← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 10374-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 04/04/2025
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is denied, as no violation of fundamental rights was proven; the Ministry of Health is warned to follow up on the noise complaint.Se declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo, al no comprobarse violación de derechos fundamentales; se advierte al Ministerio de Salud dar seguimiento a la queja por ruido.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denies an amparo action filed against the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Flores for alleged violations of the right to a healthy environment and rest, caused by noise from a commercial kitchen operating during early morning hours. The plaintiff claimed authorities failed to address her complaints about noise, clandestine operation, and other sanitary issues. The Chamber finds that the Ministry of Health conducted multiple inspections, issued sanitary orders suspending the activity twice, and granted a sanitary operating permit after verifying regulatory compliance. The Municipality, in turn, issued the commercial license and communicated the regularization. The Court concludes the authorities acted diligently: they responded to complaints, corrected detected anomalies, and kept the plaintiff informed. Regarding noise pollution, the Chamber determines that the plaintiff has not specified a time for the required noise measurement, and that at the time of filing the amparo the establishment was not operating, so there was no current harm. The Chamber declines to revoke permits, as that is a legality matter, but warns the Ministry of Health to timely follow up on the noise complaint once the plaintiff indicates a time for measurement.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto contra el Ministerio de Salud y la Municipalidad de Flores por la supuesta afectación al derecho a un ambiente sano y al descanso, debido al ruido generado por la operación de una cocina comercial durante la madrugada. La recurrente alegaba que las autoridades no habían resuelto sus denuncias sobre ruido, operación clandestina y otros problemas sanitarios. La Sala constata que el Ministerio de Salud realizó múltiples inspecciones, emitió órdenes sanitarias que suspendieron la actividad en dos ocasiones, y otorgó el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento tras verificar el cumplimiento de requisitos. La Municipalidad, por su parte, otorgó la patente comercial y comunicó la regularización. El tribunal concluye que las autoridades fueron diligentes: respondieron las denuncias, corrigieron las anomalías detectadas y mantuvieron informada a la recurrente. Respecto de la contaminación sónica, la Sala determina que la recurrente no ha precisado el horario para la medición de ruido requerida, y que al momento de interponer el amparo el local no estaba operando, por lo que no existía afectación actual. La Sala se declara incompetente para revocar permisos, por ser materia de legalidad, pero advierte al Ministerio de Salud que debe dar seguimiento oportuno a la queja por ruido una vez que la recurrente indique el horario para la medición.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In virtue of the foregoing, since no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights is observed, the appropriate course is to dismiss this amparo proceeding. Now, without prejudice to the above, it is necessary to warn the respondent authorities of the Ministry of Health that it is their obligation to timely follow up on the petitioner's disagreement regarding the alleged noise pollution generated at the site under study, to carry out the corresponding noise measurements (once the complainant clarifies the relevant schedule for such purpose), to issue any other pertinent administrative act, and to finally resolve this point as required by law.En mérito de lo expuesto, al no observarse quebrantado los derechos fundamentales de la tutelada, lo que procede es desestimar el presente proceso de amparo. Ahora bien, sin demérito de lo consignado supra, resulta menester advertirles a las autoridades recurridas del Ministerio de Salud que es su obligación dar seguimiento oportuno a la disconformidad que posee la recurrente respecto a la supuesta contaminación sónica generada en el sitio bajo estudio, llevar a cabo las mediciones sónicas correspondientes (una vez que la denunciante aclare el horario pertinente para tal efecto), emitir cualquier otro tipo de acto administrativo que sea pertinente y resolver finalmente este punto como en derecho corresponda.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"No resulta material ni razonablemente posible entrar a un complicado y lento sistema probatorio para dilucidar los referidos aspectos señalados por la recurrente. Por ende, este tipo de agravios deben ser planteados y analizados por las propias autoridades administrativas recurridas o bien, por las respectivas autoridades de la jurisdicción ordinaria, por cuanto claramente 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."
"It is not materially or reasonably possible to enter into a complicated and slow evidentiary system to elucidate the aspects raised by the petitioner. Therefore, such grievances must be raised and analyzed by the respondent administrative authorities themselves or by the respective ordinary jurisdiction authorities, as they clearly exceed the summary nature of the amparo remedy, as well as the competence of this Court granted by the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law and the Political Constitution itself."
Considerando IV
"No resulta material ni razonablemente posible entrar a un complicado y lento sistema probatorio para dilucidar los referidos aspectos señalados por la recurrente. Por ende, este tipo de agravios deben ser planteados y analizados por las propias autoridades administrativas recurridas o bien, por las respectivas autoridades de la jurisdicción ordinaria, por cuanto claramente 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."
Considerando IV
"En mérito de lo expuesto, al no observarse quebrantado los derechos fundamentales de la tutelada, lo que procede es desestimar el presente proceso de amparo."
"In virtue of the foregoing, since no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights is observed, the appropriate course is to dismiss this amparo proceeding."
Considerando IV
"En mérito de lo expuesto, al no observarse quebrantado los derechos fundamentales de la tutelada, lo que procede es desestimar el presente proceso de amparo."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
Date of Resolution: April 4, 2025 at 9:20 a.m.
Case File: 25-006858-0007-CO Type of matter: Amparo action SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fourth of April, two thousand twenty-five.
Amparo action filed by MARÍA CATALINA ARCE LEIVA, identity card 0401940334, against THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF FLORES.
WHEREAS:
The same email sending the report again inquires about the day and time for the measurement, I quote: “…the matter of the alleged noise impact is pending attention; to address this impact, please inform us of the day and time range you require for the noise measurement to be carried out. If it is requested at a time before 8 a.m. or after 4 p.m., please indicate a date after March 3, 2025, as it involves administrative coordination to enable extraordinary hours for the officials who would attend to perform the measurement.” (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00038). 21. It is important to indicate to the Court that the complainant’s response to this request was given on March 2, 2025 (from the unofficial notification email [email protected]), I quote: “Good day, Mr. Diego, regarding the sonic measurement request, we consulted with the municipality, and they confirm that they have not yet granted any permit, so they are not yet cooking, and the measurement could not be carried out to confirm one of our nuisances.
At the same time, they confirmed to us that once it is approved or denied, they will let us know, and we will do the same with you. It should be noted that this test was requested on October 30 of the previous year, and we received no response. We would also like to inform you that we are still pursuing the case in the Prosecutor’s Office, so our public defender requested that these informational emails not be forwarded to the defendants. Perhaps you can give us a response as to why said test was not carried out at the time, given that the noise impact was known and will continue because they have not conditioned the premises to prevent it. They also asked us to inquire whether the code that they registered when granting the permit (as a premises) for a house is valid for the same purpose. Thank you very much, blessings, we remain attentive to see how said test will be carried out when the municipality gives us a response.” (the underlining and boldface are not part of the original text) (Folio de la denuncia 22-2024: 00039). 22.
In response to this email, Lic. Diego Hidalgo Barrantes replied on March 3, 2025, as follows: Dear Catalina. Good day. Regarding the measurement, we are thus waiting for you to confirm the date and time range. Just as a clarification, these emails are not sent to the accused party; this is part of the confidential handling of the complaint. It is also clarified that when the complaint was filed, one of the aspects reported was that the establishment did not have a permit, so the first actions to be carried out before measuring noise were to issue the sanitary order to suspend operation, and during that period several months passed without them working; therefore, it made no sense to measure noise at that time. (…) The CIIU or CAECR code assigned to the sanitary operating permit for Empanadas Rossy was 5610.0, which is used by restaurants, but also allows food preparation in dwelling houses, as stated in the regulation Decreto 43432-S, in ANEXO 1, TABLA 1.
