← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 38456-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 21/11/2025
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber denies the amparo because it involves a matter of ordinary legality, not a direct violation of fundamental rights, and refers the petitioner to ordinary administrative or judicial channels.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo por tratarse de una discusión de legalidad ordinaria, no de violación directa de derechos fundamentales, y remite al recurrente a la vía administrativa o jurisdiccional ordinaria.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber dismisses an amparo brought by a potato farmer against the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Phytosanitary Service (SFE). The petitioner claimed that repealing the 2012 Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (Zebra Chip) via Technical Report 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE, and subsequently allowing imports of fresh potatoes from countries with the pest, violated his rights to a healthy environment, health, work, and the precautionary principle. The Court holds that the dispute concerns ordinary legality, not direct fundamental rights, as it requires a technical-scientific assessment of phytosanitary measures, their proportionality, and international instruments (IPPC, WTO). The Court notes the petitioner waited nearly three years to file amparo without an imminent national emergency. The amparo is not a vehicle to review phytosanitary policy or process complaints; the SFE maintains strict import requirements, and disputes must be aired in ordinary or administrative courts.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto por un agricultor de papa contra el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería y el Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado (SFE). El recurrente alegaba que la derogatoria del análisis de riesgo de plagas (ARP) de 2012 para la bacteria Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (Zebra Chip) mediante el informe técnico 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE, y la posterior autorización de importación de papas de consumo fresco desde países con la plaga, vulneraba sus derechos a un ambiente sano, salud, trabajo y el principio precautorio. La Sala considera que el debate planteado es de mera legalidad ordinaria, no de derechos fundamentales directos, pues exige un análisis técnico-científico de las medidas fitosanitarias, su proporcionalidad y la aplicación de normativa internacional (CIPF, OMC). Además, señala que el recurrente tardó casi tres años en acudir al amparo sin que surgiera una emergencia nacional inminente. La Sala reitera que el amparo no es vía para revisar políticas fitosanitarias ni tramitar denuncias, y que el SFE mantiene requisitos estrictos de importación, por lo que las controversias deben ventilarse en la jurisdicción ordinaria o administrativa.
Key excerptExtracto clave
III.- ON THE MERITS. Having examined the petitioner's allegations, it must be noted that the purpose of amparo is to provide timely protection against infringements or threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, not to serve as a generic instrument to guarantee the principle of constitutional supremacy or legality, by which one could challenge any other kind of constitutional or legal breach. […] In the present case, however, a reading of the petition shows that although the petitioner invokes an alleged violation of his fundamental rights, he actually seeks that this Chamber analyze the validity of Technical Report No. 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE of 24 November 2022 from a technical-legal standpoint, in order to set it aside and rule that the guidelines of Administrative Resolution NR-ARP-R01 of 1 June 2012 must be reinstated. That would mean channeling a discussion pertaining to ordinary legality into the amparo proceeding […].III.- SOBRE EL FONDO. Vistas las alegaciones de la parte recurrente, se le hace ver que la finalidad del recurso de amparo es brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, no servir como instrumento genérico para garantizar el principio de supremacía constitucional o el principio de legalidad, por medio del cual sea posible accionar contra cualquier otra clase de quebrantos constitucionales o legales. […] En el sub lite, en cambio, una lectura del memorial de interposición de este recurso permite constatar que, aun cuando la parte recurrente invoque una supuesta violación de sus derechos fundamentales, en realidad pretende que esta Sala analice la procedencia del INFORME TÉCNICO N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE, del 24 de noviembre de 2022 desde un punto de vista técnico-legal, a fin de dejarlo sin efecto y declarar en sentencia que se debe volver a los lineamientos establecidos en la resolución administrativa NR-ARP-R01 del 1° de junio de 2012. Lo anterior, empero, significaría reconducir a la vía del amparo una discusión propia de la legalidad ordinaria […].
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"la finalidad del recurso de amparo es brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, no servir como instrumento genérico para garantizar el principio de supremacía constitucional o el principio de legalidad"
"the purpose of amparo is to provide timely protection against infringements or threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, not to serve as a generic instrument to guarantee the principle of constitutional supremacy or legality"
Considerando III
"la finalidad del recurso de amparo es brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, no servir como instrumento genérico para garantizar el principio de supremacía constitucional o el principio de legalidad"
Considerando III
"significaría reconducir a la vía del amparo una discusión propia de la legalidad ordinaria, puesto que no le corresponde a este Tribunal revisar si es cierto que para la importación de tubérculos de papa, por fuerza, debe exigirse un documento de Análisis de Riesgo de Plaga"
"it would mean channeling a discussion pertaining to ordinary legality into the amparo proceeding, since this Court is not called upon to review whether a Pest Risk Analysis document must necessarily be required for potato tuber imports"
Considerando III
"significaría reconducir a la vía del amparo una discusión propia de la legalidad ordinaria, puesto que no le corresponde a este Tribunal revisar si es cierto que para la importación de tubérculos de papa, por fuerza, debe exigirse un documento de Análisis de Riesgo de Plaga"
Considerando III
"Por la vía del amparo, la Sala Constitucional no puede usurpar las atribuciones de las autoridades… a efectos de definir políticas… pues se trata de materias que requieren ponderar criterios técnicos, médico-científicos y de oportunidad y conveniencia"
"Through amparo, the Constitutional Chamber cannot usurp the powers of the authorities… to define policies… since these are matters that require weighing technical, medical-scientific, and opportunity and convenience criteria"
Considerando III
"Por la vía del amparo, la Sala Constitucional no puede usurpar las atribuciones de las autoridades… a efectos de definir políticas… pues se trata de materias que requieren ponderar criterios técnicos, médico-científicos y de oportunidad y conveniencia"
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
Docket: 25-021867-0007-CO Type of matter: Amparo appeal Judgment with protected data, in accordance with current regulations CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-first of November, two thousand twenty-five.
Amparo appeal processed under docket number 25-021867-0007-CO, filed by Name01, identity card CED01, against the MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA Y GANADERÍA and the SERVICIO FITOSANITARIO DEL ESTADO (SFE).-
Whereas:
TWENTY-FIRST: Effect of the repeal of resolution NR-ARP-R01 of 1/6/2012 (ARP CANDIDATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM): It is clear to this petitioner that public policies on the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the promotion of production, and food security have been TOTALLY VIOLATED. It appears (according to fact twenty) that the policies aim to yield to political pressures in the interest of trade, regardless of environmental and national production pollutants coming in and destroying the agricultural heritage, also violating the freedom to work, freedom of enterprise, forcing national producers, not only of potato, but of tomato, chili pepper, and other solanaceae to deal with pathogenic agents not currently present, ultimately resulting in displacement to other sectors, generating unemployment, and unimaginable social disasters in rural areas, which depend on this activity directly and indirectly.
At the time of filing this appeal, THE REPEAL MATERIALIZED by importing potatoes from the USA (documentary evidence) for FRESH TABLE CONSUMPTION PURPOSES, the same that threaten crop fields, with possible inoculum of the disease, cut (as it appears in documentary evidence), and with a high possibility of spreading the pathogen in the national territory. Such is the grievance in the current scenario, that the SFE authorities detected a recent shipment from California, USA, which entered the country under irregular conditions, since it showed signs of active germination, increasing the RISK of PATHOGEN SPREAD, since they can be propagation material, and can spread the disease in the country. IT CLEARLY CONTRAVENES THE PROVISIONS AND MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF DISSEMINATION, and it is strange to see that even with the lifting of phytosanitary measures, shipments with these damages are detained.
(DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 21.1) It was unacceptable that the SFE and MAG wanted to hide the file Code: DAF-SG-Po-05_F-07, WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY A PETITION FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION. Repeatedly, inquiries were made about the file that allowed the entry of TABLE POTATOES, from the USA, which to date has not been delivered, and IS NOT PRESENT IN THE SUPRA FILE. Now IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the way in which the entry of these tubers is allowed is through the fast track, ELIMINATING AN OBSTACLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND ALLIED COUNTRIES (APPARENTLY DUE TO POLITICAL INTERESTS), resulting in the possibility of flooding the market with potatoes that, although contaminated and possibly candidates for rejection, with the UNFOUNDED ELIMINATION of the resolution that protected the national agricultural heritage, can be displayed and sold at points of sale where only fresh national potatoes used to be seen.
Furthermore, the publication of the FLEXIBILIZATION OF MEASURES ONLY WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (ACCORDING TO FACT SIXTEENTH) is strange, when according to the REPEAL, potatoes can be imported from all origins which the Pest Risk Analysis prohibited. Lastly, the manner in which a document backed by scientific criteria, designed to understand a real problem, which is now not addressed, is repealed is unacceptable. The motivation of the act repealing the resolution LACKS SCIENTIFIC BASIS, and therefore does not prove that a phytosanitary risk is not now present.
TWENTY-SECOND: Conclusions: 1. In the present case, if the import of plant products—such as potato tubers—from areas where active quarantine pests such as Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip) exist has been admitted, without conducting a technical risk analysis, or without applying sufficient preventive phytosanitary measures, the Costa Rican State, through the SFE, would be omitting its legal duty to activate the precautionary suspension established in the article. This omission not only compromises the legality of the administrative act but violates the precautionary principle in environmental matters, enshrined in both domestic and international law, and puts fundamental rights such as the right to a healthy environment, public health, and the decent work of farming people at risk. I firmly believe our constitutional rights are being violated, not only as producers, but also as consumers, since the free entry of contaminated materials (as has been proven), threatens the food security of our national territory, inoculating our crop fields with diseases that aim to decrease production as well as alter healthy environments, free from external agents that unleash environmental imbalance and social problems in rural areas, ranging from unemployment, to total displacement towards other sectors of the economy, as a result of the impossibility of managing quarantine diseases, which cause so much damage. 2.
