resolved to decree the cancellation of the concession granted to the company Colemu S.A. on Santa Teresa beach, and also ordered the demolition of works erected in the public zone (rancho and grill), as well as a gate located outside the concessioned area and the revocation of a construction permit for a perimeter wall located outside the concessioned area. He claims that there are no reasons to have delayed, for so many years, the execution of said agreement and to continue tolerating the environmental damage caused.
He explains that said cancellation was issued after it was proven that the referred company had incurred several infractions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law and the provisions contemplated in the Santa Teresa Regulatory Plan (e.g., having built in protected environmental zones, constructed buildings without permits, having invaded the public zone, and having installed gates in places that give access to public roads). He affirms that this act was challenged before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal by the mentioned concessionaire company, but it was dismissed, confirming the challenged act.
He also alleges that the respondents have sought ways to avoid the execution of said agreement, that is, to revoke the referred act, which, however, is no longer possible. He also mentions that, despite resorting to the Administrative Litigation Tribunal to order the execution of the referred agreement, said request was rejected (due to the applicant's lack of standing). He maintains, then, that the execution of said agreement is, therefore, a necessary measure to comply with the constitutional mandate of ensuring a healthy environment. In his judgment, the respondents have breached their duty to repair the environmental damage caused by Colemu S.A., despite the existence of a firm administrative act that allows doing so.
Consequently, he requests that this amparo proceeding be upheld and that the appealed authorities of the District Municipal Council of Cóbano be ordered to execute the agreement adopted in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019. In a subsequent filing, the plaintiff even reaffirms that this is the main claim when filing this amparo proceeding.
Having reviewed the record, it is proven that, indeed, after an administrative proceeding carried out in the District Municipal Council of Cóbano (for presumed irregularities committed by the company Colemu, as concessionaire), in session No. 185-2019, article VII, subsection b), dated November 12, 2019, said council, in its capacity as deciding body, provided the following:
"(...) To issue the Final Act of Proven and Unproven Facts in all its terms and consequently; / To order the immediate demolition of the works erected in the public zone, namely a rancho and grill, in front of the concessioned plot. / To demolish the gate called No. 2 which is located outside the concessioned area and encroaches upon the protection zone. / To revoke the construction permit for the perimeter wall because it was authorized in an area outside the concessioned plot. / To decree the cancellation of concession No. 1768-2000. Represented by Mrs. CARLOTA DORRING MEADOWS, residency card No. 175200002119. / Having submitted this resolution for consultation to the competent authorities stipulated in the cited regulations. And once this cancellation agreement is final and enforceable, inform the Public Registry to proceed with the cancellation of the respective registry entry in the name of the concessionaire COLEMU S.A. (...)".
Likewise, it was demonstrated that the appealed council, on December 17, 2019, rejected the revocation appeal filed by Colemu S.A. against the cited agreement and that, on its part, the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (Third Section), in its capacity as non-hierarchical controller of legality, by means of Judgment No. 66-2022 at 16:22 hrs. of February 24, 2023, dismissed the appeal also filed by said concessionaire, thus deeming the administrative channel exhausted.
In addition to the foregoing, it is recorded that, during this year 2024, the respondents have questioned or reconsidered their competence to revoke the referred concession, as well as the grounds that led to adopting the referred agreement. In this manner, it was accredited that the Municipal Mayor, on March 7, 2024, and by official letter No. INT-074-2024, requested the ICT's opinion on the legal viability of revoking the act that ordered the cancellation of the cited concession and on the power the council possesses to that effect. This latter official letter was addressed by the ICT by means of official letter No. AL-A-0317-2024 of March 12, 2024, referring to the competencies the referred district council possesses on the matter. Likewise, it is recorded that in session No. 12-2024 of July 23, 2024, the appealed council (made up of the new composition), considered the opinion of the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs related to the concession granted to Colemu S.A., which provided: "(...) It is ruled that this Collegiate Body DOES NOT have the power to resolve said situation because it is not within its power to revoke an agreement that followed due process unless a judicial instance determines it or if substantive errors that led to the cancellation of the concession are found.
THAT IS ALL (...)". By virtue of the foregoing, it was accredited that the referred council decided to request the legal advisor of the council to expand the issued opinion in order to clearly understand the issue. As verified, from this session and, based on the provisions of official letters No. INT-074-2024 and No. AL-A-0317-2024, the need arose to conduct a legal review of the administrative procedure that ordered the cancellation of the concession.
In this manner, it was verified that the cited Legal Commission, on August 27, 2024, provided the following:
"(...) OPINION N° 01 WHEREAS: The Council has forwarded OFFICIAL LETTER INT-2024-138 from the Municipal Mayoralty and OFFICIAL LETTER AI-A-0317-2024 from the ICT. This commission, nor does the Municipal Council, or the administration have the power to annul an agreement that followed due process, unless a judicial instance determines it. Or in any case, if absolute or relative substantive errors are found administratively in the administrative procedure regarding the final recommendation to the Municipal Council to annul the concession. THEREFORE. This permanent commission on Legal Affairs, based on article 34 subsection g, and 49 of the Municipal Code, RULES, recommends to the Council: 1. To assign a legal professional to study the administrative procedure that gave rise to the cancellation of the COLEMU concession, in order to determine if it complied with the regulatory framework. THAT IS ALL. The opinion is put to a vote and is approved in all its parts (...)".
And that, in ordinary session No. 019-24, article VI, subsection c) of September 10, 2024, the appealed Council of Councilors provided the following:
"(...) AGREEMENT N°6.
With five votes present in favor, IT IS AGREED: “5.1 To accept the opinion (dictamen) presented by the legal affairs commission and forward it to the Municipal Mayor's Office (Intendencia Municipal) so that it may assign a legal professional to study the administrative procedure that gave rise to the cancellation of the COLEMU concession, in order to determine whether it complied with the regulatory framework (…)”.
For their part, what was reported by the respondent authorities to this jurisdiction is of interest, in the sense that:
“(…) given the existence of official letters INT-074-2024 of March 7, 2024, and AL-A-0317-2024, of March 12, 2024, in which it can be ambiguously corroborated that the same Administration that ordered the cancellation of the concession requests the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) to pronounce on the matter, given that there may be nullity defects (vicios de nulidad) in the processing of the administrative procedure; it would be irresponsible on the part of the new Administration assumed as of May 1, 2024, taking into account the continuity of responsibility in administrative matters, to proceed in an accelerated and arbitrary manner with the deregistration without reviewing the procedure carried out in accordance with the principle of legality and the principle of due process, enshrined in Articles 11, 39, and 41 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and Article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (…)”.
Now, having analyzed all the foregoing, this Constitutional Court does not consider that there is any merit whatsoever to uphold this part of the appeal and, therefore, the main petition made by the appellant.
The foregoing, fundamentally, insofar as it is not for this Chamber, as it is a matter of mere and pure legality, to analyze the merits of the case submitted for study, to verify the legality of the concession granted to Colemu S.A., nor whether the agreement that ordered its cancellation is in accordance with the law (or not) and whether, therefore, it must be executed immediately, as the petitioner intends. This is primarily taking into account that, as was accredited from the evidence adduced to the record and the report rendered under the solemnity of oath, at this moment there are doubts about the procedure established years ago (which led to the issuance of the cancellation agreement under study), which, in turn, motivated the respondents – before this amparo was notified – to agree to designate a legal professional to study and examine the latter in order to determine whether it complied with the regulatory framework or not.
Under this scenario, as stated, this constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute the work that has been ordered to be carried out (designated in said legal professional), to examine the legality or not of the concessionaire's actions (specifically its obligations regarding the contract signed to carry out its activities in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)) and, also, the procedure established that led to the issuance of the cancellation agreement in question. It is not materially or reasonably possible to enter into a complicated and slow evidentiary system, through the summary pathway of amparo, to elucidate the referred aspects indicated by the protected party.
In that same order of considerations, it is of utmost importance to highlight that the appellant, in the writings presented before this Chamber, made no reference to any specific environmental problem suffered in the area of interest. The petitioner merely made reference, roughly speaking (grosso modo), to a general impact on the environment due to the non-execution of the agreement under study, without mentioning or specifying what the presumed environmental damage or damages produced in the area are due to the permanence of Colemu S.A. as a concessionaire. Furthermore, there is no record that the appellant had filed a formal complaint before the respondent council regarding any particular environmental damage suffered at the mentioned site.
Thus, the generic and abstract disagreement formulated by the petitioner regarding the non-execution of the aforementioned municipal agreement, must be brought, if deemed appropriate, before the ordinary administrative and jurisdictional legality channels created specifically for this purpose since, as stated, they exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal, as well as the competence of this Court granted by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and the Political Constitution itself.
Subsidiarily or in parallel to the main grievance, the appellant also specifically complains that the company Colemu S.A. has privatized two public roads through the placement of gates, which prevents the passage of pedestrians and vehicles to the public zone (zona pública). He explains that these roads lead specifically to the beach and to a parking lot foreseen in the Regulating Plan (Plan Regulador) of Playa Santa Teresa. He accuses that the authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano (Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano) have not taken any action to resolve said situation and demolish, then, these illegitimate structures.
Regarding this particular aspect, it is demonstrated that the appellant filed a complaint before the ICT about the existence of a gate (and not two as alleged in this amparo), on the public accesses over boundary marker (mojón) 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulating Plan located on the parcel conceded to Colemu S.A. It is also on record that, by virtue of the foregoing, the ICT issued official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 dated July 26, 2024, through which it requested the respondent council to report on the existence of said structure, in the following terms:_ “(…) Subject: Request for clarification to address a complaint regarding the existence of a gate that prevents the free access of people to the public zone (zona pública) at Playa Santa Teresa near boundary marker 503. Petition: For the foregoing and in order to provide a prompt and timely response to the complainant, I respectfully request that, in your capacity as administrators of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone in your jurisdiction, you inform us about: 1.