CLASIFICACIÓN DE ACTIVIDADES COMERCIALES, INDUSTRIALES Y DE SERVICIOS REGULADAS POR EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD SEGÚN NIVEL DE RIESGO SANITARIO Y AMBIENTAL. (BASADO EN CAECR-2011-CIIU VERSION 4): (…) (screenshot of the regulation) Furthermore, it is also explained, regarding your statement that “they have not conditioned the premises to avoid noise,” this is a condition that could only be ordered after verifying whether there is a breach of noise limits according to Decreto N°44486, Article 5, which to date has not been verified. We remain attentive. Greetings (Folio de la denuncia 22-2024: 00039). Denuncia 91-2024: The amparo petitioner indicates that on September 24, 2024, she filed a second complaint because the problem continued. I will set forth what occurred regarding the handling of the second complaint, which was entered under the consecutive number Denuncia 91-2024: A. On September 24, 2024, complaint 91-2024 was received, which indicates a complaint against Empanadas Rossy.
The description states the reason for the complaint: “Good day, I am appearing today (24-9-2024) for the non-compliance with the schedule granted by the Ministry of Health to the establishment Empanadas Rossy.” That is all. She provides the email for notifications [email protected]. (Folios de la denuncia 91-2024: 0001-0002) She attaches two documents to the complaint: a. Expediente 24-000398-0926-FC from the Juzgado contravencional de San Joaquín de Flores (Folio de la denuncia 91-2024: 0003-0005) b. Medical opinion (Folio de la denuncia 91-2024: 0006) B. At 12:35 p.m. on October 17, 2024, Licda. Claudia Mannix Sánchez, an official of the Área Rectora de Salud Belén Flores, appeared at the reported dwelling. At the address indicated in the complaint (Heredia, Flores, San Joaquín, de los semáforos, 150 m Sur última casa, contiguo a la línea del tren, casa de madera blanca con portones rojos).
At the time of the inspection, the official appeared at the reported dwelling, but no one came out to provide service; apparently, there was no one there. The inspection is carried out with colleague Diego Hidalgo Barrantes, who is following up on the first complaint (22-2024), still under investigation at the time of this inspection, and Licda. Sthepanie Mayorga, an official of the Unidad de Patentes of the Municipalidad de Flores, who must proceed accordingly because the activity does not have the municipal patent or license. The Ministry of Health does not regulate or establish working hours. The inspection is recorded in ocular acta 379-2024. (Folios de la denuncia 91-2024: 0007) Respectfully, this Area Directorate provides as legal support for the foregoing, Res. Nº 2013010282 issued by the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA, S.J., at two thirty p.m. on July thirty-first, two thousand thirteen, which states: “The Legal System may establish limitations on the hours of certain commercial activities if such restrictions are necessary to guarantee public tranquility, and therefore, the rights of neighbors.
Article 26 of the Reglamento de Espectáculos Públicos of the Municipalidad de Tibás contemplates a time limitation for a specific commercial activity: the karaoke show. ‘Any activity with karaoke may be carried out until 11 p.m., at most.’ Now, Municipalities in general, and the Municipalidad de Tibás in particular, have the legal authority to legitimately establish, by regulation, the minimum requirements that must be demanded of their licensees. This is to safeguard morality, health, and public order. This authority of Municipalities is exercised on a subsidiary basis, without prejudice to the Law imposing other particular requirements. This authority is expressly contemplated in Article 81, in fine, of the Código Municipal (see the report rendered in expediente No. 08-18003-0007-CO). Consistent with the above, judgment No. 1996-00960 has understood that it indeed corresponds to Municipalities to have the authority to regulate the requirements applicable to persons who require the so-called patent for lucrative activities, without prejudice to the requirements imposed by law.” (The underlining and highlighting do not correspond to the original) C. On October 23, 2024, the response report for the handling of complaint 91-2024 was issued and notified, via official letter MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-2752-2024; this report is addressed to Mrs.
María Catalina Arce. It concludes that the entity that must establish the working hours of a business – industry or service is the Municipality, and that it regulates it through the License or Patent, for which reason the Municipality is urged to proceed according to its purview. It is recommended that the Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud proceed with the closure of this complaint and the filing thereof, since the matter specifically reported is a non-compliance with a schedule. What does fall within the purview of the Ministry of Health, however, would be to corroborate a possible non-compliance with noise limits, and this would be followed up under complaint 22-2024 (which is open, and in coordination regarding day and time). The day and time of the measurement is suggested by the complainant, since the measurement is carried out in the complainant’s dwelling; this is so under the Reglamento para el control del ruido ambiental Nº 44486-S.
To date, the noise measurement has not been scheduled as of today, because as set forth to the Court in point 21 of this report, the complainant stated: “we consulted with the municipality, and they confirm that they have not yet granted any permit, so they are not yet cooking, and the measurement could not be carried out to confirm one of our nuisances. At the same time, they confirmed to us that once it is approved or denied, they will let us know, and we will do the same with you.” Thus evidenced, this Ministry and the Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud Belén-Flores have acted diligently in managing the responses in a timely manner and according to the corresponding internal administrative procedure in this Organizational Unit. Likewise, by the duty of probity present in the Public Administration and with the objective of satisfying the public interest together with the priority collective needs in safeguarding health, MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS have been carried out to address the problem indicated by the amparo petitioner to corroborate compliance with the Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud, the Ley General de Salud, and related laws.
Additionally, control actions were executed, thus evidencing that we have not overstepped with unreasonable timeframes, that the corresponding actions have been executed according to the authority of our Ministry, or in an excessive and unjustified duration. For all the foregoing, this Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud rejects an alleged violation of constitutional rights, inasmuch as we have acted diligently, according to our authority, to address the complaints filed regarding the underlying problem (…) PETITION By the foregoing, respectfully, this body makes known to that Honorable Constitutional Chamber that the Ministry of Health has acted in accordance with the current legal system and according to its authority, diligently managing the response in a timely manner and according to the corresponding internal administrative procedure, for which reason the complaints have been handled on time; we have not overstepped with unreasonable timeframes or in an excessive and unjustified duration.
All actions have been taken to address complaint 22-2024 and 91-2024. Follow-up was given to sanitary order DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-033-2024 and sanitary order DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-0003-2025, corroborating that the accused parties complied, rectifying what was ordered; therefore, there is no reason found to order the revocation and/or cancellation of the sanitary operating permit as the amparo petitioner requests of the Constitutional Chamber. Likewise, the noise problem has NOT been detected or evidenced because, via sanitary order, the establishment’s operation has been suspended for two extensive periods, and currently, the measurement has not been coordinated at the indication of the complainant when informing the official that they are currently not operating and do not have the municipal patent. Based on the arguments of fact and law put forth, I respectfully request that the present amparo action be declared WITHOUT MERIT, by virtue of the fact that the complaint presented by Mrs.
María Catalina Arce Leiva has been duly addressed, and the notified sanitary orders have indeed been followed up on, safeguarding due process, thus also protecting the collective health of the complainants and the denounced noise problem, which, as indicated above, has not been verified by this Ministry (…)”.
Drafted by Judge Araya García; and,
CONSIDERANDO:
The petitioner alleges that for a year, they have been reporting to the Ministry of Health the cooking activities carried out by some neighbors in the early morning hours, which causes a lot of noise and affects sleep and mental and physical health. However, she accuses that, as of the day this amparo was filed, no solution to this problem had been obtained.
