← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 33783-2024 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 13/11/2024
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber declares the unconstitutionality action inadmissible for failing to authenticate the initial filing after the warning.La Sala Constitucional declara inadmisible la acción de inconstitucionalidad por no haber autenticado el escrito inicial tras la prevención.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber flatly rejects an unconstitutionality action filed against several articles of the Navigation and Cabotage Regulation in the Northern Canals Network, approved by JAPDEVA in August 2024. The plaintiff, claiming defense of diffuse environmental interests, argued that the regulation invaded SINAC's powers over Tortuguero National Park, violating articles 7, 9, 48, 50 and 89 of the Constitution, by regulating activities within the protected area, authorizing navigation on the Sierpe River, and establishing fees and sanctions without technical criteria from the environmental authority. The Chamber does not review the merits, since after a warning, the plaintiff failed to fully correct the formal defects: the initial filing was not authenticated by an attorney's signature and lacked the bar association stamp. Therefore, the action is declared inadmissible due to partial non-compliance with the warning, with no ruling on the constitutionality of the challenged norms.La Sala Constitucional rechaza de plano una acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida contra varios artículos del Reglamento de Navegación y Cabotaje en la Red de los Canales del Norte, aprobado por JAPDEVA en agosto de 2024. El accionante, alegando defensa de intereses difusos ambientales, argumentaba que el reglamento invadía competencias del SINAC sobre el Parque Nacional Tortuguero, violando los artículos 7, 9, 48, 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, al regular actividades dentro del área protegida, autorizar navegación en el río Sierpe y establecer cobros y sanciones sin criterio técnico del ente ambiental. La Sala no analiza el fondo del asunto, ya que tras una prevención, el accionante no subsanó completamente los defectos formales: no autenticó el escrito inicial con firma de abogado ni timbre del Colegio de Abogados. Por tanto, la acción se declara inadmisible por incumplimiento parcial de lo prevenido, sin pronunciamiento sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas impugnadas.
Key excerptExtracto clave
III.- CONCLUSION. In light of the foregoing, the action is inadmissible due to partial non-compliance with the warning. Therefore: The action is flatly rejected.III.- CONCLUSIÓN. En virtud de lo expuesto, la acción resulta inadmisible por incumplimiento parcial de lo prevenido. Por tanto: Se rechaza de plano la acción.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Se rechaza de plano la acción."
"The action is flatly rejected."
Por tanto
"Se rechaza de plano la acción."
Por tanto
"el accionante omitió aportar el escrito de interposición de la acción debidamente autenticado tal como se le previno, con lo cual se tiene por no cumplida la prevención respecto de ese extremo."
"the plaintiff omitted to submit the initial filing of the action duly authenticated as warned, whereby the warning is deemed unfulfilled on that point."
Considerando II
"el accionante omitió aportar el escrito de interposición de la acción debidamente autenticado tal como se le previno, con lo cual se tiene por no cumplida la prevención respecto de ese extremo."
Considerando II
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Date of Resolution: November 13, 2024, at 09:30 Case File: 24-024634-0007-CO Type of matter: Unconstitutionality action Judgment with protected data, in accordance with current regulations Case File: 24-024634-0007-CO CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the thirteenth of November, two thousand twenty-four.
Unconstitutionality action brought by [Name 001], identity card number [Value 001]; against Articles 2; 6, subsections c), d), h), j), k), l), m) and n); 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 35 of the REGLAMENTO DE NAVEGACIÓN Y CABOTAJE EN LA RED DE LOS CANALES DEL NORTE, ADMINISTRADOS POR LA JUNTA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PORTUARIA Y DE DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO DE LA VERTIENTE ATLÁNTICA (JAPDEVA), APPROVED IN ORDINARY SESSION NUMBER 14-2024 OF AUGUST 22, 2024, ARTICLE II-A).
Whereas:
With regard to Management Plans, it cites Judgment No. 2007-11155 of this Chamber. It considers that the power to participate in and question the management plans of a national park, as established by JAPDEVA in the challenged regulation, contravenes the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, the preventive principle, and the precautionary principle, by lacking the technical and legal criteria to carry out such activities in an ecosystem as fragile as protected wilderness areas, especially Tortuguero National Park. It indicates that there is a body of norms in line with protecting ecosystems, such as Article 11.3 of the Biodiversity Law, Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America (Law No. 7433). It reiterates that Tortuguero National Park is a wilderness area of absolute protection.