The current condition of the access to the Santa Teresa beach sector, specifically the access established by the current Regulating Plan that ends at IGN boundary marker No. 503, according to the attached image. 2. In the event that the denounced gate observed in the photographs provided by the complainant exists, which evidently would be preventing the free transit and access of people to the public zone, indicate the actions and the timeframe in which said actions would be implemented to enforce the law and restore said public access to the public zone (…)”.
Likewise, it was demonstrated that, in August 2024, the respondent authorities ordered an inspection at the site under study, “(…) which indicated the existence of the mentioned gate (…)”. For the foregoing, on September 4, 2024, the company Colemu S.A. was notified of an administrative warning to remove within forty-eight hours the gates that obstruct access to the public street and the public pedestrian path “(…) which must have free access due to their public domain nature (carácter demanial) (…)”.
In addition to the foregoing, it is on record that, through official letter No. ZMT-260-2024 of September 4, 2024, the Coordinator of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the respondent council responded to the ICT official letter No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024. This document made reference to the inspection carried out in August of that same year and to the warning for the removal of the referred gates notified to the company Colemu.
It was verified that on September 11, 2024, an inspector from the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the respondent council carried out a new inspection at the referred site and verified that the warning issued to Colemu S.A. had not been complied with. Likewise, it was demonstrated that, a few days later, on September 16, 2024, the referred company presented before the respondent party the so-called Technical Report Geospatial Study of Gates/Accesses, which details that there is an error on the part of the administration regarding the georeferencing of the public accesses indicated in the warning and the location of the gates.
As accredited, by virtue of the foregoing, through official letter No. ZMT-272-2024 of September 16, 2024, the Coordinator of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the council brought to the attention of the ICT the study provided by the referred company and noted that it was “(…) necessary to transfer these documents to the Topographical Engineer of this Department in order to be reviewed and provide the corresponding report, in accordance with the constitutional principle of due process (…)”. It was also said that, once the documents provided by the company were analyzed and the report by the topographer of that department was made, the actions to be followed by the administration would be determined.
Equally, it was accredited that through official letter No. ZMT-274-2024 of September 19, 2024, the coordinator of the cited Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone rendered ineffective the administrative warning issued to Colemu S.A. on September 4 of that same year “(…) until this Coordination has the technical Report from the Topographical Engineer of the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone regarding the Technical Report Georeferencing Study of Gates/Accesses presented by the company in order to proceed in accordance with the Constitutional Principle of Due Process (…)”. The foregoing was informed to the ICT through official letter No. ZMT-278-2024 of September 23, 2024, and it was clarified that “(…) Once the technical report is completed by the institutional engineer, a reasoned and substantiated resolution will be issued on this specific matter, assessing whether indeed the gates are on a public road and the Administration must act, or whether it is a substantive issue regarding the concessionaire that must be elevated to the Council of Councilors (Concejo de Concejales) (…)”.
Also, it is on record that on October 3, 2024, the Coordinator of the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, in order to respond to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, requested the topographical engineer of the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone to carry out a topographic survey of the public accesses at boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulating Plan, in order to “(…) confirm whether the gates are indeed obstructing public accesses (…)”. Therefore, as clarified, on the date the report was rendered by the respondent authorities, that is, October 4, 2024, efforts were being made to address the clarification requested by the ICT through official letter of July 26, 2024, specifically, by the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, which is in charge of carrying out the mentioned topographic survey at the site.
In addition to the foregoing, it is necessary to mention that the respondent authorities, in said report rendered to this Chamber, have maintained and explained that (based especially on the provisions of official letters Nos. CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018, and No. CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, the content of which is cited in the list of proven facts of this judgment), there is doubt regarding the referred structures (gates) and their precise location over boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulating Plan, which is why a new inspection and a topographic survey have become necessary to clarify this aspect and make the necessary decisions. On this matter, the respondents state:
“(…) there are inconsistencies in official letters CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 of February 27, 2018, and CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, regarding the public accesses, it is for this reason that the Topographical Engineer of the Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone was requested to internally carry out a survey of the area of boundary marker 503 of the Santa Teresa Regulating Plan. (…)
regarding official letter CYV-OF-GE-049-2018, it indicates that there is a linear offset regarding the boundary markers of the regulating plan sheet and the boundary markers made official by the National Geographic Institute (IGN), this means that the linear offset between the boundary markers causes the sheet of the Playa Santa Teresa Regulating Plan not to conform to the reality of the site, which means there is a probability that the gate object of the clarification requested by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute may eventually not be obstructing the access and the aforementioned official letter does not clarify this premise, it only indicates the existence “of a considerable linear offset regarding the boundary markers”. (…)
The same happens with official letter CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 of June 5, 2018, given that it lacks consistency (…) The report is dated June 5, 2018, the Playa Santa Teresa Regulating Plan had its last adjustment and rectification published in the official newspaper La Gaceta number 72 of Wednesday, April 15, 2015, so that by the year 2018 the current sheet was in force, in which two public accesses over boundary markers 116-503 are recorded, however, this official letter states that access #2 is not indicated in the Playa Santa Teresa Regulating Plan, which is inconsistent and generates uncertainty because the sheet does indicate it; reason for which it is necessary to resort to the Constitutional Principle of Due Process and update the topographic survey by this Municipal Council in order to clarify what is indicated by these official letters. By virtue of this, it is necessary to indicate what is contemplated in Article 157 of the General Law of Public Administration: “At any time the Administration may rectify material or factual errors and arithmetic errors” (…)”.
Having said the above, it is necessary to begin by clarifying that it is also not for this Constitutional Chamber, given the circumstances described above and, because it is a matter of mere legality, to carry out, through this summary amparo appeal, an exhaustive study and technically determine – based on what is stipulated in the regulating plan, the location of the boundary markers, and the georeferencing process, among other aspects – in which specific zone the gates referred to above are located and were installed or constructed by the concessionaire Colemu S.A. near Santa Teresa beach, that is, whether or not they are on a road of a public nature and whether, therefore, they are or are not obstructing the free passage of all persons (whether or not they are guests, users, or workers of the conceded property). This particular point, without a doubt, must be resolved by the respondent authorities, with the help of professionals and specialists in said matter, as has already been arranged, as was demonstrated.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is also important to take into consideration that, in this particular case, the access and free transit of persons through an eventually public road is at stake. Hence, the determination of this condition is indeed of utmost relevance in terms of constitutionality, especially considering that the discussion on this particular point has been taking place for many years (as recorded in the preceding recital (considerando)) and was particularly retaken at the respondent council as of July 2024, following the complaint filed by the appellant before the ICT.
Although this constitutional body observes that efforts have been made, especially recently, aimed at effectively defining said condition, the truth is that, to date, as demonstrated, this action has not been finally carried out, and therefore the uncertainty regarding this particular point persists.
Consequently, this Constitutional Chamber is of the opinion that this precise point of the amparo must be upheld, so that the authorities of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano carry out – within the term that will be stated in the operative part of this judgment – the pertinent efforts to define whether the referred gates are or are not on a public road, illegitimately preventing or not the transit of citizens, and, if it is determined that these structures are indeed on that road, their demolition be carried out.
As a matter of principle, I consider that cases related to the inactivity of the Public Administration in the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure work should be dismissed, as that omission constitutes a matter of legality, whose discussion belongs to the ordinary jurisdiction, before which the interested person can debate, with greater breadth, their disagreements. However, when from that omissive administrative conduct, some violation of other fundamental rights protected in this constitutional jurisdiction derives, or vulnerable groups are affected, I do proceed to hear the merits of the matter, as this situation constitutes an exception to my position on this matter, just as it occurs in this case, in which the appellant assures that the concessionaire Colemu S.A. has placed gates that prevent the free passage of pedestrians and vehicles in the public zone (zona pública) and, despite the complaints, the Municipal District Council of Cóbano has not regularized the situation.
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 that is not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”, approved by the Corte Plena in session number 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 number 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
THEREFORE:
The appeal is partially granted only with respect to the grievance related to the alleged existence of gates on a public road that impede free transit. It is ordered to Ronny José Montero Orozco, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (Intendente Municipal), to Lidieth Porras Córdoba, in her capacity as Coordinator of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, and to Minor Centeno Sandí, in his capacity as President of the Council of Councilors (Concejo de Concejales), all of the Municipal District Council of Cóbano, or whomever respectively holds these positions, that they coordinate amongst themselves what is pertinent, issue the necessary orders, and carry out all actions that are within the scope of their competencies so that, within the maximum term of TWO MONTHS, counted from the notification of this judgment, it is defined whether the gates referred to in this matter are or are not on a public road and whether they consequently obstruct or not public accesses.
Likewise, they are ordered that, in the event that these structures are found on a public road, their demolition be carried out within that same term. The respondent authorities are warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days will be imposed on whomsoever receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely penalized. The Municipal District Council of Cóbano is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed. Judge Salazar Alvarado appends a note. Notify.- Fernando Castillo V. President Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Alejandro Delgado F.
Aracelly Pacheco S.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts.Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Reception for matters of vulnerable groups: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6 Classification prepared by the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL of the Poder Judicial. Its reproduction and/or distribution for profit is prohibited.
It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 05-08-2026 15:32:57.
Sentencia con nota separada Indicadores de Relevancia Sentencia relevante Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente Contenido de Interés:
Temas Estrategicos: Der Económicos sociales culturales y ambientales Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: 4. ASUNTOS DE GARANTÍA Tema: MUNICIPALIDAD Subtemas:
INFRAESTRUCTURA Y CONDICIONES. PLAN REGULADOR. DENUNCIA.