She requests that the action be declared with merit and that the revocation of the license and permits that have been granted to carry out the cited activities be ordered.
Prior to analyzing the merits of the matter – regarding the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and completed procedure – it must be clarified that, following judgment No. 2008-02545 of 08:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Court has referred to the administrative litigation jurisdiction – with some exceptions – those matters in which it is discussed whether the public administration has complied or not with the deadlines established by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (Articles 261 and 325) or sector-specific laws for special administrative procedures, to resolve by final act an administrative proceeding – initiated ex officio or at the instance of a party – or to hear the pertinent administrative remedies. Precisely, in this case, a case of exception arises – supported by the majority of this Constitutional Court – because we are dealing with complaints of an environmental nature. Having clarified the point, we proceed to resolve the specific situation raised in this amparo.
The following facts, relevant to settle this amparo action, are deemed accredited:
“a. Certification of the LP gas installation: It is worth noting that, according to the report of the responsible technician, Ing. Geovanni Chavarría Arrieta, he inspected the LPG installation and concludes that it is suitable and complies with the provisions of the Ley de Bomberos, NFPA 58 and 54, and other current MINAE laws. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00013-00015) b. Resolución MS-DRRSCN-2225-2025, digitally signed by Licda. Victoria Leiva Pereira, professional of the Equipo de Regulación de la salud of the ARS Belén Flores, in which the POR TANTO states that after a review of the relevant requirements, based on the “Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud” Decreto N° 43432-S, it is recommended to grant the sanitary operating permit to Empanadas Rossy, an application presented by Mrs. Rosa Ismania López. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00016) c. Technical report MS-DRRDARSBF-2224-2024, which supports the issuance of Resolución MS-DRRSCN-2225-2025. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00017) d. Sanitary operating permit ARSBF-625-2024 in the name of the establishment EMPANADAS ROSSY.” This permit was granted for a period of one year, i.e., from August 23, 2024, to August 23, 2025 (see report and evidence).
In the foregoing form, the accused parties stated that they would operate from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (see filing brief).
“Since the complaint has several reasons, we proceed to respond one by one: • One of the reasons for the complaint is that the kitchen operates clandestinely, that is, without the corresponding permits. This aspect was managed by this ARS through the notified sanitary order in which the suspension of the activity was ordered until the sanitary operating permit was obtained. At the time this report is drafted, the accused parties have now processed the permit, so this irregularity has been rectified. • Regarding the generation of bad odors and attraction of flies, rats, and other vectors, during the inspections carried out, this impact could not be verified. • Regarding the operating hours (the complaint indicates they cook from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.), this is not an aspect that the Ministry of Health oversees, nor could we limit the operation of an establishment; this is the purview of the Municipality, which can regulate working hours through the Patent or License.
Regarding the possible noise impact mentioned in the complaint, it should be detailed that the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S (in force at the time this report was drafted) and the Procedimiento para la Medición de Ruido Nº 32692 are currently in effect, the latter establishing in Article 4 that a Prerequisite to the Noise Measurement is a) Identify and locate the affected person(s) in order to coordinate the time and place for conducting the sonic measurements.
Therefore, you are requested that, should the noise nuisance continue, in order to schedule the noise measurement, you must indicate to this health governing area the most probable day and time when the disturbance occurs, since the procedure entails requesting the authorization of officials to appear outside of regular hours or the ordinary workday to carry out the noise measurement. On the other hand, in past days the complainants verbally informed the Belén Flores health governing area that they had a confrontation hearing (juicio careo) or similar scheduled with the respondents; we would appreciate being informed about this, because if a Judge - Prosecutor's Office has already issued a judgment, issued any resolution or action, it must be known for the comprehensive handling of this complaint.” This report was notified to the petitioner on October 29, 2024 (see report and evidence).
“Mrs. Catalina Arce Good day Thank you for confirming receipt and keeping us informed of the process in the prosecutor's office. Given that you continue reporting noise problems, I proceed to request my superiors (Dr. Espinoza is copied on this reply) to assess requesting extra time outside the ordinary workday to schedule a noise measurement; within the 12 am to 5 am timeframe you indicate, can you be more specific so we know at what (sic) time we should appear? for example, specifying a specific time, such as between 3 am and 4 am. I take this opportunity to reiterate that, from the Ministry of Health, we do not have the competence to regulate the operating hours of an establishment; this is regulated by the Patent or license that must be granted by the Municipality. On the unified form, a schedule is requested for informational purposes, but the applicant could even have indicated that they work uninterruptedly (24 hours / 7 days a week) as some motels, hotels, or small restaurants (sodas) that work at night do, and for the Ministry of Health, this is not a reason to deny a permit, nor does it mean that this institution is responsible for overseeing whether they comply with the schedule they report having.
I also take the opportunity for another clarification: what you call evidence, whether videos or photos taken by you, are references for our follow-up, but it is not possible for us to use them for a closure, or to issue a sanitary order. As public officials, we must verify possible anomalies in person and record them in an ocular inspection report (acta ocular) to be able to use this to issue an administrative act” (see report).
“After carrying out the inspection on January 28, 2025, improper disposal of wastewater from the establishment was confirmed, and an anomaly was found because the food handlers had expired cards or did not have the card. The activity was suspended on January 28, 2025, itself, by means of a sanitary order until the anomalies were corrected. On February 17, 2025, an inspection was carried out to follow up on the sanitary order; compliance with sanitary order MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-003-2025 was observed; therefore, the establishment was authorized to operate again with respect to the Ministry of Health. Regarding the issues or reported disturbances, addressing the matter of the alleged noise disturbance remains pending. To address this disturbance, please inform us what (sic) day and what (sic) time range you require the noise measurement to be carried out. If it is requested at a time before 8 am or after 4 pm, please indicate a date after March 3, 2025, since it implies administrative coordination to enable extraordinary hours for the officials who would appear to carry out the measurement”. This report was sent to the appellant on February 20, 2025, to the indicated email account (see report and evidence).
“Very good day Mr. Diego, regarding the request for sound measurement (medición sónica), we consulted with the municipality and they confirm that they have not yet granted any permit, therefore they are not yet cooking and the measurement could not be carried out to confirm one of our nuisances. At the same time, they confirmed to us that once (sic) it is approved or denied, they will let us know, and we will do the same with you. It is worth noting that since October 30 of the previous year, said test was requested and we did not obtain a response. We would also like to inform you that we are still pursuing the case in the Prosecutor's Office, for which our public defender (sic) requested (sic) that these informational emails not be forwarded to the respondents and perhaps (sic) you can give us an answer as to why said test was not carried out at the time, given that the noise disturbance was known and that it will still continue since they have not conditioned the premises to prevent it. They also asked us to consult whether the code they registered when granting the permit (as a premises) for a house is valid (sic) for the same. Thank you very much, blessings. We remain attentive to see how (sic) said test will be carried out when the municipality gives us a response” (see report).
“Dear Catalina. Good day. Regarding the measurement, we are therefore waiting for you to confirm the date and hour range. Just as a clarification, these emails are not sent to the respondent; this is part of the confidential handling of the complaint. It is also clarified that when the complaint was filed, one of the aspects reported was that the establishment did not have a permit, so the first actions to execute before measuring noise were to issue the sanitary order to suspend the operation, and during that time several months passed without them working, so it did not make sense to measure noise at that moment. (…) The CIIU or CAECR code assigned to the sanitary operating permit for Empanadas Rossy was 5610.0, which is used by restaurants, but it also allows food preparation in dwelling houses, as stated in the regulation decree 43432-S, in ANNEX 1 TABLE 1. CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES REGULATED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ACCORDING TO SANITARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL.