According to the provisions of Article 58 of the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), it is a protected wilderness area in a delimited geographical zone, constituted by lands, wetlands, and portions of sea, declared as such because it represents special significance due to its ecosystems, the existence of threatened species, its impact on reproduction and other needs, and its historical and cultural significance; and these areas are dedicated to conserving and protecting biodiversity, soil, water resources, cultural resources, and ecosystem services in general. Apart from the close link existing between the establishment of protected wilderness areas and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment provided in Article 50 of the Constitution, the declaration and maintenance of these protection areas finds its basis in the fulfillment of commitments established in some international instruments, such as the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (ratified through Law No. 3763 of October 19, 1966) and the Convention on Biological Diversity and its annexes (ratified through Law No. 7416 of June 30, 1994), which raise the need for States to establish and protect protected natural areas.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, Article 58 of the Biodiversity Law, and Article 2 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, it has been considered that protected wilderness areas form part of the natural heritage of the State, regulated in Articles 13 and 14 of the Forest Law. As protected wilderness areas are considered by constitutional provision to form part of the natural heritage of the State, Article 18 of the Forest Law is applicable to them, in that, within that heritage, it is only possible to authorize “research, training, and ecotourism activities, as well as activities necessary for the use of water for human consumption.” The Constitutional Chamber, prior to the reform of Article 18 of the Forest Law that included the possibility of carrying out activities necessary for the use of water for human consumption, has indicated that the use of lands in protected wilderness areas is limited to what is “provided in the law and its regulations; and their uses are basically destined for research, training, and ecotourism activities, previously approved by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, not by the municipality.
It asserts that an attempt by a port entity like JAPDEVA, which possesses neither the knowledge nor the technical criteria for managing ecosystems as fragile as those located in the waters or navigation canals within a National Park, puts at risk and violates the in dubio pro natura principle and causes damage that is difficult or impossible to reverse. Navigation without technical criteria generates a negative impact on the rivers located within the National Park, which implies an impact on assets such as the water flowing through them and violates the in dubio pro aqua principle, developed in Article 6 of the Brasilia Declaration. Regarding the principle of objectification, it asserts that within the challenged norm there was never a technical report that motivated and justified the transfer of a competence from SINAC to JAPDEVA; for that reason, said regulation is made official by the publication of a Board of Directors agreement, leading to environmental deregulation, which violates the principle of scientific stewardship.
It also considers the principle of lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of ecosystems, developed in Article 49 of the Biodiversity Law in connection with Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution, to have been violated. The regulation never considered that including a national park was contrary to the Biodiversity Law, and the unconstitutionality was incurred of eliminating, without any justification, a clear and express competence of SINAC and MINAE. Furthermore, the principle of non-regression and the principle of progressivity are violated, in accordance with Articles 7, 50, and 89 of the Constitution, as well as Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, regarding the protection thereof and the need for technical studies by the competent entity for decision-making, which cannot be delegated. Likewise, the principle of progressivity of human rights and the principle of non-retroactivity of norms to the detriment of acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, contained in Article 34 of the Political Constitution, derives from the principle of non-regressivity or irreversibility of the benefits or protection achieved.
Because of the foregoing, it is evident that the protection parameters were unjustifiably reduced and a substitution of constitutionally conferred duties is applied in the challenged norm for Tortuguero National Park, mainly because challenged Article 18 permits navigation on the Sierpe River, when the Management Plan of Tortuguero National Park does not permit it, and to modify the park's zoning, if necessary, it is required to initiate the process of preparing the General Management Plan or its update, using diagnostic inputs and following the steps defined for that purpose, where indicators, standards, and goals for the desired conditions in each zone must be defined. This requires field analysis regarding the conservation status of the focal management elements, conservation objectives, management opportunities, current land use, and an analysis of current and potential threats to the focal management elements, which evidences the violation of the technical criteria issued by SINAC, protected under Article 50 of the Political Constitution, especially when a technical report already exists prepared by the technical staff of the Tortuguero Conservation Area that rejects the authorization for said entry.
It adds that a characteristic of the ecosystems of the Sierpe River, which is the natural boundary on the park's southwestern section, is wetlands, which are ecosystems at the interface between terrestrial and aquatic environments and are characterized by fluctuations in water level, sometimes alternating between dry and wet periods. Wetland ecosystems are among the most important and productive ecosystems in the world, as they are sources of water and primary productivity. Freshwater is essential for human consumption and the different economic activities that provide collective development and growth. However, these activities, and especially those occurring in coastal basins, directly or indirectly affect aquatic ecosystems such as lagoons and estuaries. The wetland contained within the boundaries of Tortuguero National Park has the international Ramsar designation called the Humedal Ramsar Caribe Noreste, and constitutes the largest wetland in the country, as well as an area of great importance for the conservation of biodiversity that develops within it, positioning it as one of the zones of greatest species diversity in the Costa Rican Caribbean.