Tema: LIBERTAD DE TRÁNSITO Subtemas:
BLOQUEO VIA PUBLICA.
031515-24. MUNICIPALIDAD. LIBERTAD DE TRÁNSITO. VECINOS ACUSAN QUE LA MUNICIPALIDAD NO HA RESUELTO, DENUNCIA SOBRE VARIAS CONSTRUCCIONES EN UN AREA PROTEGIDA Y COLOCACIÓN DE PORTONES HECHA POR UNA EMPRESA PRIVADA EN ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE, EN SANTA TERESA. EN CUANTO A LA CANCELACIÓN DE LA CONCESIÓN DE LA EMPRESA, ES UN ASUNTO DE LEGALIDAD. POR OTRO LADO SE ORDENA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD, DEFINIR, EN EL PLAZO DE DOS MESES, SI LOS PORTONES SE ENCUENTRAN O NO EN VÍA PÚBLICA. VCG11/2024
IV.SOBRE EL ACUERDO DE CANCELACIÓN DE LA CONCESIÓN OTORGADA A COLEMU S.A. Como primer aspecto y punto medular de este proceso de amparo, el recurrente señala que acude a esta Sala en virtud que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano, a la fecha, luego de varios años transcurridos, han omitido ejecutar el acuerdo tomado en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019, mediante el cual, a su vez, se resolvió decretar la cancelación de la concesión otorgada a la empresa Colemu S.A. en playa Santa Teresa y se ordenó, también, la demolición de obras levantadas en zona pública (rancho y parrilla), así como un portón que está ubicado fuera del área concesionada y la revocación de un permiso de construcción de una tapia ubicada fuera del área concesionada. Acusa que no existen motivos para haber retrasado, por tantos años, la ejecución de dicho acuerdo y continuar tolerando el daño ambiental que se produce.
Explica que esa cancelación se emitió luego de comprobarse que la referida empresa había incurrido en varias infracciones a la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y a las disposiciones contempladas en el Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa (v.gr. haber construido en zonas ambientales protegidas, construido edificios sin permisos, haber invadido la zona pública y haber instalado portones en lugares que dan acceso a vías públicas). Afirma que ese acto fue impugnado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo por la mencionada sociedad concesionaria, pero fue desestimado, confirmándose el acto impugnado.
Alega también que los recurridos han buscado la manera de evitar la ejecución de dicho acuerdo, es decir, para revocar el referido acto, lo cual, sin embargo, ya no es posible hacer. Menciona igualmente que, pese a que se acudió al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo para que ordenara la ejecución del referido acuerdo, dicha gestión fue rechazada (por falta de legitimación del solicitante). Sostiene, entonces, que la ejecución de dicho acuerdo es, por tanto, una medida necesaria para cumplir el mandato constitucional de velar por un ambiente sano. En su criterio, los recurridos han incumplido su deber de reparar el daño ambiental causado por Colemu S.A., pese a que existe un acuerdo administrativo firme que permite hacerlo.
Solicita, en consecuencia, que se acoja este proceso de amparo y se les ordene a las autoridades recurridas del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano, ejecutar el acuerdo adoptado en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019. Incluso, en escrito posterior, el accionante reafirma que esta es la pretensión principal al interponer este proceso de amparo.
Revisados los autos, se tiene por demostrado que, ciertamente, luego de un procedimiento administrativo realizado en el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano (por presuntas irregularidades cometidas por la sociedad Colemu, en calidad de concesionaria), en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019, dicho concejo, en calidad de órgano decisor, dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) Dictar el Acto Final de Hechos Probados y No Probados en todos sus extremos y en consecuencia; / Ordenar la demolición inmediata de las obras levantadas en la zona pública, a saber rancho y parrilla, al frente de la parcela concesionada. / Demoler el portón denominado Nº 2 que se encuentra fuera del área concesionada y que invade la zona de protección. / Revocar el permiso de construcción de la tapia por haberse autorizado en un área fuera de la parcela concesionada. / Decretar la cancelación de la concesión Nº 1768-2000. Representada por la señora CARLOTA DORRING MEADOWS, cedula de residencia N 175200002119. / Habiendo sometido a consulta de esta resolución, a las autoridades competentes, previstas en la normativa citada. Y una vez en firme este acuerdo de cancelación y ejecutable, infórmese al Registro Público para que se proceda a la cancelación del respectivo asiento registral a nombre de la concesionaria COLEMU S.A. (…)”.
Igualmente, se demostró que el concejo recurrido, el 17 de diciembre de 2019, rechazó el recurso de revocatoria formulado por Colemu S.A. en contra del citado acuerdo y que, por su parte, el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (Sección Tercera), en calidad de contralor no jerárquico de legalidad, mediante la Sentencia No. 66-2022 de las 16:22 hrs. de 24 de febrero de 2023, declaró sin lugar el recurso de apelación formulado también por dicha concesionaria, dándose por agotada así, la vía administrativa.
En adición a lo anterior, consta que, durante este año 2024, los recurridos se han cuestionado o replanteado su competencia para revocar la referida concesión, así como los fundamentos que conllevaron a tomar el referido acuerdo. De esta manera, se acreditó que el Intendente Municipal, el 7 de marzo de 2024 y por oficio No. INT-074-2024, solicitó al ICT criterio sobre la viabilidad jurídica de revocar el acto que ordenó la cancelación de la citada concesión y sobre la facultad que posee al efecto el concejo. Este último oficio fue atendido por el ICT mediante oficio No. AL-A-0317-2024 de 12 de marzo de 2024, refiriéndose a las competencias que posee, sobre el particular, el referido concejo de distrito. Asimismo, consta que en la sesión No. 12-2024 de 23 de julio de 2024, el concejo recurrido (conformado por la nueva integración), conoció el dictamen de la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos relacionado con la concesión otorgada a Colemu S.A. que dispuso: “(…) Se dictamina que este Órgano Colegiado NO tiene facultad de resolver dicha situación pues no es facultad revocar un acuerdo que sigue el debido proceso a no ser que una instancia judicial así lo determine o que se encuentre errores de fondo que generó la cancelación de la concesión.
ES TODO (…)”. En virtud de lo anterior, se acreditó que el referido concejo dispuso solicitar a la asesora legal del concejo ampliar el dictamen emitido a efecto de poder comprender claramente el tema. Según se verificó, de esta sesión y, a partir de lo dispuesto en los oficios No. INT-074-2024 y No. AL-A-0317-2024, nació la necesidad de realizar una revisión legal del procedimiento administrativo que ordenó la cancelación de la concesión.
De esta manera, se verificó que la citada Comisión de Jurídicos, el 27 de agosto de 2024, dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) DICTAMEN N° 01 CONSIDERANDO: Que el Concejo ha trasladado el OFICIO INT-2024-138 de la Intendencia Municipal y el OFICIO AI-A-0317-2024 del ICT. Esta comisión, tampoco el Concejo Municipal, o la administración tienen la facultad de poder anular un acuerdo que siguió el debido proceso, a no ser que una instancia judicial así lo determine. O en todo caso, que administrativamente se encuentren errores de fondo absolutos o relativos en el procedimiento administrativo que la recomendación final al Concejo Municipal, para anular la concesión. POR LO TANTO. Esta comisión permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos con base en el artículo 34 inciso g, y 49 del Código Municipal DICTAMINA, recomendar al Concejo: 1. Se asigne a un profesional en derecho que estudie el procedimiento administrativo que dio origen a la cancelación de la concesión de COLEMU, a fin de determinar si esta cumplió con el marco normativo. ES TODO. Se somete a votación el dictamen en cual es aprobado en todas sus partes (…)”.
Y que, en la sesión ordinaria No. 019-24, artículo VI, inciso c) de 10 de septiembre de 2024, el Concejo de Concejales recurrido dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) ACUERDO N°6. Con cinco votos presentes a favor SE ACUERDA: “5.1 Acoger el dictamen presentado por la comisión de asuntos jurídicos y dar pase del mismo a la Intendencia Municipal a fin de que asigne a un profesional en derecho que estudie el procedimiento administrativo que dio origen a la cancelación de la concesión de COLEMU, a fin de determinar si esta cumplió con el marco normativo (…)”.
Por su parte, resulta de interés lo informado por las autoridades recurridas a esta jurisdicción, en el sentido que:
“(…) ante la existencia de los oficios INT-074-2024 del 07 de marzo del 2024 y AL-A-0317-2024, del 12 de marzo del 2024, en los cuales de manera ambigua se logra corroborar que la misma Administración que señala la cancelación de concesión solicita al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo se pronuncie al respecto siendo que pueden existir vicios de nulidad en la tramitación del procedimiento administrativo; sería irresponsable por parte de la nueva Administración asumida a partir de 01 de mayo del 2024, teniendo en cuenta la continuidad de la responsabilidad en materia administrativa, proceder de manera acelerada y arbitraria con la desinscripción registral sin revisar el procedimiento llevado a cabo de conformidad al principio de legalidad y el principio del debido proceso, consagrados en los artículos 11, 39 y 41 de la Constitución Política de Costa Rica y artículo 11 de la Ley General de Administración Pública (…)”.
Ahora bien, analizado todo lo anterior, este Tribunal Constitucional no considera que exista mérito alguno para acoger este extremo del recurso y, por ende, la petición principal formulada por el recurrente.