(BASED ON CAECR-2011-CIIU VERSION 4): (…) (screenshot of the regulation) On the other hand, it is also explained, regarding your statement that -they have not conditioned the premises to prevent noise- this is a condition that could be ordered only after verifying if there is a non-compliance with noise limits according to decree No. 44486, article 5, which to date has not been verified. We remain attentive. Regards (…)” (see report).
The appellant comes before this Chamber against, specifically, as she stated, the authorities of the Ministry of Health. She indicates that in February 2024 she filed a complaint against the clandestine operation, during the early morning hours, of a kitchen in the yard of a neighboring house, which, in turn, generates noise problems and disturbs sleep, as well as physical and mental health. However, she claims that, as of the date this amparo was filed, a solution to said problem had not been obtained.
She explains that the authorities of the respondent ministry have asked her to indicate a specific time to carry out the sound measurement at the premises, but clarifies that this cannot be done at this time because the respondents are not working and, therefore, said action would have no effect. She maintains that she has no problem with kitchen activities being carried out, but at another time, that is, not between 1:00 am and 5:00 am, due to the disturbance this produces.
She requests, then, that this amparo be granted so that the revocation and cancellation of all permits and licenses granted to the business "Empanadas Rossy" be ordered, and her right to rest and a healthy environment be guaranteed.
Having reviewed the arguments presented by the claimant, the reports rendered under the solemnity of oath by the authorities not only of the Health Governing Area of Belén, Flores, but also of the Municipality of Flores, as well as all the evidence provided, this Constitutional Court does not consider that there is merit to grant this amparo proceeding. The foregoing, for the reasons that will be set forth below.
First, given that it has been reliably demonstrated that the authorities of the Ministry of Health, from the moment they became aware of the first complaint filed by the appellant in February 2024 against the kitchen activities in question, have carried out a large number of actions precisely aimed at clarifying the facts and providing a response. Actions that, furthermore, it should be noted, have been carried out before this amparo was filed. In this regard, it is recorded that on March 11, 2024, a first inspection was carried out at the site and a sanitary order was immediately issued suspending the activities in question. Subsequently, on March 15, June 5, and July 22, 2024, follow-up inspections were carried out. It is also recorded that, in August of the previous year, the respective sanitary operating permit was granted to the premises called “Empanadas Rossy” (after verifying that the respondents had met all the established requirements for such purposes).
Also, it is recorded that in October 2024, proceedings were carried out jointly with the Municipality of Flores, another complaint filed by the appellant in September of that same year was addressed (specifically related to the premises’ schedule), a new inspection was even carried out, and responses were issued to the appellant regarding the actions taken. Likewise, it was determined that on January 28, 2025, the authorities of the Health Governing Area of Belén, Flores carried out (together with authorities from the Municipality of Flores) a new inspection at the site in question, an occasion on which they warned the respondent about the obligation to have a municipal license, a wastewater test was carried out that tested positive, and the lack of the food handler’s card was determined. Consequently, that same day, a sanitary order was issued and activities were suspended until such aspects were resolved.
It is also recorded that on February 17, 2025, the cited health authorities appeared again at the site and verified compliance with the provisions of the previous sanitary order, and therefore, from that moment on, the premises resumed operation. Additionally, it was determined that on February 19, 2025, a report was issued to the petitioner, and on March 3, 2025, a new response related to the matter of interest was notified to her.
Regarding the Municipality of Flores (although not expressly sued by the petitioner), it should be noted that, equally, it has been demonstrated that it has carried out actions also aimed at resolving the situation in question, resulting, in turn, from two complaints filed by the appellant in November 2024 and January 2025. In this regard, it was demonstrated that in October 2024 they tried to carry out two inspections, but they were unsuccessful because they were not attended to at the site under study; they also informed the claimant that the premises did not have a patent and the result of one of these inspections. Likewise, it is recorded that in January 2025 they coordinated an inspection of the premises with the respondent health governing area and finally executed it on the 28th of that month. Equally, it was verified that on February 28, 2025 – days even before this amparo was filed – the municipality granted the commercial patent to the respondents to carry out their empanada preparation activities. This latter fact, in turn, as was accredited, was informed to the claimant on March 11, 2025, clarifying that, consequently, the reported situation was now regularized.
Second, because, in this case, it has been accredited that the authorities of the Flores, Belén Health Governing Area have kept the appellant informed of the actions carried out regarding the complaints she filed, and formal responses (in writing) have been notified to her, effectively and in a timely manner. In this regard, it is recorded that on October 24, 2024, the health authorities notified the claimant of official communication No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-2752-2024 (in response to complaint No. 91-2024 filed in September of the previous year), through which she was clarified that matters concerning the operating hours of the commercial premises were the responsibility of the municipality, and that matters related to the possible non-compliance with noise limits would continue to be analyzed under the first complaint (No. 22-2024), thereby finally closing said complaint. Likewise, it is recorded that on October 29, 2024, said authorities notified the petitioner of technical report No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-2772-2024, through which the background of the complaint (No. 22-2024) was narrated and the actions taken for its attention were described.
In this last official communication, moreover, the following was concluded: That the premises already had a sanitary operating permit. That matters concerning the kitchen's operating hours were the purview of the municipality. That the matter related to the noise disturbance was indeed the competence of the governing area, and that, for this purpose, it was necessary to indicate the most probable day and time of disturbance, to carry out the sound measurement. Additionally, it was determined that, in response to the reply issued by the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the cited technical report (in which she indicated that the sound measurement could be carried out from Monday to Saturday from 12:00 am to 5:00 am), the respondents issued her a new response on October 30, 2024. On this last occasion, the authorities of the Ministry of Health, among other aspects indicated regarding the merits, requested the appellant to clarify and specify within what timeframe from 12:00 am to 5:00 am the measurement could be carried out. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that on February 20, 2025, report No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-479-2025 was communicated to the appellant, in which the following was expressly concluded:
“After carrying out the inspection on January 28, 2025, improper disposal of wastewater from the establishment was confirmed, and an anomaly was found because the food handlers had expired cards or did not have the card. The activity was suspended on January 28, 2025, itself, by means of a sanitary order until the anomalies were corrected. On February 17, 2025, an inspection was carried out to follow up on the sanitary order; compliance with sanitary order MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-003-2025 was observed; therefore, the establishment was authorized to operate again with respect to the Ministry of Health. Regarding the issues or reported disturbances, addressing the matter of the alleged noise disturbance remains pending. To address this disturbance, please inform us what (sic) day and what (sic) time range you require the noise measurement to be carried out. If it is requested at a time before 8 am or after 4 pm, please indicate a date after March 3, 2025, since it implies administrative coordination to enable extraordinary hours for the officials who would appear to carry out the measurement”.
It is recorded that, prompted by what was stated in this last document, the appellant indicated to the governing area, on March 2 of the current year, the following: “regarding the request for sound measurement (medición sónica), we consulted with the municipality and they confirm that they have not yet granted any permit, therefore they are not yet cooking and the measurement could not be carried out to confirm one of our nuisances. At the same time, they confirmed to us that once (sic) it is approved or denied, they will let us know, and we will do the same with you (…) We remain attentive to see how (sic) said test will be carried out when the municipality gives us a response”.