Its bodies of water present diverse characteristics regarding vegetation type, depth, and physicochemical conditions. The Sierpe River harbors a large quantity of aquatic life proper, both flora and fauna, even at the microscopic level, in addition to life correlated to aquatic environments where obligatory mention must be made of the group of aquatic birds. The rivers in the entire water network within Tortuguero National Park (the Sierpe River is no exception) are the bodies of water for the development of the early stages of a vast amount of aquatic life, particularly fish, where in turn several species are the sustenance of the food web in the wetlands of the National Park. The impacts caused by environmental disturbances in aquatic ecosystems can induce changes in community structure, the biological function of aquatic systems, and the organisms that develop within them, affecting their life cycles, growth, and condition.
The foregoing causes consequences such as loss of water quality, destruction of habitat, eutrophication, over-enrichment by nutrients, contamination by heavy metals and pathogens, as well as changes in trophic structure and dynamics. Therefore, it requests that the challenged norms be declared unconstitutional.
Drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,
Considering:
The action of unconstitutionality is a proceeding with certain formalities that must be satisfied in order for the Chamber to validly hear the merits of the challenge. In that sense, Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the prerequisites for the admissibility of an action of unconstitutionality. In the first place, the existence of a prior matter pending resolution is required, either in court or in the proceeding to exhaust the administrative route, in which unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered harmed. In the second and third paragraphs, the law establishes, exceptionally, prerequisites in which the prior matter is not required, when by the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse or collective interests, or when it is formulated directly by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and the Ombudsperson.
Likewise, there are other requirements that must be met, namely, the explicit determination of the challenged rules, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered infringed, the authentication by a lawyer of the brief filing the action, which includes the payment and cancellation of the Costa Rica Bar Association stamp in the amount of two hundred seventy-five colones, proof of standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), as well as the literal certification of the brief in which the unconstitutionality of the norms in the underlying matter was invoked.
Regarding the requirement of substantiation of the action, in accordance with Article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the brief filing the action of unconstitutionality must set forth the grounds clearly and precisely, with a specific citation of the norms or principles considered infringed. This requirement does not translate into a mere formality, but rather an essential prerequisite of admissibility, since by virtue of the pro sententia principle —developed on other occasions by this Chamber— the admissibility requirements must be interpreted in a sense favorable to the action; furthermore, Constitutional Law is of preferential public order, and in guarantee of its supremacy and validity there is a public interest by virtue of which obstacles to the admission and resolution on the merits of an action must be interpreted and applied restrictively. Thus, all procedural norms must be interpreted and applied in such a way as to obtain the issuance of the judgment; this not only facilitates the administration of justice but also avoids the imposition of obstacles to not reaching it (See in the same sense, Judgments No. 93-5175, 3041-97, 01-06, 2874-06, 1622-08, 2887-08, 2014-018870 and 2024-010826).
Consequently, the lack of substantiation of the action prevents the issuance of a duly reasoned judgment that is consistent with what is sought. Likewise, it is inappropriate for this Chamber to rule on the merits of norms challenged in an action when the petitioner does not substantiate the reasons for their challenge, since this would imply conducting an abstract constitutional review as a sort of academic exercise, which is not compatible with the purpose of a proceeding of this nature.
In this particular case, it is observed that the filing brief of the action was not authenticated by a lawyer, the standing to act was not substantiated, nor were the challenged norms specified. Thus, by resolution at 08:16 hours on September 6, 2024, the petitioner was formally notified to comply with these requirements. However, although the petitioner replied to the formal notice in a timely manner, the truth is that they did not fully comply with that formal notice, since even though the brief replying to the formal notice is authenticated by attorney Anita Mc Donald Rodríguez, the petitioner omitted to provide the filing brief of the action duly authenticated, as was required, whereby the formal notice is deemed not complied with regarding that point. By virtue of the foregoing, the action is inadmissible.
By virtue of the above, the action is inadmissible due to partial non-compliance with the formal notice.
The parties are formally notified that if any paper document has been provided, 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 working days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic Case File before the Judiciary," approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The action is rejected outright.
Fernando Castillo V.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
Rosibel Jara V.
Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del trece de noviembre de dos mil veinticuatro .
Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad número [Valor 001]; contra los artículos los artículos 2; 6, incisos c), d), h), j), k), l), m) y n); 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 y 35 DEL REGLAMENTO DE NAVEGACIÓN Y CABOTAJE EN LA RED DE LOS CANALES DEL NORTE, ADMINISTRADOS POR LA JUNTA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PORTUARIA Y DE DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO DE LA VERTIENTE ATLÁNTICA (JAPDEVA), APROBADO EN LA SESIÓN ORDINARIA NÚMERO 14-2024 DEL 22 DE AGOSTO DE 2024, ARTÍCULO II-A).
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,
Considerando:
La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con determinadas formalidades, que deben ser satisfechas a efecto de que la Sala pueda válidamente conocer el fondo de la impugnación. En ese sentido, el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, establece los presupuestos de admisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. En primer término, se exige la existencia de un asunto previo pendiente de resolver, sea en vía judicial, o bien, en el procedimiento para agotar de la vía administrativa, en que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado. En el párrafo segundo y tercero, la ley establece de manera excepcional, presupuestos en los que no se exige el asunto previo, cuando por la naturaleza del asunto, no exista una lesión individual y directa, o se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos o colectivos, o bien cuando es formulada en forma directa por el Contralor General de la República, el Procurador General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes.
Asimismo, existen otros requisitos que deben ser cumplidos, a saber, la determinación explícita de la normativa impugnada, debidamente fundamentada, con cita concreta de las normas y principios constitucionales que se consideren infringidos, la autenticación por abogado del escrito en el que se plantea la acción lo que incluye el pago y cancelación del timbre del Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Costa Rica por la suma de doscientos setenta y cinco colones, la acreditación de las condiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), así como la certificación literal del escrito en el que se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de las normas en el asunto base.
En cuanto al requisito de fundamentación de la acción, de conformidad con el artículo 78 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en el escrito en que se interponga la acción de inconstitucionalidad, se deberán exponer los fundamentos en forma clara y precisa, con cita concreta de las normas o principios que se consideren infringidos. Dicho requisito no se traduce en una mera formalidad, sino en un requisito esencial de admisibilidad, pues en virtud del principio pro sentencia –desarrollado en otras ocasiones por esta Sala- los requisitos de admisibilidad deben interpretarse en sentido favorable a la acción, además, el Derecho Constitucional es de orden público preferente y en garantía de su supremacía y vigencia hay un interés público en virtud del cual los obstáculos para la admisión y resolución de fondo de una acción, deben interpretarse y aplicarse restrictivamente. Así las cosas, todas las normas procesales deben ser interpretadas y aplicadas de manera tal que se obtenga el dictado de la sentencia, lo anterior, no solo facilita la administración de la justicia, sino que además, evita que se impongan obstáculos para no alcanzarla (Véanse en igual sentido, las sentencias números 93-5175, 3041-97, 01-06, 2874-06, 1622-08, 2887-08, 2014- 018870 y 2024-010826).
En consecuencia, la falta de fundamentación de la acción, impide el dictado de una sentencia debidamente motivada y congruente con lo pretendido. Asimismo, resulta improcedente que esta Sala se pronuncie por el fondo de normas cuestionadas en una acción, cuando el que acciona no fundamenta las razones por las cuales impugna, toda vez, que ello implicaría efectuar un control constitucional en abstracto como una especie de ejercicio académico, lo que no es compatible con la finalidad de un proceso de esta naturaleza.
En el caso particular, se observa que el escrito de interposición de la acción no se encontraba autenticado por un abogado, no se fundamentó la legitimación para actuar, ni se especificaron cuáles son las normas impugnadas. Así las cosas, mediante resolución de las 08:16 horas del 06 de septiembre de 2024, se le previno al accionante el cumplimiento de esos requisitos. No obstante, si bien el accionante contestó la prevención en tiempo, lo cierto es que no cumplió en su totalidad esa prevención, pues aun cuando el escrito en el que contestó la prevención se encuentra autenticado por la abogada Anita Mc Donald Rodríguez, el accionante omitió aportar el escrito de interposición de la acción debidamente autenticado tal como se le previno, con lo cual se tiene por no cumplida la prevención respecto de ese extremo. En virtud de lo anterior, la acción resulta inadmisible.
En virtud de lo expuesto, la acción resulta inadmisible por incumplimiento parcial de lo prevenido.
Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se rechaza de plano la acción.
Fernando Castillo V.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
Rosibel Jara V.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.