Lo anterior, medularmente, en el tanto no le corresponde a esta Sala, por tratarse de un tema de mera y pura legalidad, analizar por el fondo el caso sometido a estudio, verificar la legalidad de la concesión otorgada a Colemu S.A., así como si el acuerdo que ordenó su cancelación está ajustado a derecho (o no) y si, por ende, este debe ser ejecutado de forma inmediata, tal y como lo pretende el accionante. Esto, principalmente, si se toma en cuenta que, según se acreditó a partir de las pruebas allegadas a los autos y del informe rendido bajo la solemnidad de juramento, en este momento existen dudas sobre el procedimiento instaurado años atrás (que conllevó a la emisión del acuerdo de cancelación bajo estudio), lo que, a su vez, motivó a los recurridos –antes de notificado este amparo–, a que acordaran designar un profesional en derecho que estudiara y examinara este último a fin de determinar si el mismo cumplió o no con el marco normativo.
Bajo este panorama, tal y como se dijo, no puede esta jurisdicción constitucional sustituir la labor que se ha ordenado llevar a cabo (designada en dicho profesional en derecho), para examinar la legalidad o no de la actuación de la concesionaria (concretamente sus obligaciones respecto al contrato suscrito para llevar a cabo sus actividades en zona marítimo terrestre) y, también, el procedimiento instaurado que conllevó a la emisión del acuerdo de cancelación en cuestión. No resulta material ni razonablemente posible entrar a un complicado y lento sistema probatorio, a través de la vía sumaria del amparo, para dilucidar los referidos aspectos señalados por la parte tutelada En ese mismo orden de consideraciones, es de suma importancia destacar que el recurrente, en los escritos presentado ante esta Sala, no hizo referencia a algún problema ambiental en concreto sufrido en la zona de interés. El accionante se limitó a hacer referencia, grosso modo, a una afectación general al medio ambiente por la no ejecución del acuerdo bajo estudio, sin mencionar o precisar cuál es el presunto o los presuntos daños ambientales producidos en la zona ante la permanencia de Colemu S.A como concesionaria. Incluso, no consta que el recurrente hubiera presentado una denuncia formal ante el concejo recurrido respecto a algún daño ambiental en particular sufrido en el mencionado sitio.
De esta forma, la inconformidad genérica y en abstracto que formula el accionante respecto a la no ejecución del citado acuerdo municipal, deberá se planteada, si a bien se tiene, ante las vías ordinarias de legalidad administrativas y jurisdiccionales creadas especialmente al efecto pues, como se dijo, exceden el carácter sumario del recurso de amparo, así como la competencia de este Tribunal otorgada por la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y la propia Constitución Política.
De forma subsidiaria o paralelamente al agravio principal, el recurrente también reclama concretamente que la empresa Colemu S.A. ha privatizado dos vías públicas mediate la colocación de portones, lo cual impide el paso de peatones y vehículos a la zona pública. Explica que esas vías conducen específicamente a la playa y a un parqueo previsto en el Plan Regulador de Playa Santa Teresa. Acusa que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano no han realizado gestión alguna en aras de solventar dicha situación y derribar, entonces, esas ilegítimas estructuras.
Sobre este aspecto en particular, se tiene por demostrado que el recurrente presentó ante el ICT una denuncia por la existencia de un portón (y no de dos como se alega en este amparo), en los accesos públicos sobre el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa ubicados en la parcela concesionada a Colemu S.A. Consta también que, en virtud de lo anterior, el ICT emitió el oficio No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 de fecha 26 de julio de 2024, mediante el cual solicitó al concejo recurrido informar sobre la existencia de dicha estructura, conforme los siguientes términos:_ “(…) Asunto: Solicitud de aclaración para atender denuncia de existencia de un portón que impide el libre acceso de las personas a zona pública en Playa Santa Teresa cerca del mojón 503. Petitoria: Por lo antes expuesto y con la finalidad de brindar respuesta pronta y oportuna al denunciante respetuosamente les solicito que, en su condición de administradores de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre en su jurisdicción, nos informen acerca de: 1.
La condición actual que presenta el acceso al sector de playa Santa Teresa específicamente en el acceso establecido por el Plan Regulador vigente que desemboca en el mojón del IGN N° 503, según imagen aportada. 2. En caso de existir el portón denunciado que se observa en las fotografías aportadas por el denunciante; mismo que evidentemente estaría impidiendo el libre tránsito acceso de las personas a la zona pública, indicar las acciones y el plazo en que serían implementadas dichas acciones para hacer cumplir la ley y restituir dicho acceso público a la zona pública (…)”.
Asimismo, se demostró que, en agosto de 2024, las autoridades recurridas ordenaron la realización de una inspección en el sitio bajo estudio, “(…) la cual señaló la existencia del portón mencionado (…)”. Por lo anterior, el 4 de septiembre de 2024 se notificó a la sociedad Colemu S.A. advertencia administrativa para remover en cuarenta y ocho horas los portones que obstruyen el acceso a la calle pública y el sendero peatonal público “(…) los cuales deben de tener libre acceso por su carácter demanial (…)”.
En adición a lo anterior, consta que, mediante oficio No. ZMT-260-2024 de 4 de septiembre de 2024, la Coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo recurrido respondió al ICT oficio No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024. En este documento se hizo referencia a la inspección realizada en agosto de ese mismo año y a la advertencia de remoción de los referidos portones notificada a la sociedad Colemu.
Se verificó que el 11 de septiembre de 2024, un inspector del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo recurrido realizó una nueva inspección en el referido sitio y verificó que la advertencia girada a Colemu S.A. no había sido cumplida. Asimismo, se demostró que, pocos días después, el 16 de septiembre de 2024, la referida empresa presentó ante la parte recurrida el llamado Informe Técnico Estudio de Geoespacial de Portones/Accesos, donde se detalla que existe un error por parte de la administración sobre la georreferenciación de los accesos públicos señalados en la prevención y la ubicación de los portones.
Según se acreditó, en virtud de lo anterior, por oficio No. ZMT-272-2024 de 16 de septiembre de 2024, la Coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo puso en conocimiento del ICT el estudio aportado por la referida sociedad y apuntó que era “(…) necesario trasladar estos documentos al ingeniero Topógrafo de este Departamento a fin de ser revisados y brindar el informe correspondiente, de conformidad al principio constitucional del debido proceso (…)”. También se dijo que, una vez analizados los documentos aportados por la sociedad y realizado el informe por el topógrafo de ese departamento, se determinarían las acciones a seguir por parte de la administración.
Igualmente, se acreditó que mediante oficio No. ZMT-274-2024 de 19 de septiembre de 2024, la coordinadora del citado Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre dejó sin efecto la advertencia administrativa girada a Colemu S.A. el 4 de septiembre de ese mismo año “(…) hasta tanto esta Coordinación cuente con el Informe técnico del Ingeniero Topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre sobre Informe Técnico Estudio de Georreferenciación de Portones/Accesos presentado por la sociedad a fin de proceder de conformidad con el Principio Constitucional del Debido Proceso (…)”. Lo anterior le fue informado al ICT mediante oficio No. ZMT-278-2024 de 23 de septiembre de 2024 y se aclaró que “(…) Una vez realizado el informe técnico por parte del ingeniero institucional, se realizará resolución razonada y fundamentada, sobre este asunto específico, valorando si efectivamente los portones se encuentran en vía pública y debe actuar la Administración o si bien es un tema de fondo sobre la concesionaria que deba ser elevado al Concejo de Concejales (…)”.
También, consta que el 3 de octubre de 2024, la Coordinadora del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, a fin de dar respuesta al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, solicitó al ingeniero topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, realizar un levantamiento topográfico sobre los accesos públicos en el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa, con el fin de “(…) confirmar si efectivamente los portones se encuentran obstaculizando accesos públicos (…)”. Por ende, según se aclaró, para la fecha de rendido el informe por las autoridades recurridas, sea, el 4 de octubre de 2024, se estaban realizando gestiones para atender la aclaración solicitada por el ICT mediante oficio de 26 de julio de 2024, concretamente, por parte del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, el que tiene a cargo realizar el mencionado levantamiento topográfico en el sitio.
En adición a lo anterior, resulta menester mencionar que las autoridades recurridas, en dicho informe rendido a esta Sala, han sostenido y explicado que (a partir sobre todo de lo dispuesto en los oficios Nos CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 de 27 de febrero del 2018 y No. CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 5 de junio del 2018, cuyo contenido se cita en el elenco de hechos probados de esta sentencia), existe una duda tocante a las referidas estructuras (portones) y a su precisa ubicación sobre el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa, por lo que se ha vuelto necesario la realización de una nueva inspección y de un levantamiento topográfico para aclarar dicho aspecto y tomar las decisiones que sean necesarias. Sobre el particular, exponen los recurridos:
“(…) existen inconsistencias en los oficios CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 del 27 de febrero del 2018 y CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 05 de junio del 2018 sobre los accesos públicos, es por esta razón que se solicitó al Ingeniero Topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre realizar de manera interna un levantamiento sobre el área del mojón 503 del Plan Regulador Santa Teresa. (…)
sobre el oficio CYV-OF-GE-049-2018, señala que existe un desface lineal sobre los mojones de la lámina del plan regulador y los mojones oficializados por el Instituto Geográfico Nacional, esto quiere decir que el desface lineal entre los mojones ocasiona que la lámina del plan regulador Playa Santa Teresa no se ajusta a la realidad del sitio lo cual significa que existe una probabilidad que el portón objeto de la aclaración solicitada por el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo eventualmente no este obstruyendo el acceso y el oficio antes mencionado no aclara este presupuesto solo indica la existencia “de un considerable desfase lineal sobre los mojones”. (…)
Lo mismo ocurre con el oficio CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 05 de junio del 2018, siendo que no tiene congruencia (…) El informe data 05 de junio del 2018, el Plan Regulador Playa Santa Teresa tiene su último ajuste y rectificación publicado en el periódico oficial la Gaceta número 72 del miércoles 15 de abril del año 2015, de modo tal que para el año 2018 se encontraba vigente la actual lámina en la cual se consigna dos accesos públicos sobre los mojones 116-503, sin embargo, este oficio señala que el acceso #2 no está indicado en el Plan Regulador Playa Santa Teresa, lo cual es inconsistente y genera incertidumbre porque la lámina si lo señala; razón por la cual es necesario recurrir al Principio Constitucional del Debido Proceso y actualizar el levantamiento topográfico por parte de este Concejo Municipal a fin de esclarecer lo señalado por estos oficios, en virtud de esto es menester indicar lo contemplado en el artículo 157 de la Ley General de Administración Pública “En cualquier tiempo podrá la Administración rectificar los errores materiales o de hecho y los aritméticos” (…)”.