Likewise, it was demonstrated that, in response to this last communication, an official from the Belén, Flores Health Governing Area, on March 3, 2025, replied the following to the amparo petitioner:
“Regarding the measurement, we are therefore waiting for you to confirm the date and hour range (…) It is also clarified that when the complaint was filed, one of the aspects reported was that the establishment did not have a permit, so the first actions to execute before measuring noise were to issue the sanitary order to suspend the operation, and during that time several months passed without them working, so it did not make sense to measure noise at that moment. (…) The CIIU or CAECR code assigned to the sanitary operating permit for Empanadas Rossy was 5610.0, which is used by restaurants, but it also allows food preparation in dwelling houses, as stated in the regulation decree 43432-S, in ANNEX 1 TABLE 1. CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES REGULATED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ACCORDING TO SANITARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL. (BASED ON CAECR-2011-CIIU VERSION 4): (…) (screenshot of the regulation) On the other hand, it is also explained, regarding your statement that -they have not conditioned the premises to prevent noise- this is a condition that could be ordered only after verifying if there is a non-compliance with noise limits according to decree No. 44486, article 5, which to date has not been verified”.
In this way, it was accredited that the authorities of the Ministry of Health provided the claimant with a timely response regarding the resolution of the reported matter, and that the issue concerning the noise nuisance has not been able to be finally resolved because the complainant has not confirmed the date and time of the measurement, given that, as observed, she was waiting for the premises to resume operation.
Furthermore, with regard to the authorities of the Municipality of Flores and the resolution of the complaints filed by the appellant, it was determined that on March 11, 2025, official communication No. MF-DAT-PAT-CE-011-2025 was notified to the latter, indicating that Mrs. López Montoya had regularized her commercial activity and now had a commercial license for the activity of food preparation and distribution under the trade name “Empanadas Rossy”. The petitioner was also told that “Given that the situation has been duly regularized, we proceed to close the case and conclude the matter regarding this patent process. It must be reiterated (…) that matters related to odors, noise, gases, and other situations related to public health must be reported to the Ministry of Health of Belén; in the case of any water or construction issues, you can address the Urban Development department of the municipality with Marta or Jane”.
Thus, it is established that the appellant obtained a response to her complaints before the municipal authorities became aware of the filing of this amparo action; that is, without the intervention of this Court even being necessary. Therefore, from that perspective, a violation of the right to obtain prompt and fulfilled administrative justice (article 41 of the Constitution) could not be attributed to them.
Third, considering that, in this case, it has been demonstrated that, at least as of the date this amparo was filed, there was no environmental problem affecting the petitioner. It was even demonstrated that this state of affairs persisted as of the date the respondents rendered their report to the Chamber (March 25, 2025). Note that in this matter, it has been accredited that the problems regarding the operation of the premises without having the respective permits, the problems regarding the wastewater (aguas servidas), and the matter concerning the lack of a food handler’s card have already been resolved. Furthermore, the issue of noise (which is precisely the crux of this matter) has not been able to be elucidated to date, not due to the neglect of the authorities of the Flores, Belén Health Governing Area, but because, as was accredited, the appellant has not been able to specify or pinpoint a date and time to carry out the respective sound measurement, which, in turn, as was demonstrated, is necessary for the measures that may eventually be pertinent to be taken.
Regarding this last point, it is necessary to note that the same claimant has explained in the amparo filing brief that she had not been able to provide this information at that time, given that the premises did not have the municipal permit and, consequently, was not operating. This last statement suggests, then, that, when the Chamber was approached, the appellant was not being affected by the noise problems she alleges. Thus, it is not possible to consider the fundamental right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (article 50 of the Constitution) to have been violated.
Fourth, given that it is not incumbent upon this Constitutional Court, as it is a matter of mere legality, to analyze and determine whether or not the respondents fully complied with all the requirements established in the legal system to obtain the sanitary operating permit and the commercial patent.
Much less, from that same order of considerations, could this Chamber order the revocation of such permits (which is ultimately what the claimant seeks with the filing of this amparo).
It is not materially or reasonably possible to enter into a complicated and slow evidentiary system to elucidate the referenced aspects indicated by the appellant. Therefore, this type of grievances must be raised and analyzed by the respondent administrative authorities themselves or, alternatively, by the respective authorities of the ordinary jurisdiction, as they clearly exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal, as well as the jurisdiction of this Court granted by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and the Political Constitution itself.
* By virtue of the foregoing, since no violation of the fundamental rights of the protected party is observed, the appropriate course is to dismiss this amparo proceeding.
V.Now, without detriment to what is stated supra, it is necessary to advise the respondent authorities of the Ministry of Health that it is their obligation to provide timely follow-up to the disagreement held by the appellant regarding the alleged sonic pollution generated at the site under study, to carry out the corresponding sonic measurements (once the complainant clarifies the pertinent schedule for that purpose), to issue any other type of administrative act that is pertinent, and to finally resolve this point as legally appropriate.
The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Full Court 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 Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session number 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
The appeal is declared without merit. Let the respondent authorities of the Ministry of Health take note of the provisions in considerando V of this judgment.
Fernando Castillo V.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Jorge Isaac Solano A.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del cuatro de abril de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por MARÍA CATALINA ARCE LEIVA, cédula de identidad 0401940334, contra EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD Y LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE FLORES.
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Magistrado Araya García; y,
CONSIDERANDO:
La recurrente aduce que desde hace un año denunciaron ante el Ministerio de Salud las actividades de cocina llevadas a cabo por unos vecinos en horas de la madrugada, lo cual provoca mucho ruido, afecta el sueño y la salud mental y física. Sin embargo, acusa que, para el día de interpuesto este amparo, no se había obtenido una solución a esa problemática.
Solicita que se declare con lugar el recurso y se ordene la revocación de la licencia y permisos que han sido otorgados para llevar a cabo las citadas actividades.
De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto –por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido– debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia No. 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa –con algunas excepciones–, aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o las leyes sectoriales para los procedimientos administrativos especiales, para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en este caso se plantea un supuesto de excepción –respaldado por la mayoría de este Tribunal Constitucional–, pues se está ante denuncias de índole ambiental. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
De relevancia para dirimir el presente recurso de amparo, se tienen por acreditados los siguientes:
“a. Certificación de la instalación de gas LP: Cabe destacar que según el informe del responsable técnico Ing. Geovanni Chavarría Arrieta, inspeccionó la instalación de GLP y concluye que la misma es apta y se apega a lo estipulado en la Ley de Bomberos, la NFPA 58 y 54 y otras leyes MINAE vigentes. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00013-00015) b. Resolución MS-DRRSCN-2225-2025, de firma digital de la Licda. Victoria Leiva Pereira, profesional del Equipo de Regulación de la salud del ARS Belén Flores, en la que se indica en el POR TANTO que tras una revisión de los requisitos atinentes con fundamento en el “Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud” decreto N° 43432-S se recomienda otorgar el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento a Empanadas Rossy, gestión presentada por la señora Rosa Lopez Ismania. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00016) c. Informe técnico MS-DRRDARSBF-2224-2024, que respalda la emisión de la Resolución MS-DRRSCN-2225-2025. (Folios de la denuncia 22-2024: 00017) d. Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento ARSBF-625-2024 a nombre del establecimiento EMPANADAS ROSSY”. Este permiso se otorgó por el plazo de un año, sea de 23 de agosto de 2024 a 23 de agosto de 2025 (ver informe y prueba).
En el anterior formulario los denunciados señalaron que operarían de 6:00 am a 9:00 am (ver escrito de interposición).