I lament the non-compliance of those who are Phytosanitary Authorities, completely disrespecting current regulations, international treaties, regarding phytosanitary protection, environmental preservation, promotion and protection of the national agricultural heritage. Repeatedly, calls have been made with the aim of obtaining answers to irregular acts, mismanagement of imports and bad trade practices that threaten the national phytosanitary structure, such is the case of this REPEAL (fact twenty) which opens the loophole for any company to import potato vegetative materials, with a view to consumption or with a view to any other activity that is to the detriment of national production (e.g. propagative material). 3. Said actions by the authorities LACK TECHNICAL BASIS and go against the rights and principles of environmental law (Environmental protection, precautionary and preventive) which cause serious risks to the national agricultural ecosystem, in addition to going against principles such as legality, proportionality and legal certainty. 4. This situation really puts national production, public health, the environment and Costa Rican ecosystems and biodiversity at serious risk.
LEGAL BASIS Political Constitution of Costa Rica; articles 11, 27 (obligation of public officials to fulfill their duties and powers granted to them by law, also allowing freedom of petition and demand for accountability by the administered), article 46 (freedom of agricultural enterprise and protection of a healthy environment, security and economic interests of consumers and users, which are violated since the establishment of the pest would condition the continuity of agricultural production, economic interests are harmed by its decrease and the drop in quality implies selling cheaper, plus the imported food due to the conditions in which it is handled and stored represents a risk to the consumer since they would not always obtain safe food) article 50 (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which is violated with the introduction of the pest, the omission of adequate phytosanitary control puts biodiversity, ecological balance and the sustainability of natural resources at risk), articles 56, 57 (the freedom to work and free choice are violated since imports displace local production, in addition to the pest conditioning the activity making it less profitable and therefore generating displacement towards other sectors and article 74 (the rights of this Constitution are inalienable, therefore we request they be restored to us).
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) since its main objective is to protect the world's plant resources from pests that may affect them, as well as to reject imports that represent a phytosanitary risk without an adequate risk analysis and prevent the entry of quarantine pests such as Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip).
Articles 1, 2, 5, 8, 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, 44 and following of the Phytosanitary Protection Law No. 7664 Which regulates and prevents the entry and dissemination of pests that threaten food security and the agricultural economy; where additionally the State Phytosanitary Service may suspend or restrict, temporarily or permanently, the introduction into the country of products of plant origin, when there is a risk that they may introduce or disseminate pests that endanger national plant health or the country's biodiversity.
Executive decree 26921-MAG (Regulation of Law 7664), decree No. 36801-MAG (organization of the SFE, resolution NR-ARP-RF01 of June 1, 2012, G/SPS/N/CRI121 and 122 of 2012, 1°, 6°, of Law 1970, Annex 1A: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (Law 7475-D), Annex B: 2 Transparency of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations, General Public Administration Law No. 6227 and Constitutional Jurisdiction Law No. 7135, Right to health (art. 46 P.C. and art. 12 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - ICESCR) The introduction of a pest that requires an increase in the use of toxic agrochemicals for its control compromises the health of consumers, agricultural workers and neighboring communities, affecting their right to live in healthy conditions.
Right to work and fair working conditions (art. 56 P.C. and art. 6 of the ICESCR): The introduction of a pest that could affect all crops directly threatens the sustainability of agricultural employment, especially in rural areas, affecting thousands of farmers and agricultural workers.
Right to adequate food (art. 11 ICESCR and General Comment No. 12 of the UN Committee on ESCR): By compromising the national production of basic foods such as potatoes, the availability, quality and access to an essential food of the basic basket is affected.
Right to participation and access to environmental information (art. 1 and 2 of the Escazú Agreement, ratified by Costa Rica): Farmers and citizens have not been adequately informed or consulted about the phytosanitary risks of this import, which violates the principle of public participation and access to relevant environmental information.
Organic Environmental Law (Law No. 7554) Article 4: Environmental precautionary principle. If there is a serious or irreversible risk, preventive action must be taken even if there is no absolute scientific certainty. Article 17 and following: Establish protection duties against impacts on the environment and biodiversity.
General Public Administration Law (LGAP) Violation of the principle of legality (art. 11), by allowing imports without complying with current legal requirements. Eventual patrimonial liability of the State for omissions that generate damage (art. 190 et seq.).
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) – WTO; By establishing that countries may adopt measures to protect plant health, but they must be scientifically justified and consistent with the risk. The SFE would be in breach of the principle of equivalence and risk analysis.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Costa Rica is a signatory. It requires taking measures to prevent the introduction of invasive species that could put biodiversity at risk.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. TO DECLARE WITH MERIT the present amparo appeal against the Costa Rican STATE and the State Phytosanitary Service.
2. TO SUSPEND OR ANNUL the administrative act of REPEAL OF THE PEST RISK ANALYSIS (RESOLUTION 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE of November 24, 2022) 3. To order as an URGENT PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE the IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of all import of POTATO TUBERS for INDUSTRY purposes, FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH IMPOSED PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (by resolution NR-ARP-RF01 of 1/6/2012), until it is VERIFIED that they comply with all the measures imposed by the supra resolution.
4. To order as an URGENT PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE the IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of all import of POTATO TUBERS for FRESH CONSUMPTION purposes, FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH IMPOSED PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (by resolution NR-ARP-RF01 of 1/6/2012).
5. To order the seizure of POTATO TUBERS for fresh consumption purposes (from the USA), which are sold today at different points of sale in the country (Supermercado’ Automercado, wholesale markets CENADA and MAYOREO’) and ORDER their DESTRUCTION.
6. To declare with merit the CONDEMNATION to the payment of COSTS, DAMAGES AND LOSSES against the COSTA RICAN STATE.
8. To send a CERTIFIED COPY of the file to the Procuraduría General de la República so that the eventual ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY of the officials involved here be assessed."
Similarly, the way in which the SFE operates seems strange, so that, even while lifting the restriction, it demonstrates (evidence provided in a report, named: ‘Administrative Resolution number RA-CFI-ECA-035-2025), that it STOPPED AND SEIZED a shipment of potatoes, originating from the USA, destined for the fresh consumption market, BECAUSE a diagnostic molecular biology laboratory analysis, with sample number 149.841, TESTED POSITIVE for the pest CANDIDATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM, even UNDER THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE PHYTOSANITARY MEASURE (THE ABOVE IS SEEN IN THE SAME RESOLUTION IN THE RECITALS SEGMENT, POINT 2. These behaviors are unacceptable to this party, rather strange and full of very serious contradictions that should not exist in this area nor in the SFE. Point 4,5,6,7: It is unacceptable. The SFE authorities, with the enactment of resolution 469-2022, lift the phytosanitary measure for Zebra Chip and thereby violate imperative mandates, besides casting the nation's actions in a bad light before international organizations, since in an atypical and incorrect manner with respect to legality, they repeal regulatory bodies that constitute phytosanitary barriers to the entry of pests, solely due to apparent diplomatic pressure.
Furthermore, this truly caused an impact on the national tuber markets due to the speculation caused. Point 8: Reiterating, the claim of this appellant party, in addition to those set forth in the filing brief, is that RESOLUTION 469-2022 BE REPEALED AND THUS THE PRA FOR CANDIDATUS LIBERIBACTER REMAINS IN FORCE, therefore, the impediment TO THE ENTRY OF CONTAMINATED TUBERS TO CR from places that have the pest. The suspension or annulment of said resolution should not generate a deterioration in barriers already existing and taken into account in said act, since each one has a PRA and scientific support. The aim is to generate compliance with phytosanitary measures, in order to protect the national agricultural heritage, using and exhausting all possibilities to delay or completely prevent the entry of quarantine pests that would diminish and destroy national production, specifically the potato sector.”
Drafted by Magistrate Picado Brenes; and,
Considering:
The appellant states that he comes before this Chamber, in his capacity as a farmer and potato grower, with the aim of demonstrating an omission by the SFE when rigorously applying the regulations in force on the importation of potato tubers from areas affected by the quarantine pest Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip), as well as its willingness to allow their entry into the country for purposes other than regulated industrial use, since this constitutes a direct and serious violation of various fundamental rights, internal legal norms, and international obligations of the Costa Rican State. He explains that, according to the SFE resolution with notification number to the WTO G/SPS/N/CRI/121, dated March 19, 2012, the importation of potato tubers was suspended as an emergency measure, in order to conduct a pest risk analysis review of the bacterium Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum, causing the Zebra chip disease in potatoes, and permanent in tomatoes and other solanaceous plants, as well as its vector Bactericera cockerelli, due to its rapid dispersion and spread in Central America, specifically in Nicaragua, and the change in phytosanitary control measures of the neighboring country, which could cause the spread of the pest in national territory.
All of this based on regulations, the Phytosanitary Protection Law (N°7664), the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for quarantine pests International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures publication N°11 FAO, Rome. Consequently, through administrative resolution NR-ARP-R01 of June 1, 2012, prepared by the SFE Pest Risk Analysis Unit, the PRA was generated for “Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip) and its vector Bactericera cockerelli (paratrioza)”, expressly indicating that it was binding for any country where the pest was found. Based on the conclusions of the investigation, resolution NR-ARP-R01 suspended the importation of fresh and industrial-use tubers due to the quarantine pest Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum for the countries of Nicaragua, El Salvador, the United States of America, and Canada, among others. For this reason, it was decided to impose the following measures: “CONCLUSIONS OF THE PRA INVESTIGATION: The probability level yielded by the investigation, coupled with the presence of the pest in the neighboring country NICARAGUA, it is decided to establish measures that are in favor of preserving good phytosanitary status: FIRST: Pest-free area or pest-free place of production for 'Zebra chip': This would be a measure to guarantee that imported tubers do not contain the disease, all based on ‘International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM), requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas and pest-free production sites, 1999 (ISPM N°10, FAO, Rome).