Dicho lo anterior, resulta menester empezar aclarando que a esta Sala Constitucional tampoco le corresponde, ante las circunstancias supra descritas y, por tratarse de un tema de mera legalidad, llevar a cabo, a través de este recurso sumario de amparo, un estudio exhaustivo y determinar técnicamente –con fundamento en lo que estipula el plan regulador, la ubicación de los mojones y el proceso de georreferencia, entre otros aspectos–, en qué zona en concreto se encuentran ubicados los portones a los que se hizo referencia supra y fueron instalados o construidos por la concesionaria Colemu S.A. cerca de la playa Santa Teresa, es decir, si estos se encuentran o no en una vía de naturaleza pública y si, por ende, se encuentran o no obstaculizando el libre paso de todas las personas (sean o no estos huéspedes, usuarios o trabajadores del inmueble concesionado). Este punto en particular, sin lugar a dudas, debe ser resuelto por las autoridades recurridas, con ayuda de los profesionales y especialistas en dicha materia, tal y como ya se ha dispuesto, según se demostró.
No obstante lo anterior, es importante también tomar en consideración que, en este caso en particular, está de por medio el acceso y libre tránsito de las personas a través de una vía eventualmente pública. De ahí que, la determinación de esta condición sí resulta de suma relevancia en términos de constitucionalidad, sobre todo, si se toma en cuenta que la discusión sobre este punto en particular se ha venido efectuando desde hace muchos años (según lo consignado en el considerando anterior) y se ha retomado particularmente en el concejo recurrido desde julio de 2024, a partir de la denuncia interpuesta por el recurrente ante el ICT.
Si bien, este órgano constitucional observa que se han venido realizando, sobre todo recientemente, gestiones tendentes a definir efectivamente dicha condición, lo cierto es que, a la fecha, según se demostró, esta actuación no se ha llevado a cabo finalmente, por lo cual persiste la incerteza sobre dicho punto en particular.
Por consiguiente, esta Sala Constitucional es del criterio que este preciso punto del amparo sí debe ser acogido, en aras que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano realicen –dentro del plazo que se dirá en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia–, las gestiones pertinentes para definir si los referidos portones se encuentran o no en una vía pública, impidiendo o no ilegítimamente el tránsito de los administrados–, siendo que, de determinarse que dichas estructuras sí están en esa vía, se proceda con su demolición. (…)” ... Ver más Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Nota separada Rama del Derecho: 4. ASUNTOS DE GARANTÍA Tema: MUNICIPALIDAD Subtemas:
INFRAESTRUCTURA Y CONDICIONES.
En tesis de principio, considero que los casos relacionados con la inactividad de la Administración Pública en la reparación, construcción, modificación o demolición de cualquier obra de infraestructura deben ser desestimados, por constituir, esa omisión, un tema de legalidad, cuya discusión corresponde a la jurisdicción ordinaria, ante la cual la persona interesada puede debatir, con mayor amplitud, sus disconformidades. Sin embargo, cuando de aquella conducta administrativa omisiva se derive alguna violación a otros derechos fundamentales tutelados en esta jurisdicción constitucional, o se afecten grupos considerados vulnerables, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto, por constituir esta situación una excepción a mi posición en esta materia, tal y como sucede en este caso, en que la parte recurrente asegura que la concesionaria Colemu S.A ha colocado portones que impiden el libre paso de peatones y vehículos en la zona pública y, pese a las denuncias, el Concejo Municipal Distrito de Cóbano, no ha regularizado la situación.
VCG11/2024 ... Ver más SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veinticinco de octubre de dos mil veinticuatro .
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], contra EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE DISTRITO DE CÓBANO.
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Magistrado Araya García; y,
CONSIDERANDO:
El recurrente señala que los representantes de la concesionaria Colemu S.A. han invadido, con varias construcciones, área de la zona protegida ubicada en Playa Santa Teresa y, a su vez, han instalado portones que impiden el paso de peatones y vehículos en la zona o vía pública. Alega que, a pesar que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano acordó desde noviembre de 2019 cancelar la concesión otorgada a dicha sociedad –en atención a una serie de irregularidades halladas–, y demoler las referidas estructuras, estas precisas actuaciones no se han ejecutado a la fecha, tal y como corresponde, en aras de resguardar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y para habilitar el acceso a la zona pública.
De relevancia para dirimir el presente recurso de amparo, se tienen por acreditados los siguientes:
HECHOS RELACIONADOS CON LA CANCELACIÓN DE LA CONCESIÓN A COLEMU S.A.:
Asimismo deberá inscribir el movimiento en el Registro General de Concesiones.- (…) DECIMO-SEPTIMA: LIMITACION: El concesionario no podrá modificar ninguna de las cláusulas del presente contrato sin previa autorización escrita del Concejo Municipal, so pena de rescindir el derecho de concesión otorgada,- (…) DECIMO-NOVENA: El concesionario se compromete a presentar las declaraciones que correspondan sobre el valor de las construcciones que se levanten en la parcela y la cancelación del tributo respectivo conforme al artículo seis, Inciso c) de la Ley siete mil quinientos nueve de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cinco. (…) VIGÉSIMO-PRIMERA: LEGISLACIÓN APLICABLE: Las partes contratantes acuerdan que, en todo lo no previsto aquí, regirán las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley seis mil cuarenta y tres, su Reglamento y cualesquiera otras leyes conexas.- VIGÉSIMO-SEGUNDA: CANCELACIÓN: El incumplimiento de las anteriores cláusulas, así como de las disposiciones de la Ley y su Reglamento citados, dará derecho a la Municipalidad, previa consulta a las entidades correspondientes, para dar por cancelada la presente concesión, sin responsabilidad ni reconocimiento de cualquier tipo de concesionario (…)” (ver expediente No. 23-004947-1027-CA del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).
Se determina que la porción de terreno descrita en el plano de catastro de COLEMU S.A. para la concesión, según el plan regulador abarca un Área de aproximadamente 322 m no descrita con ninguna zonificación, ver montaje. Es importante recalcar que el levantamiento realizado está basado en los mojones encontrados en campo, los cuales posteriormente se referencian y ajustan con los mojones de nuestra base de datos GIS que son los oficializados por el instituto geográfico nacional IGN. No obstante la revisión de la zonificación y la determinación de invasiones y sus áreas, se calcula basado en el plan regulador de playa Santa Teresa, y es de necesaria aclaración que los mojones del plan regulador y los oficializados por el IGN presentan un considerable desfase lineal entre sí. Además la zona marítimo terrestre descrita en el plan regulador no coincide exactamente con la zona marítimo terrestre que se genera a partir de la prolongación de la línea de mojones oficiales del IGN (…)” (ver informe y prueba).
Indicando nuevamente que está situado en zona marítimo terrestre y por lo tanto administrado por nosotros. Se aclara que el acceso #2 (ver montaje) no está indicado en el Plan Regulador Costero Playa Santa Teresa y se encuentra ubicado en su totalidad en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre de administración municipal. / Se aclara que existe una zona de estacionamiento indicada en el plan regulador que será habilitada próximamente por esta institución para el disfrute del público (…)” (ver informe y prueba).
La misma supera en altura lo permitido según el plan regulador. La misma fue remodelada con el permiso de construcción 252/2008. / -170/2008 La piscina se construyó más pequeña de lo contemplado pero se construyó una terraza perimetral que sí tiene el área de 42m2 tramitada en los planos constructivos. El muro de 100m está ubicado en planos constructivos fuera de la propiedad, frente a la calle pública y cuenta con dos portones los cuales si se construyeron. El muro no se ha construido y por haberse aprobado fuera de la propiedad, debería anularse. / -252/2008 / Ampliación del permiso 170/2008. La estructura en planos fue modificada en la realidad ya que era una estructura desligada a un costado el cual fue anexo a la construcción existente. / -151/2010 / Consiste en cuatro estructuras tipo habitación ubicadas en forma de espejo, separadas por un pasillo. El informe de inspección de ZMT informa que la altura es 10, superando lo permitido. / Se construyó una ampliación que invade el retiro lateral, según informe del topógrafo Felipe Rodríguez (folio 263 exp. ZMT), inicialmente era un alero abierto (ver folio 241 exp ZMT).
Hoy en día se encuentra cerrado. / -069/2013 / Estructura de cubierta de techo que cubre el pasillo abierto entre las dos estructuras tipo vivienda del permiso 151/2010. / -070/2013 / Construcción de una tercera vivienda del lado próximo a la playa. / Es importante mencionar que tras revisar los planos físicos encontrados en el archivo municipal, y los digitales obtenidos de parte del CFIA, se encontraron sellos del ICT y del INVU solo en el permiso tramitado con número 151/2010 y 070/2013.” (…)” (ver expediente No. 23-004947-1027-CA del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda).