“Siendo la denuncia por varios motivos, se procede a dar respuesta uno a uno: • Uno de los motivos de la denuncia es que la cocina opera de forma clandestina, es decir sin los permisos correspondientes. Este aspecto se manejó por parte de esta ARS mediante la orden sanitaria notificada en la que se ordenó la suspensión de la actividad hasta no contar con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. Al momento de la elaboración de este informe ya han tramitado los denunciados el permiso, por lo que queda subsanado esta anomalía. • Respecto a la generación de malos olores y atracción de moscas, ratas y otros vectores, en las inspecciones efectuadas no se logró comprobar esta afectación. • En lo que respecta al horario de operación (en la denuncia indican que cocinan de las 2 am a las 6 am), no resulta un aspecto que fiscalice el Ministerio de Salud, tampoco podríamos limitar la operación de un establecimiento, esto es resorte de la Municipalidad esta instancia puede regular a través de la Patente o licencia el horario de trabajo.
Sobre la posible afectación por ruido que se mencionó la denuncia, se debe detallar que hoy están vigentes el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S (vigente al momento de la elaboración de este informe) y el Procedimiento para la Medición de Ruido Nº 32692, en este último se establece en el artículo 4 que un Requisito previo a la Medición del Ruido, es a) Identificar y ubicar la(s) persona(s) afectada(s) con el fin de coordinar la hora y lugar de la realización de las mediciones sónicas. Por lo anterior se le solicita que en caso de que la molestia por ruido continúe, para proceder a agendar la medición de ruido, se requiere le indique a esta área rectora de salud el día y hora más probable en que se presenta la afectación, pues el procedimiento implica solicitar la habilitación de los funcionarios para que se presenten fuera de horario o jornada ordinaria para efectuar la medición del ruido.
Por otro lado, en días pasados los denunciantes informaron de forma oral en el área rectora de salud Belén Flores, que tenían agendado un juicio careo o similar con los denunciados, agradeceremos se nos informe al respecto, pues si un Juez - Fiscalía ya dictó sentencia, emitió alguna resolución o acción debe ser de conocimiento para la atención integral de esta denuncia.” Este informe se le notificó a la tutelada el 29 de octubre de 2024 (ver informe y pureba).
“Sra. Catalina Arce Buen día Gracias por confirmar el recibido y mantenernos al tanto del proceso en fiscalía. Siendo que siguen reportando problemas por ruido procedo a solicitar a mi jefatura (el Dr. Espinoza está copiado en esta respuesta) para que valore solicitar tiempo extra fuera de la jornada laboral ordinaria para agendar una medición de ruido, ¿en el lapso de 12 am a 5 am que me indica puede ser más específica para saber a que (sic) hora debemos presentarnos? por ejemplo señalando una hora específica, como por ejemplo entre las 3 am y 4 am. Aprovecho, para reiterarle, que desde el Ministerio de Salud, no tenemos competencia para regular el horario de operación de un establecimiento, esto es regulado por la Patente o licencia que debe otorgar la Municipalidad, en el formulario unificado se les pide un horario por motivos de información, pero el o la solicitante incluso podría haber indicado que trabajan de forma ininterrumpida (24 horas / los 7 días de la semana) como hacen algunos moteles, hoteles, o sodas que trabajan de noche, y eso para el Ministerio de Salud no es motivo para denegar un permiso, ni tampoco significa que le corresponda a esta institución fiscalizar si cumplen el horario que reporten tener.
También aprovecho, para otra aclaración, lo que usted llama pruebas, sean videos o fotos tomadas por ustedes, son referencias para nuestro seguimiento, más no es posible que las usemos para una clausura, o para emitir una orden sanitaria, como funcionarios públicos las posibles anomalías las debemos comprobar presencialmente y consignarlas en un acta ocular para poder usar esto para emitir un acto administrativo” (ver informe).
“Tras efectuar la inspección el 28 de enero 2025, se comprobó una mala disposición de las aguas residuales del establecimiento, y una anomalía pues los manipuladores de alimentos tenían el carné vencido o no tenían el carné. La actividad se suspendió el mismo 28 de enero 2025 mediante orden sanitaria hasta que se subsanaran las anomalías. El 17 de febrero 2025, se efectuó inspección para dar seguimiento a la orden sanitaria, se observó cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-003-2025, por lo anterior el establecimiento quedó habilitado para operar nuevamente en lo que respecta al Ministerio de Salud. En relación a los temas o afectaciones denunciadas, queda está pendiente atender el tema de la supuesta afectación por ruido, para atender esta afectación por favor deben informar que (sic) día y que (sic) rango de horario requieren que se realice la medición del ruido, si se solicita en horario antes de las 8 am o posterior a las 4 pm por favor indicar una fecha posterior al 3 de marzo 2025 ya que implica la coordinación administrativa para realizar la habilitación de horario extraordinario de los funcionarios que se presentarían a efectuar la medición”. Este informe se le envió a la recurrente el 20 de febrero de 2025 a la cuenta de correo electrónico señalada (ver informe y prueba).
“Muy buen día señor Diego, con respecto a la solicitud de medición sónica, realizamos la consulta en la municipalidad y nos confirman que aún no han otorgado ningún permiso, por lo cual aún no están cocinando y la medición no se podría efectuar para confirmar una de nuestras molestias. A la vez nos confirmaron que una ves (sic) que se apruebe o se niegue el mismo nos lo harán saber, y nosotros igual con ustedes. Cabe recalcar que desde el 30 de octubre del año anterior se solicitó dicha prueba y no obtuvimos respuesta. También nos gustaría informar que seguimos el caso aun en la Fiscalía por lo cual nuestro defensor publico (sic) solicito (sic) que estos correos de información no sean reenviado a los demandantes y talves (sic) nos puedan dar respuesta del porqué no se realizó dicha prueba en su momento dándose a saber la afectación de ruido y que aún seguirá ya que no han acondicionado el local para evitar lo mismo, también nos pidieron consultar si el código que ellos inscribieron en el otorgamiento de permiso (como local) siendo una casa es valido (sic) para lo mismo. Muchas gracias bendiciones quedamos atentos a ver como (sic) se realizará dicha prueba cuando la municipalidad nos dé respuesta” (ver informe).
“Estimada Catalina. Buen día. Respecto a la medición quedamos a la espera entonces de que nos confirmen la fecha y rango de horas. Sólo como aclaración estos correos no son enviados al denunciado, es parte del manejo confidencial de la denuncia. También se aclara, que cuando se interpuso la denuncia, uno de los aspectos denunciados fue que el establecimiento no tenía permiso, por lo que las primeras acciones a ejecutar antes que medir el ruido fue emitir la orden sanitaria para suspender la operación y en eso pasaron varios meses sin trabajar, por lo cual no tenía sentido medir ruido en ese momento. (…) El código CIIU o CAECR asignado al permiso sanitario de funcionamiento de Empanadas Rossy fue el 5610.0, el cual usan los restaurants, pero también permite preparación de alimentos en casas de habitación, así consta en el reglamento decreto 43432-S, en el ANEXO 1 TABLA 1. CLASIFICACIÓN DE ACTIVIDADES COMERCIALES, INDUSTRIALES Y DE SERVICIOS REGULADAS POR EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD SEGÚN NIVEL DE RIESGO SANITARIO Y AMBIENTAL.