If this condition could be demonstrated, it reduces the risk of entry, and it must also be recognized by the SFE, this for the purpose of ‘Pest-free area’ (Documentary evidence) SECOND: Quarantine Processing: FROM UNLOADING UNTIL PROCESSING, maintain in quarantine conditions and the waste generated from the importation of tubers THIRD: Come with ANTI-SPROUTING TREATMENT before or after harvest, this as a protective measure to reduce the risk that a tuber is planted and grows a diseased plant that eventually spreads the pathogen. FOURTH: ,- Must take into account the absence of the vector in shipments, in case of cargoes of other Solanaceous type plants that serve as an entry pathway, -The Product will be subject to diagnostic laboratory analysis to determine the absence of the bacteria, -Requirement for a certificate stating ((Product comes from a production area officially inspected by the National Plant Protection Organization NPPO of the country of origin during the period of ACTIVE GROWTH, HARVEST AND PACKING and found free of Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (the above would comply and be equivalent to ‘PEST-FREE AREA’ OR ‘PEST-FREE PLACE OF PRODUCTION’.
(Documentary evidence 11) Conclusion of the analysis of the ‘Potato psyllid Bactericera cockerelli’ (paratrioza) It is decided to impose the following measures: First-Every shipment must be subjected to laboratory tests to ensure the absence of the pest. Second- In addition, each shipment must come with the certificate of ‘Pest-free area’, Third: Finally, it is indicated that the product must be under laboratory analysis to rule out the possibility of the presence of the bacteria causing ZEBRA CHIP. (Documentary evidence 11.2) Bibliographic sources”. Likewise, the requirements were established “...FOR THE IMPORTATION OF POTATO TUBERS FOR INDUSTRY IN RELATION TO THE PEST CANDIDATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM (ZEBRA CHIP)(ALSO MENTIONED IN FACT ELEVEN)’ and it says: ‘in the case of POTATOES WHOSE END USE IS CONSUMPTION OR SEED, surveillance must be taken into account, this due to additional risks, which is why the SFE would not allow importation BY VIRTUE THAT THE PHYTOSANITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA CANNOT COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT’, and it says ‘However, in the case of potatoes for industrial purposes, it is possible, given that it was agreed as part of the pest risk management, the implementation at origin of a bilateral work plan (protocol) between the NPPOs of each country in which control measures are integrated that must be complied with in order to guarantee the absence of the pest in question’... the importation of potato tubers is allowed, ONLY FOR INTENDED USE FOR INDUSTRY... under the modality of quarantine processing in authorized premises”.
Likewise, if the SFE recognized the condition established in the established phytosanitary requirements, the product could enter the country, carrying a “‘Tamper seal ‘directly to the processing premises under the control of authorized SFE officials, during the process until exhaustion’. ‘The requirements previously established for quarantine pests remain in force, as well as the anti-sprouting treatment (pre- or post-harvest). And they say ‘Established phytosanitary requirements: 1. Additional requirement for countries or states of the USA without presence of the pest: come accompanied by an OFFICIAL PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE FROM THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OR STATE THAT IT IS FREE OF THE PEST. 2. Additional requirement for countries or States with presence of the pest: THE PRODUCT COMES FROM AN AREA OR PLACE OF PRODUCTION OFFICIALLY INSPECTED BY THE NATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION, DURING THE PERIOD OF ACTIVE GROWTH, HARVEST AND PACKING AND FOUND FREE OF THE PEST.
The above as equivalence to ‘PEST-FREE AREA’ OR ‘PEST-FREE PLACE OF PRODUCTION’ of the pest. All this, without prejudice to being recognized by the SFE and it is its decision to accept or not the surveillance information carried out and if a verification or inspection is necessary at the origin of the plantations and packing places that may include analysis”. However, through technical report N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE of November 24, 2022, the following was indicated, among other things: “-The PRA document was prepared following a procedure that the PRA Unit (current) has determined obsolete. -PRA dates from 2012 and its scientific considerations are based on the literature available at the time. -The measures seem to be more restrictive than necessary, are not proportional to the risk, and are being maintained without scientific evidence, -The measures were not analyzed for their viability: an example of this is that the SFE has neither the budget nor the personnel to carry out the surveillance work”.
Likewise, it was said: “THE PRA UNIT MET ON NOVEMBER 23, 2022 AND REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS CITED IN THIS REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSAL, WITH WHICH IT IS INDICATED THAT IN MINUTE 474-2022 THE PRA UNIT DISCUSSED THE PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE PRA FOR CANDIDATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM AND THE MEASURES FOR VIRUSES, BACTERIA AND NEMATODES IN THE PATHWAY OF FRESH POTATO TUBERS FOR CONSUMPTION AND INDUSTRY, WITH ALL BEING IN AGREEMENT ON THE FOREGOING, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION THAT PRAs REQUIRE” and, additionally, in the recommendations section, it was indicated: “- DO NOT CONDUCT A PRA FOR ZEBRA CHIP, IN PATHWAYS OF FRESH TUBERS FOR CONSUMPTION AND INDUSTRIAL USE.- ESTABLISH NEW PHYTOSANITARY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENTRY OF POTATO TUBERS (FROM ALL COUNTRIES WHERE THE RESTRICTION EXISTED, LEAVING AS MAIN MEASURES, AMONG OTHERS, THE ABSENCE OF TRACES OF SOIL, SLUGS AND SNAILS”.
This, in the appellant's opinion, left the production, the environment, and the agricultural enterprise unprotected, without arguments or scientific support for why the phytosanitary measures, which were sustained under scientific criteria in the face of real risks, were eliminated, besides violating national and international regulations. Subsequently, the appellant alleges, the years 2024 and part of 2025 were exceptional because situations arose that prevented the continuity of potato production, generating a temporary shortage of that product. This fact encouraged various sectors to import potato tubers for fresh consumption purposes, for industrial use (potato chips), and even for processing in restaurants and food sales. In many cases, the importation was carried out licitly (tubers for industry), but in others, the entry occurred illicitly (fresh consumption tubers coming from countries such as Nicaragua, Panama, and others in Central America).
In this latter case, the entries were not traced, since they involved contraband materials that also lacked phytosanitary registration —which, in any case, restricted their entry according to resolution NR-ARP-R01—. Even so, the appellant accuses that, apparently, the scarcity motivated the authorities to allow the entry of imported products, even though there are technical phytosanitary norms that prevent their entry to preserve the agricultural heritage and avoid cross-contamination that has serious environmental, social, economic, and cultural implications. In this context, the claimant accuses that the draft administrative resolution N° DSFE-0002-2025, provided: “The State Phytosanitary Service, executive directorate, establishes the phytosanitary requirements for the importation of fresh potato tubers (Solanum Tuberosum) for consumption, United States of America”. Said draft, without being an administrative resolution, without having an effective date, nor the signature of the head to authorize it, as indicated by the General Law of Public Administration, did not constitute a binding resolution.
However, it was issued against resolution NR-ARP-R01, which suspended the importation of fresh and industrial-use tubers due to the quarantine pest Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum, (Zebra Chip) established for the countries of Nicaragua, El Salvador, the United States of North America, and Canada. Subsequently, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock published a press release, through which the head indicated that “the importation of potatoes is a common practice among nations, and it is always done in an orderly manner”, all of this, without the resolution mentioned in the previous fact being approved, which generated incentives for unscrupulous individuals to import contraband potato tubers from the aforementioned countries and for the importing sector to divert imported potato tubers for exclusive industrial use to the market that sells fresh products, violating prohibition NR-ARP-R01.
Likewise, importers and exporters of other types of goods also chose to bring potatoes, claiming they were for industry, which constituted inadequate handling of imports according to the PRA. In addition to this, at the time of presenting this appeal, the repeal was materialized by importing potatoes from the USA (documentary evidence) for fresh table consumption purposes, the same ones that threaten crop fields, with possible inoculum of the disease, cut and with a high possibility of spreading the pathogen in the national territory. Thus, he affirms that, at present, the importation guidelines are disrespected, even in the face of repeated calls for attention from trade union representations to the SFE, with the sole purpose of ensuring Costa Rican phytosanitary safety, the same ones that have been unsuccessful, to the point of putting national fields at serious risk, as a result of the neglect and poor response capacity that this authority has in the face of reported irregular acts.
He affirms that if the importation of plant products —such as potato tubers— from areas in which active quarantine pests such as Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip) exist has been admitted, without conducting a technical risk analysis, or without applying sufficient preventive phytosanitary measures, the Costa Rican State, through the SFE, would be omitting its legal duty to activate the precautionary suspension established in the article. This omission not only compromises the legality of the administrative act, but also violates the precautionary principle in environmental matters, enshrined in both domestic and international law, and puts at risk fundamental rights such as the right to a healthy environment, public health, and the decent work of farming people. Consequently, he requests to suspend or annul the administrative act repealing the pest risk analysis, contained in resolution N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE of November 24, 2022; to order the seizure of fresh potato tubers for consumption originating from the USA and order their destruction.
Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed as duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:
“...Justification: after carrying out the requested actions, the PRA Unit considers that in compliance in good faith with international treaties and the available scientific literature, as well as the jurisprudence of the case in the WTO, DS524: Costa Rica - Measures concerning the importation of fresh avocados from Mexico, the following should be taken into consideration:
In relation to the PRA document attached to notification G/SPS/N/CRI/122 and the document with the phytosanitary requirements for potato (Solanum tuberosum) for industry.
• The PRA dates from 2012 and its scientific considerations are based on the literature available at the time.
• The notified documents lack elements such as author (responsible professional), position, and signature. It is assumed that the documents are official given that they are attached to a notification made by Costa Rica through the WTO.
• The notified PRA document is based on the possibilities that a series of events occur but not on the probabilities and magnitude of the impact that such situations occur, as a risk assessment for plant health must be carried out, according to the relevant international standards, agreements, and treaties.
• The document was prepared following a procedure that the PRA Unit has determined obsolete and that has been described by the PRA expert consulted by the special group in the WTO dispute settlement case DS524: Costa Rica - Measures concerning the importation of fresh avocados from Mexico, as simplistic, inflexible, and with results that are not defensible.
• The PRA document is not congruent regarding its relationship between the risk level result and the risk management proposal. It establishes a medium risk, on a scale of ‘high, medium, low’ and a series of measures that are among the most restrictive measures for trade.
• The document is based on the premise of the absence of Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum and Bactericera cockerelli, however, it does not provide evidence of the absence of said pests in the PRA area.
• The PRA does not clearly define the pathway to be analyzed ‘This study was conducted to determine the quarantine risk for the importation of potato tubers for fresh consumption (including in the future material for propagation) from any country where the pest Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum ‘Zebra chip’ (ZC) is present.’ This makes it unclear if the determined risk is for a product imported for planting or for consumption.
• The PRA lacks bibliographic references for many of the assertions it makes, such as the importance of potatoes in the country, the diversion of use of imported potatoes for consumption or industry towards planting, the estimation of the quantity of potatoes that could potentially be diverted from their intended use for consumption or industry towards planting, duration of the pest's developmental stage in relation to transport and storage time, prevalence of the pest probably related to a shipment, commercial procedures, distribution of imported potatoes in the country, risk derived from by-products or waste.
• The PRA lacks the section indicating which phytosanitary measures were taken into account and why the measures communicated in the document notified via G/SPS/N/CRI/122 were decided upon.
In relation to the pest • From report ARP-004-20182 it is extracted that ‘'Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum' (synonym 'Candidatus Nombre02 psyllaurous') associated with solanaceous plants was identified in 2008 in New Zealand (Nombre04, Perez-Egusquiza and Nombre05 2008; Nombre04 et al. 2009) and in the United States (Hansen et al. 2008). It was subsequently detected in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico (Nombre06 2014; Nelson, Fisher and Nombre07 2011) and on Norfolk Island (NIQS 2014). The bacterium is transmitted by the psyllids Bactericera cockerelli, Bactericera trigonica (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012b; EPPO 2017; Nombre08 et al. 2017) and Trioza apicalis (Munyaneza et al. 2010b; Nombre07 et al. 2015). The bacterium was first found outside of solanaceous hosts in Finland (Munyaneza et al. 2010b, a), later it was reported in carrot crops in: Norway (Munyaneza et al. 2012a), Sweden (Munyaneza et al. 2012b), Germany (Munyaneza et al. 2015), Austria (EPPO 2015), France (Loiseau et al. 2014), Spain (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012a; EPPO 2012; Teresani et al. 2014b), Canary Islands (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012b), and Italy (Ilardi, Di Nicola and Nombre09 2016).
The pest was reported for the first time in Africa in Morocco (Tahzima et al. 2014). 'Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum' has been reported in celery (Apium graveolens) in Austria (EPPO 2015), parsley (Petroselinum crispum), celeriac (Petroselinum crispum), parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) and celery (Apium graveolens) in Spain (Alfaro-Fernández, Hernández-Llopis & Font 2017; Nombre10 et al. 2015; Teresani et al. 2014b). It was detected in chervil and fennel in France (Hajri et al. 2017).’.
• The scientific literature indicates that plants produced from tubers infested with Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum do not contribute significantly to the incidence and spread of the pest in the potato (Solanum tuberosum) plantation. It is reported that tubers infested with Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum generally do not sprout, and if they do, they produce etiolated shoots or weak plants; the bacterium is transmitted from plant to plant by the psyllid Bactericera cockerelli, and the pest management strategy focuses on the control of the vector psyllid. Transmission of Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum through tubers could play a role in the pathogen's life cycle, providing an acquisition source for Bactericera cockerelli and for the movement of the pathogen to other areas.
In relation to the diversion of use • According to International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms, intended use is defined as: ‘Declared purpose for which plants, plant products or other articles are imported, produced or used [ISPM 16, 2002; formerly 'proposed use' and 'destined use'; revised, CPM, 2009]’ • ‘A problem that frequently occurs in the trade of products and that has implications for the risk of pests and the intensity of the phytosanitary measures adopted is the diversion from the intended use. ‘Diversion’ occurs when products are used for something other than their intended use, for example, a product whose intended use is consumption is ‘diverted’ and used for planting. The main problem that arises with the diversion from the intended use occurs when an importing country establishes stricter requirements than what is technically justified, due to the potential diversion from the intended use’ 6. ‘Importing countries typically cannot provide ex ante estimates for the magnitude of the problem or estimate the associated risk and therefore cannot propose measures based on the assessed risk of diversion’.
• ‘Resulting from conservatively constructed models, it is indicated that the establishment of pests in Mexico, through the importation of potato (Solanum tuberosum) for consumption originating from the United States of America, which is diverted from its intended use towards planting, is extremely unlikely. Both at the estimated export volumes and at twice the estimated export volume. Infested potatoes have very little probability of ending up in situations where the diversion of use could result in the establishment of pests, due to a series of factors related to the pathway in addition to the low probability that a potato will be diverted for use as seed.’ The results of said study indicate that a 10% probability of introduction of pests (nematodes, viruses, and bacteria) through diversion of use was not reached, even with 100% of all potatoes that could potentially be diverted, being diverted. ‘This indicates that the diversion of use of potatoes does not pose a high phytosanitary risk despite the extremely unlikely situation in which every small and medium producer who could divert the intended use of the potatoes does so.’ In relation to the measures currently established for the importation of potato tubers.
• The measures seem to be more restrictive than necessary, are not proportional to the risk, and are being maintained without scientific evidence.
• The measures were not analyzed for their viability, for example, ‘quarantine processing in authorized premises’ is not viable, as the SFE does not have the personnel or budget to carry out this work. Evidence of the above is that the procedure established for this purpose ‘CFI-PO-08 Post-entry follow-up procedure for potatoes for industrial use’ was repealed on June 25, 2019.
• Taking into account case DS524: Costa Rica - Measures concerning the importation of fresh avocados from Mexico, Costa Rica's measures seemed to be discriminatory by not being able to demonstrate that the pests Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum and Bactericera cockerelli are absent from Costa Rica at the time of adopting the phytosanitary measures.
The PRA Unit met on November 23, 2022, and reviewed the documents cited in this report and the recommendations proposal, with which it is indicated in minute 474-2022 ‘The PRA Unit discussed the proposal to repeal the PRA for Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum and the measures for viruses, bacteria, and nematodes in the pathway of fresh potato tuber (Solanum tuberosum) pathways, for consumption and industry, with all being in agreement on the foregoing, taking into account the technical justification that PRAs require.’ Recommendations for the Directorate of the SFE:
• Do not conduct a pest risk analysis for Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum in the pathways of fresh potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum), for consumption and industry.
• Repeal the following resolutions: Resolution DSFE-12-2014, Resolution DSFE-12-2016 and Resolution No. 210-2022-NR-ARP-SFE.
• Establish the following phytosanitary import requirements for fresh potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum) for consumption or industry, originating from the following countries:
o Nicaragua, the shipment must come accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, the shipment must come free of soil and any snail or slug (pre-printed requirement on the import permit).
o El Salvador, the shipment must come accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, the shipment must come free of soil and any snail or slug (pre-printed requirement on the import permit).
o Honduras, the shipment must come accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, the shipment must come free of soil and any snail or slug (pre-printed requirement on the import permit).
o United States of America, any State, the shipment must come accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate indicating in the additional declarations section that it is free of Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Epitrix tuberis, Listroderes costirostris, Naupactus leucoloma, Symmetrischema tangolias and Golovinomyces orontii.
It is alternatively accepted that it comes from a place of production free of the indicated pest(s), or the additional declaration that the pest is not present in the area of origin.
Or Canada, the shipment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate indicating in the additional declarations section that it is free of: *Synchytrium endobioticum*, *Epitrix tuberis*, *Leptinotarsa decemlineata*, *Polyscytalum pustulans* and *Golovinomyces orontii*. It is permitted to substitute the additional declaration of free of *Synchytrium endobioticum* for a pest-free area for said pest when the exporting NPPO so requires. As well as alternatively that it comes from a place of production free of the indicated pest(s), or the additional declaration that the pest is not present in the area of origin.
• For products imported for fresh consumption, from any origin, comply with the general requirement for fresh consumption: It must come duly packaged and identified and free of plant residues, soil, snails and slugs'" (report and evidence on file).
Having reviewed the allegations of the appellant, it is pointed out that the purpose of the amparo remedy is to provide timely protection against violations or threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, not to serve as a generic instrument to guarantee the principle of constitutional supremacy or the principle of legality, through which it is possible to take action against any other type of constitutional or legal breaches. For this reason, the admissibility of the amparo remedy, in general, is conditioned not only on proving the existence of a disturbance—or threat thereof—to one or more of the rights or guarantees contemplated in the Political Constitution or those of a fundamental nature established in international human rights instruments signed and duly incorporated into the legal system, but also on the alleged grievance involving a direct and gross threat or breach of those rights, which endangers that part of their content that is essential and inherent to them, that is, the core that lends them their peculiarity and makes them recognizable as rights of a specific nature.