Una vez revisado el acto considera esta autoridad que que (sic) no corresponde a un acto administrativo firme y favorable por las siguientes razones. En primer lugar, como bien lo indica el Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano el acto en cuestión no le otorga un derecho positivo directo a DOMBAS DEL PACÍFICO S.R.L, lo que la empresa tiene es una expectativa de que cuando la concesión se cancele pueda participar solicitando la concesión de dicha parcela. En segundo lugar, tenemos que el acto citado, establece que se da traslado del expediente administrativo al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y al Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal para cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 80 del Reglamento de la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, para su respectivo criterio, en consecuencia en este momento el acto no cuenta con un acto firme y favorable emitido por del Concejo de Distrito de Cóbana (sic), con independencia de que el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III, mediante la resolución 66-2022 de las dieciséis horas veintidós minutos del veinticuatro de febrero de dos mil veintitrés, haya agotado la vía administrativa denegando el recurso de apelación representado la sociedad COLUME S.A, contra el acuerdo antes supra citado.
Tercero, no corresponde a un acto firme y favorable en los términos del numeral 228 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 176 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Para mayor claridad resulta importante indicar que el derecho subjetivo, se ha definido como el reconocimiento de un derecho o de un poder de un sujeto (s) que puede hacer valer frente a otros, imponiéndoles obligaciones o deberes, en su interés propio, reconocimiento que implica que va acompaña del derecho a la tutela judicial. Cuando un sujeto obstenta (sic) un derecho subjetivo, tiene a su favor la garantía del derecho objetivo para accionar por vía coercitiva su ejecución, es decir de hacer valer la facultad que de el (sic) corresponde, esto en los casos en los cuales la administración u otro sujeto, pretenda perturbar o desconocer su derecho. Todo derecho corresponde a un sujeto que es el titular, ya que el derecho subjetivo va íntimamente unido a la persona o personas a las cuales pertenece.
En el presente caso, estas características no se encuentran dentro del acto ya que no le otorga a la parte un derecho positivo, como se indico (sic) línea atrás.- Dicho lo anterior resulta claro que la pretensión deducida resulta improcedente, ya que no estamos en presencia de una vía declarativa de derechos, sino ante una vía en donde se pretende ejecutar un acto, que ya se determino (sic) no resulta favorable a los intereses de la parte actora, siendo improcedente este tipo de pretensiones dentro del presente proceso, que aún y cuando se refuta jurisdiccional, en palabras de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, es una vía para concretar la voluntad de la administración, que no determina más obligaciones que las determinadas en el acto que se pretende ejecutar, requisito que no tiene la parte actora ya que no obstenta (sic) un acto firme y favorable. Debiendo ante la improcedencia rechazarse las pretensiones deducidas respecto de la conducta realizada por la accionada.
Si se encuentra el actor inconforme con lo dispuesto o por la actuación del ente territorial debe acudir a la vía correspondiente sea al proceso plenario, pero no por medio del presente proceso que solo tiene como efecto concretar la voluntad de la administración cuando el acto emitido resulta firme y favorable lo cual no se da en el presente caso.- (…) POR TANTO: En consecuencia se declara SIN LUGAR EN TODOS SUS EXTREMOS el proceso de EJECUCIÓN DE ACTO FIRME Y FAVORABLE interpuesto por DOMBAS DEL PACÍFICO S.R.L, contra la CONCEJO DE DISTRITO DE CÓBANO, PUNTARENAS.- Se dicta sin especial condenatoria en costas de la ejecución de acto firme y favorable.- NOTIFÍQUESE.-Vera Mora Rojas (Jueza).- (…)” (ver prueba).
HECHOS RELACIONADOS CON GESTIÓN REALIZADA POR ICT Y LA EXISTENCIA DE PORTONES EN LA ZONA CONCESIONADA 1) En fecha no precisa, el recurrente presentó ante el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo una denuncia por la existencia de un portón en los accesos públicos sobre el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa ubicados en la parcela concesionada a Colemu S.A. En virtud de lo anterior, el ICT emitió el oficio No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 de fecha 26 de julio de 2024, dirigido al Concejo recurrido, con el siguiente texto: “(…) Asunto: Solicitud de aclaración para atender denuncia de existencia de un portón que impide el libre acceso de las personas a zona pública en Playa Santa Teresa cerca del mojón 503. Petitoria: Por lo antes expuesto y con la finalidad de brindar respuesta pronta y oportuna al denunciante respetuosamente les solicito que, en su condición de administradores de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre en su jurisdicción, nos informen acerca de: 1.
La condición actual que presenta el acceso al sector de playa Santa Teresa específicamente en el acceso establecido por el Plan Regulador vigente que desemboca en el mojón del IGN N° 503, según imagen aportada. 2. En caso de existir el portón denunciado que se observa en las fotografías aportadas por el denunciante; mismo que evidentemente estaría impidiendo el libre tránsito acceso de las personas a la zona pública, indicar las acciones y el plazo en que serían implementadas dichas acciones para hacer cumplir la ley y restituir dicho acceso público a la zona pública (…)” (ver informe y prueba).
De relevancia para dirimir el presente recurso de amparo, se tiene por indemostrado el siguiente: Único: Que el tutelado hubiera presentado alguna gestión formal ante las autoridades recurridas (v.gr. una denuncia por algún daño ambiental en concreto cometido por la permanencia de Colemu S.A en la zona concesionada) y que esta no hubiera sido atendida (los autos).
IV.SOBRE EL ACUERDO DE CANCELACIÓN DE LA CONCESIÓN OTORGADA A COLEMU S.A. Como primer aspecto y punto medular de este proceso de amparo, el recurrente señala que acude a esta Sala en virtud que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano, a la fecha, luego de varios años transcurridos, han omitido ejecutar el acuerdo tomado en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019, mediante el cual, a su vez, se resolvió decretar la cancelación de la concesión otorgada a la empresa Colemu S.A. en playa Santa Teresa y se ordenó, también, la demolición de obras levantadas en zona pública (rancho y parrilla), así como un portón que está ubicado fuera del área concesionada y la revocación de un permiso de construcción de una tapia ubicada fuera del área concesionada. Acusa que no existen motivos para haber retrasado, por tantos años, la ejecución de dicho acuerdo y continuar tolerando el daño ambiental que se produce.
Explica que esa cancelación se emitió luego de comprobarse que la referida empresa había incurrido en varias infracciones a la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y a las disposiciones contempladas en el Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa (v.gr. haber construido en zonas ambientales protegidas, construido edificios sin permisos, haber invadido la zona pública y haber instalado portones en lugares que dan acceso a vías públicas). Afirma que ese acto fue impugnado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo por la mencionada sociedad concesionaria, pero fue desestimado, confirmándose el acto impugnado.
Alega también que los recurridos han buscado la manera de evitar la ejecución de dicho acuerdo, es decir, para revocar el referido acto, lo cual, sin embargo, ya no es posible hacer. Menciona igualmente que, pese a que se acudió al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo para que ordenara la ejecución del referido acuerdo, dicha gestión fue rechazada (por falta de legitimación del solicitante). Sostiene, entonces, que la ejecución de dicho acuerdo es, por tanto, una medida necesaria para cumplir el mandato constitucional de velar por un ambiente sano. En su criterio, los recurridos han incumplido su deber de reparar el daño ambiental causado por Colemu S.A., pese a que existe un acuerdo administrativo firme que permite hacerlo.
Solicita, en consecuencia, que se acoja este proceso de amparo y se les ordene a las autoridades recurridas del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano, ejecutar el acuerdo adoptado en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019. Incluso, en escrito posterior, el accionante reafirma que esta es la pretensión principal al interponer este proceso de amparo.
Revisados los autos, se tiene por demostrado que, ciertamente, luego de un procedimiento administrativo realizado en el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano (por presuntas irregularidades cometidas por la sociedad Colemu, en calidad de concesionaria), en la sesión No. 185-2019, artículo VII, inciso b), de fecha 12 de noviembre de 2019, dicho concejo, en calidad de órgano decisor, dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) Dictar el Acto Final de Hechos Probados y No Probados en todos sus extremos y en consecuencia; / Ordenar la demolición inmediata de las obras levantadas en la zona pública, a saber rancho y parrilla, al frente de la parcela concesionada. / Demoler el portón denominado Nº 2 que se encuentra fuera del área concesionada y que invade la zona de protección. / Revocar el permiso de construcción de la tapia por haberse autorizado en un área fuera de la parcela concesionada. / Decretar la cancelación de la concesión Nº 1768-2000. Representada por la señora CARLOTA DORRING MEADOWS, cedula de residencia N 175200002119. / Habiendo sometido a consulta de esta resolución, a las autoridades competentes, previstas en la normativa citada. Y una vez en firme este acuerdo de cancelación y ejecutable, infórmese al Registro Público para que se proceda a la cancelación del respectivo asiento registral a nombre de la concesionaria COLEMU S.A. (…)”.
Igualmente, se demostró que el concejo recurrido, el 17 de diciembre de 2019, rechazó el recurso de revocatoria formulado por Colemu S.A. en contra del citado acuerdo y que, por su parte, el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (Sección Tercera), en calidad de contralor no jerárquico de legalidad, mediante la Sentencia No. 66-2022 de las 16:22 hrs. de 24 de febrero de 2023, declaró sin lugar el recurso de apelación formulado también por dicha concesionaria, dándose por agotada así, la vía administrativa.