(BASADO EN CAECR-2011-CIIU VERSION 4): (…) (captura de pantalla del reglamento) Por otro lado, también se explica, respecto a su afirmación sobre que -no han acondicionado el local para evitar ruidos- esto es una condición que se les podría ordenar sólo únicamente posterior a comprobar si hay un incumplimiento de los límites de ruido según el decreto N°44486, artículo 5, lo cual a la fecha no ha sido comprobado. Quedamos atentos. Saludos (…)” (ver informe).
La recurrente acude a esta Sala en contra, concretamente, según lo expuso, de las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud. Indica que en febrero de 2024 presentó una denuncia en contra del funcionamiento clandestino y en horas de la madrugada de una cocina en el patio de una vivienda vecina, lo cual, a su vez, genera problemas de ruido y perturba el sueño, así como la salud física y mental. Sin embargo, acusa que, a la fecha de formulado este amparo, no se había obtenido una solución a dicha problemática.
Solicita, entonces, que este amparo se acoja para que se ordene la revocatoria y cancelación de todos los permisos y licencias otorgadas al comercio "Empanadas Rossy" y se garantice su derecho al descanso y a un ambiente sano.
Revisados los argumentos expuestos por la parte accionante, los informes rendidos bajo la solemnidad de juramento por las autoridades no solo del Área Rectora de Salud de Belén, Flores, sino también de la Municipalidad de Flores, así como todas las pruebas aportadas, este Tribunal Constitucional no considera que exista mérito para acoger este proceso de amparo. Lo anterior, por los motivos que se expondrán a continuación.
Primero, dado que, se ha demostrado fehacientemente que las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, desde el momento en que tuvieron conocimiento de la primera denuncia formulada por la recurrente en febrero de 2024 en contra de las actividades de cocina en cuestión, han llevada a cabo una gran cantidad de actuaciones dirigidas precisamente a esclarecer los hechos y brindar una respuesta. Actuaciones que, además, cabe destacar, se han efectuado antes de interpuesto este amparo. En ese particular, consta que el día 11 de marzo de 2024 se realizó una primera inspección en el sitio y se giró inmediatamente una orden sanitaria suspendiendo las actividades en cuestión. Posteriormente, los días 15 de marzo, 5 de junio y 22 de julio de 2024, se llevaron a cabo inspecciones de seguimiento. Consta también que, en agosto del año anterior, se le otorgó al local llamado “Empanadas Rossy”, el respectivo permiso sanitario de funcionamiento (luego de verificarse que los denunciados habían cumplido todos los requisitos establecidos para tales efectos).
También, consta que en octubre de 2024 se llevaron a cabo diligencias junto con la Municipalidad de Flores, se atendió otra denuncia formulada por la recurrente en septiembre de ese mismo año (relacionada concretamente con el horario del local), incluso, se realizó nueva inspección y se emitieron respuestas a la recurrente respecto a las acciones llevadas a cabo. Igualmente, se determinó que el 28 de enero de 2025 las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud de Belén, Flores realizaron (junto con autoridades de la Municipalidad de Flores) una nueva inspección en el sitio en cuestión, ocasión en la cual advirtieron a la denunciada sobre la obligación de contar con licencia municipal, se realizó prueba de aguas residuales que resultó positiva y se determinó la carencia del carné de manipulación de alimentos, por lo que, ese mismo día, se giró orden sanitaria y se suspendieron las actividades hasta que se solventaran tales aspectos.
Consta también que el 17 de febrero de 2025 las citadas autoridades sanitarias se apersonaron nuevamente al sitio y verificaron el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en la anterior orden sanitaria, por lo que, a partir de ese momento, el local quedó operando nuevamente. Adicionalmente, se determinó que el 19 de febrero de 2025 se giró informe a la tutelada y el 3 de marzo de 2025 se le notificó una nueva respuesta relacionado con el tema de interés.
En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Flores (aunque no esté recurrida expresamente por la tutelada), cabe apuntar que, igualmente, se ha demostrado que ha realizado actuaciones también dirigidas a solventar la situación en cuestión, producto, a su vez, de dos denuncias planteadas por la recurrente en noviembre de 2024 y enero de 2025. En ese particular, se demostró que en octubre de 2024 trataron de realizar dos inspecciones, pero resultaron infructuosas debido a que no fueron atendidos en el sitio bajo estudio; también, le informaron a la accionante que el local no contaba con patente y el resultado de una de estas inspecciones. Asimismo, consta que en enero de 2025 coordinaron con el área rectora de salud recurrida una inspección en el local y la ejecutaron finalmente el día 28 de ese mes. Igualmente, se verificó que el 28 de febrero de 2025 –días antes incluso, de formulado este amparo–, el municipio otorgó la patente comercial a los denunciados para llevar a cabo sus actividades de elaboración de empanadas. Esto último, a su vez, según se acreditó, se le informó a la accionante el 11 de marzo de 2025, aclarando que, en consecuencia, la situación denunciada ya estaba regularizada.
Segundo, por cuanto, en la especie, se ha acreditado que las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud Flores, Belén, han mantenido a la recurrente con conocimiento de las actuaciones realizadas respecto a las denuncias que planteó y se le han notificado, al efecto y, de manera oportuna, respuestas formales (por escrito). Al respecto, consta que el 24 de octubre de 2024, las autoridades sanitarias le notificaron a la accionante el oficio No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-2752-2024 (como respuesta a la denuncia No. 91-2024 formulada en septiembre del año anterior), mediante el cual se le aclaró que lo tocante al horario de funcionamiento del local comercial competía a la municipalidad y que lo relacionado con el posible incumplimiento a los límites de ruido continuaría analizándose en la primera denuncia (No. 22-2024), dando por cerrada finalmente dicha denuncia. Asimismo, consta que el 29 de octubre de 2024 dichas autoridades le notificaron a la tutelada el informe técnico No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-2772-2024, a través del cual se le narraron los antecedentes de la denuncia (No. 22-2024) y se describieron las acciones efectuadas para su atención.
En este último oficio, además, se concluyó lo siguiente: Que el local ya contaba con permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. Que lo tocante al horario de operación de la cocina era resorte del municipio. Que lo relacionado con la afectación de ruido sí era competencia del área rectora y que, para ello, era necesario indicar día y hora más probable de afectación, para llevar a cabo la medición sónica. Adicionalmente, se determinó que, ante respuesta emitida por la tutelada en virtud de lo dispuesto en el citado informe técnico (en la cual señaló que la medición sónica se podía realizar de lunes a sábado de 12:00 am a 5:00 am), los recurridos le emitieron una nueva respuesta el 30 de octubre de 2024. En esta última ocasión, las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, entre otros aspectos señalados sobre el fondo, le solicitaron a la recurrente aclarar y especificar en qué lapso de las 12:00 am a las 5:00 am se podía realizar la medición. De otra parte, se demostró que el 20 de febrero de 2025, se le comunicó a la recurrente el informe No. MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-479-2025, en el cual se concluyó expresamente lo siguiente:
“Tras efectuar la inspección el 28 de enero 2025, se comprobó una mala disposición de las aguas residuales del establecimiento, y una anomalía pues los manipuladores de alimentos tenían el carné vencido o no tenían el carné. La actividad se suspendió el mismo 28 de enero 2025 mediante orden sanitaria hasta que se subsanaran las anomalías. El 17 de febrero 2025, se efectuó inspección para dar seguimiento a la orden sanitaria, se observó cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCN-DARSBF-OS-003-2025, por lo anterior el establecimiento quedó habilitado para operar nuevamente en lo que respecta al Ministerio de Salud. En relación a los temas o afectaciones denunciadas, queda está pendiente atender el tema de la supuesta afectación por ruido, para atender esta afectación por favor deben informar que (sic) día y que (sic) rango de horario requieren que se realice la medición del ruido, si se solicita en horario antes de las 8 am o posterior a las 4 pm por favor indicar una fecha posterior al 3 de marzo 2025 ya que implica la coordinación administrativa para realizar la habilitación de horario extraordinario de los funcionarios que se presentarían a efectuar la medición”.