The foregoing, in doctrine, is known as the minimum essential content of the right, which is violated, for example, when the exercise of the right in question is conditioned on compliance with conditions, prerequisites or requirements of such a nature that, in practice, make its use materially impossible or nugatory. In this sense, the constitutional jurisprudence has specified that the problem of direct and indirect violations of the Constitution also involves a necessary assessment of the suitability and expeditious nature that must characterize the amparo process. It has been stated that "…in essence, the basic idea may lie in the distinction between a direct and an indirect injury to fundamental rights. In sound constitutional doctrine the criterion is based on the fact that any infringement of legality, in matters related to those rights, may eventually cause injury to those fundamental rights, but when it involves a merely indirect injury, because there exist within the state apparatus bodies that can and must safeguard those rights and repair their violation, it falls to them to hear the matter and not to this Chamber..." (Judgment No. 1610-90 of 15:03 hours on December 9, 1990).
The latter highlights the reason why the amparo process is eminently summary in nature—that is, brief and simple—and its processing is not compatible with the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings, or with the need to previously examine—on a declaratory basis—whether the infra-constitutional rights that the parties cite as part of the factual framework of the amparo remedy or the report required by law, as the case may be, actually exist. Thus, for example, in judgment No. 2020005548 of 09:50 hours on March 17, 2020, the Chamber ordered the following:
"Through the amparo remedy, the Constitutional Chamber cannot usurp the powers of the authorities of the Ministries of Public Education and Health, for the purpose of defining public health policies in relation to educational centers, as these are matters that require weighing technical, medical-scientific, and timeliness and convenience criteria. Such issues, due to their nature and complexity, must be resolved through ordinary channels, administrative or jurisdictional, but not in this venue." In the case at hand, however, a reading of the brief filing this remedy confirms that, even though the appellant invokes an alleged violation of his fundamental rights, he actually intends for this Chamber to analyze the propriety of TECHNICAL REPORT No. 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE, of November 24, 2022, from a technical-legal standpoint, in order to nullify it and declare in the judgment that the guidelines established in administrative resolution NR-ARP-R01 of June 1, 2012, must be reverted to.
The foregoing, however, would mean redirecting to the amparo process a discussion pertaining to ordinary legality, since it is not for this Court to review whether it is true that for the import of potato tubers, a Pest Risk Analysis document must necessarily be required, or whether, rather, the phytosanitary measures taken in 2012 were more restrictive than necessary—all of this in accordance with a technical analysis of the situation, carried out concomitantly with an assessment of the infra-constitutional regulations applicable to the case, the application of the International Plant Protection Convention in aspects that go beyond the subject matter of fundamental rights and, even, the weighing of timeliness and convenience criteria—. Notice also that TECHNICAL REPORT No. 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE dates from 2022 and it is only now, in 2025, that the plaintiff resorts to amparo, without any pressing situation, of national emergency, having arisen during all that time in relation to the questions he raises.
To this is added that the respondent authorities are correct in indicating that phytosanitary policy cannot be used as an indirect method to control international trade—since that would denature its purpose—, nor can the actions that private citizens take once a provision is made public be attributed to it, as a matter of principle.
The appellant should also bear in mind that, according to the provisions of articles 43 and 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the report of the body or official identified as the author of a grievance, threat or omission shall be considered given under oath, and any inaccuracy or falsehood in it shall cause the official to incur the penalties of perjury or false testimony. Therefore, if the appellant considers that the report rendered in the proceedings contains falsehoods, it must go and dispute it through the appropriate channels.
Finally, through the amparo remedy, the Constitutional Chamber also does not constitute itself as a mere processing body for complaints, as this, again, would necessitate carrying out complex evidentiary proceedings, in order to establish alleged civil, disciplinary, or even criminal liabilities. Consequently, as it is reported that the SFE maintains and applies strict phytosanitary requirements for the import of potato, such as: 1) Mandatory sprout inhibitor treatment; 2) Express prohibition of use as seed; 3) Documentary and physical inspection at points of entry, with immediate seizure in case of non-compliance and 4) Protocols for the destruction of contaminated sprouts or tubers through laboratory diagnostic pest analysis, if the plaintiff knows of specific cases of importers and exporters who disregard import guidelines, or occasions on which the import of potato tubers from areas and other plant products from areas where active quarantine pests exist, such as Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip), has been permitted without applying sufficient preventive phytosanitary measures, as established in the current regulations, it must file the corresponding complaints before the competent Authorities.
Thus, ultimately, it is appropriate that the claim made be resolved through ordinary channels, administrative or jurisdictional, and the protected party must, if it deems fit, raise its disagreements before the competent legal venue, since it is in that venue where it will be able, fully, to discuss the merits of the matter and assert its claims.
The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper documents, 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 removed from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The remedy is declared WITHOUT MERIT.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ana María Picado B.
Telephones: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección01, Dirección02, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).
It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 11:48:51.
Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas quince minutos del veintiuno de noviembre de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 25-021867-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED01, contra el MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA Y GANADERÍA y el SERVICIO FITOSANITARIO DEL ESTADO (SFE).-
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Picado Brenes; y,
Considerando:
El recurrente manifiesta acudir ante esta Sala, en su condición de agricultor y cultivador de papas, con el ánimo de demostrar una omisión del SFE a la hora de aplicar de manera rigurosa la normativa vigente sobre la importación de tubérculos de papa desde zonas afectadas por la plaga cuarentenaria Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip), así como su voluntad de permitir su ingreso al país con fines distintos al uso industrial regulado, toda vez que con ello se configura una vulneración directa y grave a diversos derechos fundamentales, normas legales internas y obligaciones internacionales del Estado costarricense. Explica que, según la resolución del SFE con número de notificación ante la OMC G/SPS/N/CRI/121, de fecha de 19 de marzo de 2012, se suspendió la importación de tubérculos de papa como medida de urgencia, con el fin de hacer una revisión de análisis de riesgos de plagas de la bacteria Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum, causante de la enfermedad Zebra chip en la papa, y permanente en tomate y demás solanáceas, así como su vector Bactericera cockerelli, por su rápida dispersión y propagación en Centroamérica, específicamente en Nicaragua, y el cambio de medidas fitosanitarios de control del país vecino, el cual podía causar la propagación de la plaga en territorio nacional.
Todo ello fundamentado en normativa, ley de Protección fitosanitaria (N°7664), Acuerdo sobre medidas sanitarias y Fitosanitarias de la OMC, Análisis de Riesgo de Plagas (ARP) para plagas cuarentenarias Normas internacionales para medidas fitosanitarias publicación N°11 FAO, Roma. Por consiguiente, por medio de la resolución administrativa NR-ARP-R01 del 1° de junio de 2012, confeccionada por Unidad de Análisis de Riesgos de plagas del SFE, se generó el ARP, para “Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip) y su vector Bactericera cockerelli (paratrioza)”, indicándose expresamente que era vinculante para cualquier país donde se encontrara la plaga. Con base en las conclusiones de la investigación, la resolución NR-ARP-R01 suspendía la importación de tubérculos frescos y de uso industrial por plaga cuarentenaria Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum para los países de Nicaragua, El Salvador, Estados Unidos de América y Canadá, entre otros.
En razón de ello, se optó por imponer las siguientes medidas: “CONCLUSIONES DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN de ARP: El nivel de probabilidad que arroja la investigación, aunado a la presencia de la plaga en el país vecino NICARAGUA, se opta por establecer medidas que vayan en pro de preservar el buen estatus fitosanitario: PRIMERA: Área libre o lugar de producción libre de 'Zebra chip': Seria una medida para garantizar que los tubérculos importados no contienen la enfermedad, todo ello con base en ‘Normas Internacionales de medidas Fitosanitarias (NIMF), requisitos para el establecimiento de áreas libres de plagas y sitios de producción libres de plagas, 1999(NIMF N°10, FAO, Roma). Si dicha condición pudiera demostrarse disminuye el riesgo de ingreso, además debe ser reconocida por el SFE, esto con el fin de ‘Área libre de plaga’ (Prueba documental ) SEGUNDA: Procesamiento en Cuarentena: DESDE EL DESMBARQUE HASTA EL PROCESAMIENTO mantener en condiciones de cuarentena y los desechos generados de la importación de tubérculos TERCERA: Venir con TRATAMIENTO ANTIBROTANTE antes o después de la cosecha, esto como medida de protección para disminuir el riesgo que un tubérculo sea plantado y haga crecer una planta enferma que eventualmente propague el patógeno.
CUARTO: ,-Debe tomar en cuenta la ausencia del vector en los envíos, en caso de cargamentos de otras plantas de tipo Solanáceas que sirvan como vía de ingreso, -El Producto estará sujeto a análisis de laboratorio de diagnóstico para la determinación de ausencia de la batería, -Requisito de certificado que indique ((Producto procede de un área libre de producción oficialmente inspeccionada por la Organización Nacional de Protección Fitosanitaria ONPF, del país de origen durante el periodo de CRECIMIENTO ACTIVO, COSECHA Y EMPAQUE y encontrado libre de Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (lo anterior cumpliría y sería equivalente a ‘AREA LIBRE’ O ‘LUGAR DE PRODUCCION LIBRE’.( Prueba documental 11) Conclusión del análisis del ‘Psilido de la papa Bactericera cockerelli’ (paratrioza) Se opta por imponer las siguientes medidas: Primero-Todo cargamento debe estar sometido a pruebas de laboratorio para asegurar la ausencia de la plaga.