En adición a lo anterior, consta que, durante este año 2024, los recurridos se han cuestionado o replanteado su competencia para revocar la referida concesión, así como los fundamentos que conllevaron a tomar el referido acuerdo. De esta manera, se acreditó que el Intendente Municipal, el 7 de marzo de 2024 y por oficio No. INT-074-2024, solicitó al ICT criterio sobre la viabilidad jurídica de revocar el acto que ordenó la cancelación de la citada concesión y sobre la facultad que posee al efecto el concejo. Este último oficio fue atendido por el ICT mediante oficio No. AL-A-0317-2024 de 12 de marzo de 2024, refiriéndose a las competencias que posee, sobre el particular, el referido concejo de distrito. Asimismo, consta que en la sesión No. 12-2024 de 23 de julio de 2024, el concejo recurrido (conformado por la nueva integración), conoció el dictamen de la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos relacionado con la concesión otorgada a Colemu S.A. que dispuso: “(…) Se dictamina que este Órgano Colegiado NO tiene facultad de resolver dicha situación pues no es facultad revocar un acuerdo que sigue el debido proceso a no ser que una instancia judicial así lo determine o que se encuentre errores de fondo que generó la cancelación de la concesión.
ES TODO (…)”. En virtud de lo anterior, se acreditó que el referido concejo dispuso solicitar a la asesora legal del concejo ampliar el dictamen emitido a efecto de poder comprender claramente el tema. Según se verificó, de esta sesión y, a partir de lo dispuesto en los oficios No. INT-074-2024 y No. AL-A-0317-2024, nació la necesidad de realizar una revisión legal del procedimiento administrativo que ordenó la cancelación de la concesión.
De esta manera, se verificó que la citada Comisión de Jurídicos, el 27 de agosto de 2024, dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) DICTAMEN N° 01 CONSIDERANDO: Que el Concejo ha trasladado el OFICIO INT-2024-138 de la Intendencia Municipal y el OFICIO AI-A-0317-2024 del ICT. Esta comisión, tampoco el Concejo Municipal, o la administración tienen la facultad de poder anular un acuerdo que siguió el debido proceso, a no ser que una instancia judicial así lo determine. O en todo caso, que administrativamente se encuentren errores de fondo absolutos o relativos en el procedimiento administrativo que la recomendación final al Concejo Municipal, para anular la concesión. POR LO TANTO. Esta comisión permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos con base en el artículo 34 inciso g, y 49 del Código Municipal DICTAMINA, recomendar al Concejo: 1. Se asigne a un profesional en derecho que estudie el procedimiento administrativo que dio origen a la cancelación de la concesión de COLEMU, a fin de determinar si esta cumplió con el marco normativo. ES TODO. Se somete a votación el dictamen en cual es aprobado en todas sus partes (…)”.
Y que, en la sesión ordinaria No. 019-24, artículo VI, inciso c) de 10 de septiembre de 2024, el Concejo de Concejales recurrido dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…) ACUERDO N°6. Con cinco votos presentes a favor SE ACUERDA: “5.1 Acoger el dictamen presentado por la comisión de asuntos jurídicos y dar pase del mismo a la Intendencia Municipal a fin de que asigne a un profesional en derecho que estudie el procedimiento administrativo que dio origen a la cancelación de la concesión de COLEMU, a fin de determinar si esta cumplió con el marco normativo (…)”.
Por su parte, resulta de interés lo informado por las autoridades recurridas a esta jurisdicción, en el sentido que:
“(…) ante la existencia de los oficios INT-074-2024 del 07 de marzo del 2024 y AL-A-0317-2024, del 12 de marzo del 2024, en los cuales de manera ambigua se logra corroborar que la misma Administración que señala la cancelación de concesión solicita al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo se pronuncie al respecto siendo que pueden existir vicios de nulidad en la tramitación del procedimiento administrativo; sería irresponsable por parte de la nueva Administración asumida a partir de 01 de mayo del 2024, teniendo en cuenta la continuidad de la responsabilidad en materia administrativa, proceder de manera acelerada y arbitraria con la desinscripción registral sin revisar el procedimiento llevado a cabo de conformidad al principio de legalidad y el principio del debido proceso, consagrados en los artículos 11, 39 y 41 de la Constitución Política de Costa Rica y artículo 11 de la Ley General de Administración Pública (…)”.
Ahora bien, analizado todo lo anterior, este Tribunal Constitucional no considera que exista mérito alguno para acoger este extremo del recurso y, por ende, la petición principal formulada por el recurrente.
Lo anterior, medularmente, en el tanto no le corresponde a esta Sala, por tratarse de un tema de mera y pura legalidad, analizar por el fondo el caso sometido a estudio, verificar la legalidad de la concesión otorgada a Colemu S.A., así como si el acuerdo que ordenó su cancelación está ajustado a derecho (o no) y si, por ende, este debe ser ejecutado de forma inmediata, tal y como lo pretende el accionante. Esto, principalmente, si se toma en cuenta que, según se acreditó a partir de las pruebas allegadas a los autos y del informe rendido bajo la solemnidad de juramento, en este momento existen dudas sobre el procedimiento instaurado años atrás (que conllevó a la emisión del acuerdo de cancelación bajo estudio), lo que, a su vez, motivó a los recurridos –antes de notificado este amparo–, a que acordaran designar un profesional en derecho que estudiara y examinara este último a fin de determinar si el mismo cumplió o no con el marco normativo.
Bajo este panorama, tal y como se dijo, no puede esta jurisdicción constitucional sustituir la labor que se ha ordenado llevar a cabo (designada en dicho profesional en derecho), para examinar la legalidad o no de la actuación de la concesionaria (concretamente sus obligaciones respecto al contrato suscrito para llevar a cabo sus actividades en zona marítimo terrestre) y, también, el procedimiento instaurado que conllevó a la emisión del acuerdo de cancelación en cuestión. No resulta material ni razonablemente posible entrar a un complicado y lento sistema probatorio, a través de la vía sumaria del amparo, para dilucidar los referidos aspectos señalados por la parte tutelada En ese mismo orden de consideraciones, es de suma importancia destacar que el recurrente, en los escritos presentado ante esta Sala, no hizo referencia a algún problema ambiental en concreto sufrido en la zona de interés. El accionante se limitó a hacer referencia, grosso modo, a una afectación general al medio ambiente por la no ejecución del acuerdo bajo estudio, sin mencionar o precisar cuál es el presunto o los presuntos daños ambientales producidos en la zona ante la permanencia de Colemu S.A como concesionaria. Incluso, no consta que el recurrente hubiera presentado una denuncia formal ante el concejo recurrido respecto a algún daño ambiental en particular sufrido en el mencionado sitio.
De esta forma, la inconformidad genérica y en abstracto que formula el accionante respecto a la no ejecución del citado acuerdo municipal, deberá se planteada, si a bien se tiene, ante las vías ordinarias de legalidad administrativas y jurisdiccionales creadas especialmente al efecto pues, como se dijo, exceden el carácter sumario del recurso de amparo, así como la competencia de este Tribunal otorgada por la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y la propia Constitución Política.
De forma subsidiaria o paralelamente al agravio principal, el recurrente también reclama concretamente que la empresa Colemu S.A. ha privatizado dos vías públicas mediate la colocación de portones, lo cual impide el paso de peatones y vehículos a la zona pública. Explica que esas vías conducen específicamente a la playa y a un parqueo previsto en el Plan Regulador de Playa Santa Teresa. Acusa que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano no han realizado gestión alguna en aras de solventar dicha situación y derribar, entonces, esas ilegítimas estructuras.
Sobre este aspecto en particular, se tiene por demostrado que el recurrente presentó ante el ICT una denuncia por la existencia de un portón (y no de dos como se alega en este amparo), en los accesos públicos sobre el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa ubicados en la parcela concesionada a Colemu S.A. Consta también que, en virtud de lo anterior, el ICT emitió el oficio No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024 de fecha 26 de julio de 2024, mediante el cual solicitó al concejo recurrido informar sobre la existencia de dicha estructura, conforme los siguientes términos:_ “(…) Asunto: Solicitud de aclaración para atender denuncia de existencia de un portón que impide el libre acceso de las personas a zona pública en Playa Santa Teresa cerca del mojón 503. Petitoria: Por lo antes expuesto y con la finalidad de brindar respuesta pronta y oportuna al denunciante respetuosamente les solicito que, en su condición de administradores de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre en su jurisdicción, nos informen acerca de: 1.
La condición actual que presenta el acceso al sector de playa Santa Teresa específicamente en el acceso establecido por el Plan Regulador vigente que desemboca en el mojón del IGN N° 503, según imagen aportada. 2. En caso de existir el portón denunciado que se observa en las fotografías aportadas por el denunciante; mismo que evidentemente estaría impidiendo el libre tránsito acceso de las personas a la zona pública, indicar las acciones y el plazo en que serían implementadas dichas acciones para hacer cumplir la ley y restituir dicho acceso público a la zona pública (…)”.
Asimismo, se demostró que, en agosto de 2024, las autoridades recurridas ordenaron la realización de una inspección en el sitio bajo estudio, “(…) la cual señaló la existencia del portón mencionado (…)”. Por lo anterior, el 4 de septiembre de 2024 se notificó a la sociedad Colemu S.A. advertencia administrativa para remover en cuarenta y ocho horas los portones que obstruyen el acceso a la calle pública y el sendero peatonal público “(…) los cuales deben de tener libre acceso por su carácter demanial (…)”.
En adición a lo anterior, consta que, mediante oficio No. ZMT-260-2024 de 4 de septiembre de 2024, la Coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo recurrido respondió al ICT oficio No. DPD-ZMT-387-2024. En este documento se hizo referencia a la inspección realizada en agosto de ese mismo año y a la advertencia de remoción de los referidos portones notificada a la sociedad Colemu.
Se verificó que el 11 de septiembre de 2024, un inspector del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo recurrido realizó una nueva inspección en el referido sitio y verificó que la advertencia girada a Colemu S.A. no había sido cumplida. Asimismo, se demostró que, pocos días después, el 16 de septiembre de 2024, la referida empresa presentó ante la parte recurrida el llamado Informe Técnico Estudio de Geoespacial de Portones/Accesos, donde se detalla que existe un error por parte de la administración sobre la georreferenciación de los accesos públicos señalados en la prevención y la ubicación de los portones.