Consta que, con motivo de lo consignado en este último documento, la recurrente le indicó al área rectora, el día 2 de marzo del año en curso, los siguiente: “con respecto a la solicitud de medición sónica, realizamos la consulta en la municipalidad y nos confirman que aún no han otorgado ningún permiso, por lo cual aún no están cocinando y la medición no se podría efectuar para confirmar una de nuestras molestias. A la vez nos confirmaron que una ves (sic) que se apruebe o se niegue el mismo nos lo harán saber, y nosotros igual con ustedes (…) quedamos atentos a ver como (sic) se realizará dicha prueba cuando la municipalidad nos dé respuesta”.
Asimismo, se demostró que, como respuesta a esto último, un funcionario del Área Rectora de Salud Belén, Flores, el día 3 de marzo de 2025, le contestó lo siguiente a la amparada:
“Respecto a la medición quedamos a la espera entonces de que nos confirmen la fecha y rango de horas (…) También se aclara, que cuando se interpuso la denuncia, uno de los aspectos denunciados fue que el establecimiento no tenía permiso, por lo que las primeras acciones a ejecutar antes que medir el ruido fue emitir la orden sanitaria para suspender la operación y en eso pasaron varios meses sin trabajar, por lo cual no tenía sentido medir ruido en ese momento. (…) El código CIIU o CAECR asignado al permiso sanitario de funcionamiento de Empanadas Rossy fue el 5610.0, el cual usan los restaurants, pero también permite preparación de alimentos en casas de habitación, así consta en el reglamento decreto 43432-S, en el ANEXO 1 TABLA 1. CLASIFICACIÓN DE ACTIVIDADES COMERCIALES, INDUSTRIALES Y DE SERVICIOS REGULADAS POR EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD SEGÚN NIVEL DE RIESGO SANITARIO Y AMBIENTAL. (BASADO EN CAECR-2011-CIIU VERSION 4): (…) (captura de pantalla del reglamento) Por otro lado, también se explica, respecto a su afirmación sobre que -no han acondicionado el local para evitar ruidos- esto es una condición que se les podría ordenar sólo únicamente posterior a comprobar si hay un incumplimiento de los límites de ruido según el decreto N°44486, artículo 5, lo cual a la fecha no ha sido comprobado”.
De este modo, quedó acreditado que las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud brindaron a la accionante una respuesta oportuna respecto a la resolución del asunto denunciado y que, lo tocante a la molestia por el ruido no se ha podido finalmente resolver, debido a que la denunciante no ha confirmado la fecha y hora de la medición, pues, como se observó, esta estaba a la espera de que el local volviera a funcionar.
De otra parte, en lo que se refiere a las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Flores y la resolución de las denuncias planteadas por la recurrente, se determinó que el día 11 de marzo de 2025 se le notificó a esta última el oficio No. MF-DAT-PAT-CE-011-2025 mediante el cual se indicó que la señora López Montoya había regularizado su actividad comercial y ya contaba con licencia comercial para la actividad de elaboración y distribución de comidas conforme el nombre comercial “Empanadas Rossy”. También se le dijo a la tutelada que “Dado que la situación ha sido debidamente regularizada, se procede a cerrar el caso y dar por concluido el asunto en lo relativo a este proceso de patentes. Debe reiterarse (…) que lo relacionado a olores, ruidos, gases y demás situaciones relacionadas a salud pública, deben reportarlas al Ministerio de Salud de Belén, en caso de cualquier caso de aguas o construcciones puede dirigirse a la dirección de desarrollo Urbano de la municipalidad con Marta o Jane”.
Así las cosas, se tiene que la recurrente obtuvo una respuesta a sus denuncias de previo a que las autoridades municipales tuvieran conocimiento de la interposición de este amparo; es decir, sin que fuera necesaria, siquiera, la intervención de este Tribunal. Por ende, desde esa perspectiva, no podría imputárseles una violación al derecho a obtener justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida (artículo 41 constitucional).
Tercero, habida cuenta que, en la especie, se ha demostrado que, al menos para la fecha de formulado este amparo, no existía ningún problema de índole ambiental que estuviera afectado a la tutelada. Incluso, se demostró que ese estado de cosas persistía para la fecha en que los recurridos rendieron informe a la Sala (25 de marzo de 2025). Nótese que en este asunto se ha acreditado que los problemas en cuanto a la operación del local sin contar con los respectivos permisos, los problemas en cuanto a las aguas servidas y lo tocante a la carencia de carné de manipulación de manipulación de alimentos, ya se solventaron. Además, el tema de ruido (que es precisamente el meollo de este asunto), no se ha podido dilucidar a la fecha, no por la desidia de las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud Flores, Belén, sino porque, según se acreditó, la recurrente no ha podido precisar o concretar una fecha y hora para llevar a cabo la respectiva medición sónica, la cual, a su vez, según se demostró, es necesaria para que se tomen las medidas que eventualmente resulten pertinentes.
En cuanto a este último punto, resulta menester apuntar que la misma accionante ha explicado en el libelo de interposición del amparo que este dato no lo había podido brindar para ese momento, dado que, el local no contaba con el permiso municipal y, en consecuencia, no estaba operando. Esta última afirmación deja entrever, entonces, que, cuando se acudió a la Sala, la recurrente no se estaba viendo afectada por los problemas de ruido que aduce. De este modo, no es posible tener por violentado el derecho fundamental a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 constitucional).
Cuarto, dado que, no le compete a este Tribunal Constitucional, por tratarse de un tema de mera legalidad, analizar y determinar si los denunciados cumplieron o no a cabalidad todos los requisitos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico para obtener el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento y la patente comercial. Mucho menos, desde ese mismo orden de consideraciones, podría esta Sala ordenar la revocación de tales permisos (que es finalmente lo que pretende la accionante con la interposición de este amparo).
No resulta material ni razonablemente posible entrar a un complicado y lento sistema probatorio para dilucidar los referidos aspectos señalados por la recurrente. Por ende, este tipo de agravios deben ser planteados y analizados por las propias autoridades administrativas recurridas o bien, por las respectivas autoridades de la jurisdicción ordinaria, por cuanto claramente 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.
* En mérito de lo expuesto, al no observarse quebrantado los derechos fundamentales de la tutelada, lo que procede es desestimar el presente proceso de amparo.
V.Ahora bien, sin demérito de lo consignado supra, resulta menester advertirles a las autoridades recurridas del Ministerio de Salud que es su obligación dar seguimiento oportuno a la disconformidad que posee la recurrente respecto a la supuesta contaminación sónica generada en el sitio bajo estudio, llevar a cabo las mediciones sónicas correspondientes (una vez que la denunciante aclare el horario pertinente para tal efecto), emitir cualquier otro tipo de acto administrativo que sea pertinente y resolver finalmente este punto como en derecho corresponda.
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 sin lugar el recurso. Tomen nota las autoridades recurridas del Ministerio de Salud de lo dispuesto en el considerando V de la presente sentencia.
Fernando Castillo V.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Jorge Isaac Solano A.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.