Segunda- Además cada cargamento debe venir con el certificado de ‘Área libre de la plaga’, Tercero: Por último, se indica que el producto deberá estar bajo análisis de laboratorio para descartar la posibilidad de presencia de la bacteria causal de ZEBRA CHIP. (Prueba documental 11.2) Fuentes bibliográficas”. Asimismo, se establecieron los requisitos “...PARA LA IMPORTACIÓN DE PAPA TUBÉRCULO PARA INDUSTRIA EN RELACIÓN A LA PLAGA CANDIDATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM (ZEBRA CHIP)(MENCIONADOS TAMBIEN EN HECHO UNDÉCIMO)’ y dice: ‘para el caso de PAPA CUYO USO FINAL ES CONSUMO O SEMILLA si debe tomarse en cuenta la vigilancia esto debido a riesgos adicionales, razón por la cual el SFE no permitiría la importación EN VIRTUD DE QUE LAS AUTORIDADES FITOSANITARIAS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS DE NORTEAMÉRICA NO PUEDEN CUMPLIR CON ESE REQUISITO’, y dice ‘Sin embargo en el caso de papa con fin industrial si es posible, dado que se acordó como parte de la gestión del riesgo de plaga, la implementación de origen en un plan de trabajo(protocolo) bilateral entre las ONPF de cada país en el cual se integran medidas de control que deben cumplirse a fin de garantizar la ausencia de la plaga en cuestión’... se permite la importación de tubérculos de papa, UNICAMENTE PARA USO PREVISTO PARA LA INDUSTRIA... bajo la modalidad de procesamiento en cuarentena en locales autorizados”.
Igualmente, si el SFE reconocía la condición establecida en los requisitos fitosanitarios establecidos, el producto podía ingresar al país, llevando un “‘Marchamado ‘directamente al local de procesamiento bajo control de funcionarios autorizados del SFE, durante el proceso hasta el agotamiento’. ‘Los requisitos establecidos anteriormente para plagas cuarentenarias siguen vigentes, así como el tratamiento antibrotante (antes o después de cosecha). Y dicen ‘Requisitos fitosanitarios establecidos: 1. Requisito adicional para países o estados de EEUU sin presencia de la plaga: venir acompañado de un CERTIFICADO FITOSANITARO OFICIAL DEL PAÍS DE ORIGEN O ESTADO QUE ESTA LIBRE DE LA PLAGA. 2.Requisito adicional para países o Estados con presencia de la plaga: EL PRODUCTO PROCEDE DE UN ÁREA O LUGAR DE PRODUCCIÓN OFICIALMENTE INSPECCIONADA POR LA ORGANIZACIÓN NACIONAL DE PROTECCIÓN FITOSANITARIA, DURANTE EL PERIODO DE CRECIMIENTO ACTIVO, COSECHA Y EMPAQUE Y ENCONTRADO LIBRE DE LA PLAGA.
Lo anterior como equivalencia a ‘ÁREA LIBRE ‘O LUGAR DE PRODUCCIÓN LIBRE’ de la plaga. Todo esto, sin perjuicio de ser reconocido por el SFE y es su decisión de aceptar o no la información de vigilancia efectuada y de ser necesaria una verificación o inspección en el origen de las plantaciones y lugares de empaque que pueden incluir análisis”. Sin embargo, por medio de informe técnico N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE del 24 de noviembre de 2022 se indicó, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente: “-El documento ARP fue elaborado siguiendo un procedimiento que la unidad de ARP (actual) a determinado obsoleto. -ARP data de 2012 y sus consideraciones científicas se basan en la literatura disponible en el momento. -Las medidas parecen ser más restrictas de lo necesario, no son proporcionales al riesgo y se están manteniendo sin evidencia científica, -Las medidas no fueron analizadas por su viabilidad: ejemplo de ello el SFE no tiene presupuesto ni personal para realizar la labor de vigilancia”.
Igualmente, se dijo: “LA UNIDAD DE ARP SE REUNIO EL 23 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022 Y REVISO LOS DOCUMENTOS CITADOS EN ESTE INFORME Y LA PROPUESTA DE RECOMENDACIONES CON LO CUAL SE INDICA QUE EN EL ACTA 474-2022 LA UNIDAD DE ARP DISCUTIO SOBRE LA PROPUESTA DE DEROGAR EL ARP PARA CANDIATUS Nombre02 SOLANACEARUM Y LAS MEDIDAS PARA VIRUS BACTERIAS Y NEMATODOS EN LA VIA DE TUBERCULOS FRESCOS DE PAPA PARA CONSUMO E INDUSTRIA, ESTANDO TODOS DE ACUERDO EN LO ANTERIOR TENIENDO EN CUENTA LA JUSTIFICACION QUE REQUIEREN LOS ARP” y, además, en la sección de recomendaciones, se indicó: “- NO REALIZAR UN ARP PARA ZEBRA CHIP, EN VIAS DE TUBERCULOS FRESCOS DE CONSUMO Y USO DE INDRUSTRIA.-ESTABLECER NUEVOS REQUISITOS FITOSANITARIOS PARA INGRESO DE TUBERCULOS DE PAPA (DE TODOS LOS PAISES DONDE EXISTIA LA RESTRICCION, DEJANDO COMO MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES, ENTRE OTRAS, LA NO PRESENCIA DE RASTROS DE TIERRA, BABOSAS Y CARACOLES”.
Esto, a criterio del recurrente, dejó desprotegida la producción, el ambiente, la empresa agraria, sin argumentos ni sustento científico del porqué se eliminaban las medidas fitosanitarias, que se sostenía bajo criterios científicos ante riesgos reales, además de violar normativa nacional e internacional. Posteriormente, alega el recurrente, los años 2024 y parte de 2025 fueron excepcionales porque se presentaron situaciones que impidieron la continuidad de la producción de papa, generando un desabasto temporal de ese producto. Ese hecho incentivó a varios sectores a importar tubérculos de papa con fines de consumo en fresco, para uso industrial (papa tostada) e, incluso, para proceso en restaurantes y ventas de comida. En muchos casos, la importación fue efectuada de forma licita (tubérculos de industria), pero en otros el ingreso se produjo de forma ilícita (tubérculos de consumo en fresco provenientes de países como Nicaragua, Panamá y demás de Centroamérica).
En este último caso, los ingresos no eran trazados, puesto que se trataba de materiales de contrabando que tampoco contaban con registro fitosanitario —mismo que, en todo caso, restringía su ingreso según resolución NR-ARP-R01—. Aun así, el recurrente acusa que, al parecer, la escasez motivó a las autoridades a permitir el ingreso de productos importados, aun cuando existen normas técnicas fitosanitarias que impiden su entrada para preservar el patrimonio agrícola y evitar contaminaciones cruzadas que tienen serias implicaciones ambientales, sociales, económicas y culturales. En este contexto, acusa el accionante que el proyecto de resolución administrativa N° DSFE-0002-2025, dispuso: “El servicio fitosanitario del estado, dirección ejecutiva establece los requisitos fitosanitarios para la importación de tubérculos frescos de papa (Solanum Tuberosum) para consumo, Estados Unidos de América”.
Dicho proyecto, sin ser resolución administrativa, sin tener fecha de vigencia, ni firma de jerarca para autorizarla, como lo indica la Ley General de Administración Pública, no constituía una resolución vinculante. No obstante, se dictaba en contra de la resolución NR-ARP-R01, que suspendía importación de tubérculos frescos y de uso industrial por plaga cuarentenaria Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum, (Zebra Chip) establecida para los países de Nicaragua, El Salvador, Estados Unidos de Norte América y Canadá. Posteriormente, el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería publicó un comunicado de prensa, por medio del cual, el jerarca indicó que “la importación de papas es una práctica habitual entre las naciones, y siempre se hace de manera ordenada”, todo ello, sin estar aprobada la resolución mencionada en hecho anterior, lo cual generó incentivos para que personas inescrupulosas importaran de contrabando tubérculos de papa de los países supra mencionados y el sector importador destinara tubérculos de papa importados para uso exclusivo de industria al mercado que vende productos frescos, violando prohibición NR-ARP-R01.
Asimismo, también importadores y exportadores de otro tipo de bienes optaron por traer papas, alegando que era para la industria, lo cual constituyó un manejo inadecuado de las importaciones según el ARP. Aunado a ello, al momento de presentación de este recurso, se materializó la derogatoria importando papas provenientes de EEUU (prueba documental) con fines de consumo en fresco de mesa, mismas que amenazan los campos de cultivos, con posible inoculo de la enfermedad, talladas y con alta posibilidad expanda el patógeno en el territorio nacional. Así, afirma que, en la actualidad, se irrespetan los lineamientos de importación, aun ante reiterados llamados de atención de representaciones gremiales al SFE, con el único motivo de velar por la seguridad fitosanitaria costarricense, mismos que han sido infructíferos, al punto de poner en grave riesgo los campos nacionales, producto de la desatención y poca capacidad de respuesta que tiene esta autoridad ante actos irregulares denunciados.