Según se acreditó, en virtud de lo anterior, por oficio No. ZMT-272-2024 de 16 de septiembre de 2024, la Coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del concejo puso en conocimiento del ICT el estudio aportado por la referida sociedad y apuntó que era “(…) necesario trasladar estos documentos al ingeniero Topógrafo de este Departamento a fin de ser revisados y brindar el informe correspondiente, de conformidad al principio constitucional del debido proceso (…)”. También se dijo que, una vez analizados los documentos aportados por la sociedad y realizado el informe por el topógrafo de ese departamento, se determinarían las acciones a seguir por parte de la administración.
Igualmente, se acreditó que mediante oficio No. ZMT-274-2024 de 19 de septiembre de 2024, la coordinadora del citado Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre dejó sin efecto la advertencia administrativa girada a Colemu S.A. el 4 de septiembre de ese mismo año “(…) hasta tanto esta Coordinación cuente con el Informe técnico del Ingeniero Topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre sobre Informe Técnico Estudio de Georreferenciación de Portones/Accesos presentado por la sociedad a fin de proceder de conformidad con el Principio Constitucional del Debido Proceso (…)”. Lo anterior le fue informado al ICT mediante oficio No. ZMT-278-2024 de 23 de septiembre de 2024 y se aclaró que “(…) Una vez realizado el informe técnico por parte del ingeniero institucional, se realizará resolución razonada y fundamentada, sobre este asunto específico, valorando si efectivamente los portones se encuentran en vía pública y debe actuar la Administración o si bien es un tema de fondo sobre la concesionaria que deba ser elevado al Concejo de Concejales (…)”.
También, consta que el 3 de octubre de 2024, la Coordinadora del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, a fin de dar respuesta al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, solicitó al ingeniero topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, realizar un levantamiento topográfico sobre los accesos públicos en el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa, con el fin de “(…) confirmar si efectivamente los portones se encuentran obstaculizando accesos públicos (…)”. Por ende, según se aclaró, para la fecha de rendido el informe por las autoridades recurridas, sea, el 4 de octubre de 2024, se estaban realizando gestiones para atender la aclaración solicitada por el ICT mediante oficio de 26 de julio de 2024, concretamente, por parte del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, el que tiene a cargo realizar el mencionado levantamiento topográfico en el sitio.
En adición a lo anterior, resulta menester mencionar que las autoridades recurridas, en dicho informe rendido a esta Sala, han sostenido y explicado que (a partir sobre todo de lo dispuesto en los oficios Nos CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 de 27 de febrero del 2018 y No. CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 5 de junio del 2018, cuyo contenido se cita en el elenco de hechos probados de esta sentencia), existe una duda tocante a las referidas estructuras (portones) y a su precisa ubicación sobre el mojón 503 del Plan Regulador de Santa Teresa, por lo que se ha vuelto necesario la realización de una nueva inspección y de un levantamiento topográfico para aclarar dicho aspecto y tomar las decisiones que sean necesarias. Sobre el particular, exponen los recurridos:
“(…) existen inconsistencias en los oficios CYV-OF-GE-049-2018 del 27 de febrero del 2018 y CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 05 de junio del 2018 sobre los accesos públicos, es por esta razón que se solicitó al Ingeniero Topógrafo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre realizar de manera interna un levantamiento sobre el área del mojón 503 del Plan Regulador Santa Teresa. (…)
sobre el oficio CYV-OF-GE-049-2018, señala que existe un desface lineal sobre los mojones de la lámina del plan regulador y los mojones oficializados por el Instituto Geográfico Nacional, esto quiere decir que el desface lineal entre los mojones ocasiona que la lámina del plan regulador Playa Santa Teresa no se ajusta a la realidad del sitio lo cual significa que existe una probabilidad que el portón objeto de la aclaración solicitada por el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo eventualmente no este obstruyendo el acceso y el oficio antes mencionado no aclara este presupuesto solo indica la existencia “de un considerable desfase lineal sobre los mojones”. (…)
Lo mismo ocurre con el oficio CYV-OF-GE-118-2018 del 05 de junio del 2018, siendo que no tiene congruencia (…) El informe data 05 de junio del 2018, el Plan Regulador Playa Santa Teresa tiene su último ajuste y rectificación publicado en el periódico oficial la Gaceta número 72 del miércoles 15 de abril del año 2015, de modo tal que para el año 2018 se encontraba vigente la actual lámina en la cual se consigna dos accesos públicos sobre los mojones 116-503, sin embargo, este oficio señala que el acceso #2 no está indicado en el Plan Regulador Playa Santa Teresa, lo cual es inconsistente y genera incertidumbre porque la lámina si lo señala; razón por la cual es necesario recurrir al Principio Constitucional del Debido Proceso y actualizar el levantamiento topográfico por parte de este Concejo Municipal a fin de esclarecer lo señalado por estos oficios, en virtud de esto es menester indicar lo contemplado en el artículo 157 de la Ley General de Administración Pública “En cualquier tiempo podrá la Administración rectificar los errores materiales o de hecho y los aritméticos” (…)”.
Dicho lo anterior, resulta menester empezar aclarando que a esta Sala Constitucional tampoco le corresponde, ante las circunstancias supra descritas y, por tratarse de un tema de mera legalidad, llevar a cabo, a través de este recurso sumario de amparo, un estudio exhaustivo y determinar técnicamente –con fundamento en lo que estipula el plan regulador, la ubicación de los mojones y el proceso de georreferencia, entre otros aspectos–, en qué zona en concreto se encuentran ubicados los portones a los que se hizo referencia supra y fueron instalados o construidos por la concesionaria Colemu S.A. cerca de la playa Santa Teresa, es decir, si estos se encuentran o no en una vía de naturaleza pública y si, por ende, se encuentran o no obstaculizando el libre paso de todas las personas (sean o no estos huéspedes, usuarios o trabajadores del inmueble concesionado). Este punto en particular, sin lugar a dudas, debe ser resuelto por las autoridades recurridas, con ayuda de los profesionales y especialistas en dicha materia, tal y como ya se ha dispuesto, según se demostró.
No obstante lo anterior, es importante también tomar en consideración que, en este caso en particular, está de por medio el acceso y libre tránsito de las personas a través de una vía eventualmente pública. De ahí que, la determinación de esta condición sí resulta de suma relevancia en términos de constitucionalidad, sobre todo, si se toma en cuenta que la discusión sobre este punto en particular se ha venido efectuando desde hace muchos años (según lo consignado en el considerando anterior) y se ha retomado particularmente en el concejo recurrido desde julio de 2024, a partir de la denuncia interpuesta por el recurrente ante el ICT.
Si bien, este órgano constitucional observa que se han venido realizando, sobre todo recientemente, gestiones tendentes a definir efectivamente dicha condición, lo cierto es que, a la fecha, según se demostró, esta actuación no se ha llevado a cabo finalmente, por lo cual persiste la incerteza sobre dicho punto en particular.
Por consiguiente, esta Sala Constitucional es del criterio que este preciso punto del amparo sí debe ser acogido, en aras que las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano realicen –dentro del plazo que se dirá en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia–, las gestiones pertinentes para definir si los referidos portones se encuentran o no en una vía pública, impidiendo o no ilegítimamente el tránsito de los administrados–, siendo que, de determinarse que dichas estructuras sí están en esa vía, se proceda con su demolición.
En tesis de principio, considero que los casos relacionados con la inactividad de la Administración Pública en la reparación, construcción, modificación o demolición de cualquier obra de infraestructura deben ser desestimados, por constituir, esa omisión, un tema de legalidad, cuya discusión corresponde a la jurisdicción ordinaria, ante la cual la persona interesada puede debatir, con mayor amplitud, sus disconformidades. Sin embargo, cuando de aquella conducta administrativa omisiva se derive alguna violación a otros derechos fundamentales tutelados en esta jurisdicción constitucional, o se afecten grupos considerados vulnerables, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto, por constituir esta situación una excepción a mi posición en esta materia, tal y como sucede en este caso, en que la parte recurrente asegura que la concesionaria Colemu S.A ha colocado portones que impiden el libre paso de peatones y vehículos en la zona pública y, pese a las denuncias, el Concejo Municipal Distrito de Cóbano, no ha regularizado la situación.
Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión número 27-11 del 22 de agosto de 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero de 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión número 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo de 2012, artículo LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso únicamente en cuanto al agravio relacionado con la presunta existencia de portones en una vía pública que impiden el libre tránsito. Se le ordena a Ronny José Montero Orozco, en su condición de Intendente Municipal, a Lidieth Porras Córdoba, en su condición de Coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y a Minor Centeno Sandí, en su condición de Presidente del Concejo de Concejales, todos del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano, o a quienes respectivamente ocupen tales cargos, que coordinen entre sí lo pertinente, giren las órdenes necesarias y lleven a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de sus competencias para que, dentro del plazo máximo de DOS MESES, contado a partir de la notificación de la presente sentencia, se defina si los portones referidos en este asunto se hallan o no en vía pública y si consecuentemente obstaculizan o no accesos públicos.
Asimismo, se les ordena que, en caso de encontrarse tales estructuras en vía pública, se proceda, dentro de ese mismo plazo, a su demolición. Se advierte a las autoridades recurridas que, de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios ocasionados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. El Magistrado Salazar Alvarado pone nota. Notifíquese.- Fernando Castillo V.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Alejandro Delgado F.
Aracelly Pacheco S.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Clasificación elaborada por SALA CONSTITUCIONALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.