Afirma que sí se ha admitido la importación de productos vegetales —como tubérculos de papa— desde zonas en las que existen plagas cuarentenarias activas como Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip), sin la realización de un análisis técnico de riesgo, o sin aplicar medidas fitosanitarias preventivas suficientes, el Estado costarricense, por medio del SFE, estaría omitiendo su deber legal de activar la suspensión cautelar establecida en el artículo. Esta omisión no solo compromete la legalidad del acto administrativo, sino que vulnera el principio de precaución en materia ambiental, consagrado tanto en el derecho interno como internacional, y pone en riesgo derechos fundamentales como el derecho a un ambiente sano, a la salud pública y al trabajo digno de las personas agricultoras. En consecuencia, solicita suspender o anular el acto administrativo de derogatoria del análisis de riesgo de plagas, contenido en la resolución N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE del 24 de noviembre de 2022; disponer el decomiso de tubérculos de papa con fines de consumo provenientes de EEUU en fresco y ordenar su destrucción.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
“...Justificación: después de realizar las acciones solicitadas, la Unidad de ARP considera que en el cumplimiento de buena fe de los tratados internacionales y de la literatura científica disponible, así como la jurisprudencia del caso en la OMC, DS524: Costa Rica - Medidas relativas a la importación de aguacates frescos procedentes de México, se tenga en consideración lo siguiente:
Con relación al documento de ARP adjunto a la notificación G/SPS/N/CRI/122 y el documento con los requisitos fitosanitarios de papa (Solanum tuberosum) para industria.
• ARP data del 2012 y sus consideraciones científicas se basan en la literatura disponible en el momento.
• Los documentos notificados carecen de elementos tales como autor (profesional responsable), cargo y firma. Se asume que los documentos son oficiales dado que están adjuntos a una notificación realizada por Costa Rica mediante la OMC.
• El documento de ARP notificado se basa en las posibilidades que una serie de eventos ocurran mas no, en las probabilidades y magnitud del impacto, de que dichas situaciones ocurran, tal como debe realizarse una evaluación del riesgo para sanidad vegetal, según las normas, acuerdos y tratados internacionales pertinentes.
• El documento fue elaborado siguiendo un procedimiento que la Unidad de ARP ha determinado obsoleto y que ha sido descrito por el experto en ARP consultado por el grupo especial en el caso de solución de diferencias en OMC DS524: Costa Rica - Medidas relativas a la importación de aguacates frescos procedentes de México, como simplista, poco flexible y con resultados que no son defendibles.
• El documento de ARP no es congruente en cuanto a su relación entre el resultado de nivel de riesgo y la propuesta para el manejo del riesgo. Establece un riesgo medio, en una escala de ‘alto, medio, bajo’ y una serie de medidas que son de las medidas más restrictivas para el comercio.
• El documento parte de la premisa de la ausencia del Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum y de Bactericera cockerelli, sin embargo, no aporta evidencia de la ausencia de dichas plagas en el área de ARP.
• El ARP no define claramente la vía que se va a analizar ‘Este estudio fue realizado para determinar el riesgo cuarentenario para la importación de tubérculos de papa para consumo fresco (incluyendo en un futuro material para propagación) de cualquier país donde esté presente la plaga Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum ‘Zebra chip’ (ZC)’. Lo cual no deja claro si el riesgo determinado es para producto que se importe para plantar o para consumo.
• El ARP carece de referencias bibliográficas para muchas de las aseveraciones que realiza, tales como la importancia de la papa en el país, el desvío de uso de papa importada para consumo o industria hacia la plantación, la estimación de la cantidad de papa que potencialmente pudiese ser desviada desde su uso previsto para consumo o industria hacia la plantación, duración del estado de desarrollo de la plaga en relación con el tiempo de transporte y almacenamiento, prevalencia de la plaga probablemente relacionada con un envío, procedimientos comerciales, distribución de la papa importada en el país, riesgo derivado de subproductos o deshechos.
• El ARP carece de la sección que indique, cuales medidas fitosanitarias se tomaron en cuenta y porqué se decidieron las medidas que se comunican en el documento notificado mediante G/SPS/N/CRI/122.
Con relación a la plaga • Del informe ARP-004-20182 se extrae que ‘´Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum ́ (sinónimo ‘Candidatus Nombre02 psyllaurous’) asociada a solanáceas se identificó en el 2008 en Nueva Zelanda (Nombre04, Perez-Egusquiza y Nombre05 2008; Nombre04 et al. 2009) y en Estados Unidos (Hansen et al. 2008). Posteriormente se detectó en Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador y México (Nombre06 2014; Nelson, Fisher y Nombre07 2011) y en las islas de Norfolk (NIQS 2014). La bacteria es transmitida por los psílidos Bactericera cockerelli, Bactericera trigonica (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012b; EPPO 2017; Nombre08 et al. 2017) y Trioza apicalis (Munyaneza et al. 2010b; Nombre07 et al. 2015). La bacteria se encontró por primera vez, fuera de hospedantes de solanáceas en Finlandia (Munyaneza et al. 2010b, a), posteriormente se reportó en cultivos de zanahoria en: Noruega (Munyaneza et al. 2012a), Suecia (Munyaneza et al. 2012b), Alemania (Munyaneza et al. 2015), Austria (EPPO 2015), Francia (Loiseau et al. 2014), España (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012a; EPPO 2012; Teresani et al. 2014b), Islas Canarias (Alfaro-Fernández et al. 2012b), e Italia (Ilardi, Di Nicola y Nombre09 2016).
La plaga se reportó por primera vez en África en Marruecos (Tahzima et al. 2014). ́Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum ́se ha reportado en apio (Apium graveolens) en Austria (EPPO 2015), perejil (Petroselinum crispum), apionabo (Petroselinum crispum), chirivía (Pastinaca sativa) y apio (Apium graveolens) en España (Alfaro-Fernández, Hernández-Llopis & Font 2017; Nombre10 et al. 2015; Teresani et al. 2014b). Se detectó en perifollo e hinojo en Francia (Hajri et al. 2017).’.
• La literatura científica, indica que las plantas producidas por tubérculos infestados de Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum no contribuyen significativamente a la incidencia y dispersión de la plaga en la plantación de papa (Solanum tuberosum). Se reporta que los tubérculos infestados de Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum generalmente no brotan y si lo hacen producen brotes ahilados o plantas débiles, la bacteria se transmite de planta a planta mediante el psílido Bactericera cockerelli y la estrategia de manejo de la plaga se enfoca en el control del psílido vector. La transmisión mediante tubérculos de Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum podría tener unrol en el ciclo de vida del patógeno, brindando una fuente de adquisición para Bactericera cockerelli y para el movimiento del patógeno a otras áreas.
Con relación al desvío de uso • Acorde a la Norma Internacional para Medidas Fitosanitarias (NIMF) No 5 Glosario de términos fitosanitarios, el uso previsto se define como: ‘Propósito declarado para el cual se importan, producen o utilizan las plantas, productos vegetales u otros artículos [NIMF 16, 2002; anteriormente ‘uso propuesto’ y ‘uso destinado’; revisado, CMF, 2009]’ • ‘Una problemática que sucede frecuentemente en el comercio de productos y que tiene implicaciones para el riesgo de plagas y la intensidad de las medidas fitosanitarias adoptadas es el desvío del uso previsto. El ‘desvío’ ocurre cuando productos son utilizados para algo diferente que su uso previsto, por ejemplo, un producto cuyo uso previsto es el consumo, se ‘desvía’ y se utiliza para la plantación. El principal problema que surge con el desvío del uso previsto se da cuando un país importador establece requisitos más estrictos que lo técnicamente justificado, debido al potencial desvío de uso previsto’ 6. ‘Los países importadores típicamente no pueden proporcionar estimaciones ex ante para la magnitud del problema o estimar el riesgo asociado y por lo tanto no pueden proponer medidas basadas en el riesgo evaluado del desvío’.
• ‘Resultado de los modelos construidos de manera conservadora, se indica que el establecimiento de plagas en México, mediante la importación de papa (Solanum tuberosum) para consumo originaria de Estados Unidos de América, que sea desviada de su uso previsto, hacía la plantación, es extremadamente poco probable. Tanto a los volúmenes de exportación estimados como al doble del volumen estimado de exportación. Las papas infestadas tienen muy poca probabilidad de terminar en situaciones en las que el desvío de uso pueda resultar en el establecimiento de plagas, debido a una serie de factores relacionados a la vía además de la baja probabilidad de que una papa sea desviada para su uso como semilla’. Los resultados de dicho estudio indican que no se alcanzó un 10% de probabilidad de introducción de plagas (nematodos, virus y bacterias) mediante el desvío de uso, inclusive con el 100% de todas las papas que potencialmente pudiesen ser desviadas, desviadas. ‘Esto indica que el desvío de uso de la papa no posee un alto riesgo fitosanitario a pesar de la extremadamente poco probable situación en la que todo pequeño y mediano productor que podría desviar el uso previsto de las papas, lo haga’.
Con relación a las medidas establecidas actualmente para la importación de tubérculos de papa.
• Las medidas parecen ser más restrictivas de lo necesario, no son proporcionales al riesgo y se están manteniendo sin evidencia científica.
• Las medidas no fueron analizadas por su viabilidad, por ejemplo, el ‘procesamiento en cuarentena en locales autorizados’ no es viable, al no contar con el personal ni presupuesto en el SFE para realizar dicha labor. Evidencia de lo anterior es que el procedimiento establecido para tal fin ‘CFI-PO-08 Procedimiento de seguimiento post entrada a la papa de uso industrial’ fue derogado el 25 de junio del 2019.
• Teniendo en cuenta el caso DS524: Costa Rica - Medidas relativas a la importación de aguacates frescos procedentes de México, las medidas de Costa Rica parecieran ser discriminatorias al no poder demostrar que las plagas Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum y Bactericera cockerelli, están ausentes de Costa Rica al momento de adoptar las medidas fitosanitarias.
La Unidad de ARP se reunió el 23 de noviembre del 2022 y revisó los documentos citados en este informe y la propuesta de recomendaciones con lo cual se indica en el acta 474-2022 ‘La Unidad de ARP discutió sobre la propuesta de derogar el ARP para Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum y las medidas para virus, bacterias y nematodos en la vía de vías de tubérculos frescos de papa (Solanum tuberosum), para consumo e industria, estado todos de acuerdo en lo anterior teniendo en cuenta la justificación técnica que requieren los ARP’.
Recomendaciones para la Dirección del SFE:
• No realizar un análisis de riesgo de plagas para Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum en las vías de tubérculos frescos de papa (Solanum tuberosum), para consumo e industria.
• Derogar las siguientes resoluciones: Resolución DSFE-12-2014, Resolución DSFE-12-2016 y la Resolución No 210-2022-NR-ARP-SFE.
• Establecer los siguientes requisitos fitosanitarios de importación para tubérculos frescos de papa (Solanum tuberosum) para consumo o industria, originarios de los siguientes países:
o Nicaragua, el envío debe venir acompañado de un certificado fitosanitario, el envío debe venir libre de tierra y de cualquier caracol o babosa (requisito preimpreso en el permiso de importación).
o El Salvador, el envío debe venir acompañado de un certificado fitosanitario, el envío debe venir libre de tierra y de cualquier caracol o babosa (requisito preimpreso en el permiso de importación).
o Honduras, el envío debe venir acompañado de un certificado fitosanitario, el envío debe venir libre de tierra y de cualquier caracol o babosa (requisito preimpreso en el permiso de importación).
o Estados Unidos de América, cualquier Estado, el envío debe venir acompañado de un certificado fitosanitario indicando en la sección de declaraciones adicionales que está libre de Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Epitrix tuberis, Listroderes costirostris, Naupactus leucoloma, Symmetrischema tangolias y Golovinomyces orontii. Se acepta alternativamente que proceda de un lugar de producción libre de la (s) plaga (s) indicadas, o la declaración adicional que la plaga no está presente en el área de origen.
o Canadá, el envío debe venir acompañado de un certificado fitosanitario indicando en la sección de declaraciones adicionales que se encuentra libre de: Synchytrium endobioticum, Epitrix tuberis, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Polyscytalum pustulans y Golovinomyces orontii. Se permite sustituir la declaración adicional de libre de Synchytrium endobioticum, por área libre de dicha plaga cuando la ONPF exportadora así lo requiera. Así como alternativamente que proceda de un lugar de producción libre de la (s) plaga (s) indicadas, o la declaración adicional que la plaga no está presente en el área de origen.
• Para los productos que se importen para consumo fresco, de cualquier origen, cumplir con el requisito general para consumo fresco: Debe venir debidamente empacado e identificado y libre de residuos vegetales, suelo, caracoles y babosas’” (informe y preuba que obra en autos).
Vistas las alegaciones de la parte recurrente, se le hace ver que la finalidad del recurso de amparo es brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, no servir como instrumento genérico para garantizar el principio de supremacía constitucional o el principio de legalidad, por medio del cual sea posible accionar contra cualquier otra clase de quebrantos constitucionales o legales. Por esa razón, la procedencia del recurso de amparo, en general, está condicionada, no sólo a que se acredite la existencia de una turbación —o amenaza de ésta— a uno o más de los derechos o garantías contemplados en la Carta Política o los de carácter fundamental establecidos en los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos suscritos y debidamente incorporados al ordenamiento jurídico, sino también a que el agravio alegado comporte una amenaza o quebranto directo y grosero de aquellos derechos, que ponga en peligro aquella parte de su contenido que les es esencial y connatural, es decir, el núcleo que les presta su peculiaridad y los hace reconocibles como derechos de una naturaleza determinada.
Lo anterior, en doctrina, es conocido como el contenido mínimo esencial del derecho, el cual es vulnerado, por ejemplo, cuando se condiciona el ejercicio del derecho que sea, al cumplimiento de condiciones, presupuestos o requisitos de tal naturaleza que, en la práctica, hacen materialmente imposible o nugatorio su uso. En este sentido, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha precisado que el problema de las violaciones directas e indirectas a la Constitución involucra, también, una necesaria apreciación de la idoneidad y naturaleza expedita que debe caracterizar a la vía del amparo. Se ha dicho que “…en esencia, la idea básica puede estar en la distinción entre una lesión directa y otra indirecta de los derechos fundamentales. En buena doctrina constitucional el criterio se basa en que cualquier infracción de legalidad, en cuestiones relacionadas con esos derechos, puede causar eventualmente lesión de aquellos derechos fundamentales, pero cuando se trate de una lesión simplemente indirecta, por existir dentro del aparato estatal, órganos que pueden y deben resguardar esos derechos y reparar su violación, les corresponde a ellos conocer y no a esta Sala...” (Sentencia N° 1610-90 de las 15:03 horas del 9 de diciembre de 1990).
Esto último pone de relieve el motivo por el cual el proceso de amparo es de carácter eminentemente sumario —es decir, breve y sencillo— y su tramitación no es compatible con la práctica de diligencias probatorias lentas y complejas, o con la necesidad de entrar previamente a examinar —con carácter declarativo— si los derechos de rango infra constitucional que las partes citan como parte del elenco fáctico del recurso de amparo o del informe de ley, según sea el caso, existen en realidad. Así, por ejemplo, en la sentencia N° 2020005548 de las 09:50 horas del 17 de marzo de 2020, la Sala dispuso lo siguiente:
“Por la vía del amparo, la Sala Constitucional no puede usurpar las atribuciones de las autoridades de los ministerios de Educación Pública y de Salud, a efectos de definir políticas de salubridad pública en relación con los centros educativos, pues se trata de materias que requieren ponderar criterios técnicos, médico-científicos y de oportunidad y conveniencia. Tales cuestiones, por su naturaleza y complejidad, deben dirimirse en la vía común, administrativa o jurisdiccional, mas no en esta sede”.
En el sub lite, en cambio, una lectura del memorial de interposición de este recurso permite constatar que, aun cuando la parte recurrente invoque una supuesta violación de sus derechos fundamentales, en realidad pretende que esta Sala analice la procedencia del INFORME TÉCNICO N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE, del 24 de noviembre de 2022 desde un punto de vista técnico-legal, a fin de dejarlo sin efecto y declarar en sentencia que se debe volver a los lineamientos establecidos en la resolución administrativa NR-ARP-R01 del 1° de junio de 2012. Lo anterior, empero, significaría reconducir a la vía del amparo una discusión propia de la legalidad ordinaria, puesto que no le corresponde a este Tribunal revisar si es cierto que para la importación de tubérculos de papa, por fuerza, debe exigirse un documento de Análisis de Riesgo de Plaga, o si, más bien, las medidas fitosanitarias tomadas en 2012 eran más restrictivas de lo necesario —todo ello, de acuerdo con un análisis técnico de la situación, efectuado en forma concomitante con una valoración de la normativa infraconstitucional que resulte aplicable al caso, la aplicación de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria en aspectos que van más allá de la materia de los derechos fundamentales e, incluso, la ponderación de criterios de oportunidad y conveniencia—.
Nótese, asimismo, que el INFORME TÉCNICO N° 469-2022-NR-ARP-SFE data de 2022 y no es sino hasta ahora, en 2025, que el accionante acude en amparo, sin que durante todo ese tiempo se haya producido una situación apremiante, de emergencia nacional, en relación con los cuestionamientos que hace. A ello se le suma que llevan la razón las autoridades recurridas al indicar que la política fitosanitaria no puede ser empleada como método indirecto para controlar el comercio internacional —toda vez que ello desnaturalizaría su propósito—, ni se le pueden endilgar, en tesis de principio, las acciones que los ciudadanos privados tomen una vez que una disposición se hace pública.
Tenga presente la parte recurrente, además, que según lo disponen los artículos 43 y 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el informe del órgano o servidor que se indique como autor de un agravio, amenaza u omisión se considerará dado bajo juramento, y cualquier inexactitud o falsedad en él hará incurrir al funcionario en las penas del perjurio o falso testimonio. Por lo tanto, si aquella considera que el informe rendido en autos contiene falsedades, debe ir a discutirlo en la vía correspondiente.
Por último, por la vía del amparo, la Sala Constitucional tampoco se erige en una mera instancia tramitadora de denuncias, pues ello, de nuevo, haría necesario efectuar probanzas complicadas, a efecto de sentar supuestas responsabilidades civiles, disciplinarias o, incluso, penales. Por consiguiente, como se informa que el SFE mantiene y aplica requisitos fitosanitarios estrictos para la importación de papa, tales como: 1) Tratamiento antibrotante obligatorio; 2) Prohibición expresa de uso como semilla; 3) Inspección documental y física en puntos de ingreso, con decomiso inmediato en caso de incumplimiento y 4) Protocolos de destrucción de brotes o tubérculos contaminados mediante análisis de laboratorio de diagnóstico de plagas, si el recurrente conoce casos concretos de importadores y exportadores que irrespetan lineamientos de importación, o bien, ocasiones en que se ha permitido la importación de tubérculos de papa desde zonas y otros productos vegentales de zonas en las que existen plagas cuarentenarias activas como Candidatus Nombre02 solanacearum (Zebra Chip), sin aplicar medidas fitosanitarias preventivas suficientes, conforme están establecidas en la normativa vigente, debe presentar las denuncias del caso ante las Autoridades competentes.
Así, a la postre, lo propio es que el reclamo formulado sea dirimido en la vía común, administrativa o jurisdiccional, por lo que deberá la parte tutelada, si a bien lo tiene, plantear sus inconformidades ante la vía de legalidad competente, ya que es en tal sede en la cual podrá, en forma amplia, discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones.
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 declara SIN LUGAR el recurso.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ana María Picado B.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.