← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 03415-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 30/01/2026
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is partially granted for violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure, ordering notification of closure of the administrative file within three days. It is denied with respect to the CNE, SETENA, and the substantive environmental claims.Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso de amparo por violación al derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido, ordenando notificar el archivo de la boleta administrativa en tres días. Se declara sin lugar respecto a la CNE, SETENA y los demás reclamos ambientales de fondo.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber hears an amparo action filed by two neighbors against the Municipality of Goicoechea. The plaintiffs reported the construction of a church by the Amigos de Dios Association on a property near the Cangrejos Stream, claiming encroachment on the protection zone and flood risk. Following a complaint, the National Emergency Commission issued a technical report concluding that the structure was within the stream's protection zone. The Municipality, while having issued a building permit, identified unauthorized works, ordered their demolition, and later archived the file after compliance. However, the Chamber finds that the Municipality failed to formally notify the plaintiffs of the administrative file's closure, violating their right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure. The amparo is partially granted, ordering notification of the closure within three days, and awarding costs against the Municipality. It is denied regarding the CNE and SETENA, and on the merits of the environmental complaint.La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo presentado por dos vecinos contra la Municipalidad de Goicoechea. Los recurrentes denunciaron la construcción de una iglesia por parte de la Asociación Amigos de Dios en un inmueble cercano a la Quebrada Cangrejos, alegando invasión de la zona de protección y riesgo de desastres. Tras una denuncia, la CNE emitió un informe técnico que concluyó que la obra se encontraba dentro de la zona de protección de la quebrada. La Municipalidad, aunque otorgó un permiso de construcción, detectó obras no autorizadas y ordenó su demolición, la cual fue cumplida y el expediente archivado. Sin embargo, la Sala constata que la Municipalidad no notificó formalmente a los recurrentes del archivo de la boleta administrativa, lo que vulneró su derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, ordenando notificar el archivo en tres días, y se condena en costas a la Municipalidad. Se declara sin lugar respecto a la CNE y SETENA, y en cuanto al fondo de la denuncia ambiental.
Key excerptExtracto clave
However, having clarified the above, the analysis cannot be exhausted in that single aspect, since from the same body of evidence a different element emerges that does possess constitutional relevance. In particular, it is not apparent from the sworn report of the municipal authority nor from the rest of the evidentiary record that the closure of Administrative File No. 15376 A, ordered on September 4, 2025, was formally communicated to the plaintiffs, even though that administrative proceeding originated precisely from the complaint and request for assessment filed by petitioner Nombre130406. In that sense, although the Administration internally verified compliance with the order and concluded the oversight proceeding against the inspected party, the absence of communication of that final result to the one who triggered the administrative intervention prevented the petitioner from timely learning how his petition was resolved. Consequently, this failure to notify the act that ended the administrative proceeding constitutes a violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure, enshrined in Article 41 of the Political Constitution, as said right is not satisfied solely by the internal adoption of administrative decisions, but also requires that the individual be promptly informed of its result.Sin embargo, una vez aclarado lo anterior, el análisis no puede agotarse en ese único aspecto, pues del mismo conjunto probatorio emerge un elemento distinto que sí posee relevancia constitucional. En particular, no se aprecia ni del informe rendido bajo juramento por la autoridad municipal ni del resto del acervo probatorio incorporado al expediente que el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto el 4 de setiembre de 2025, haya sido puesto en conocimiento formal de la parte amparada, pese a que dicho procedimiento administrativo se originó, precisamente, a partir de la denuncia y de la solicitud de valoración promovidas por el recurrente Nombre130406. En ese sentido, si bien la Administración verificó internamente el cumplimiento de la orden y dio por concluido el procedimiento de fiscalización frente al sujeto inspeccionado, lo cierto es que la ausencia de comunicación de ese resultado final a quien activó la intervención administrativa impidió que la parte recurrente tuviera conocimiento oportuno de la forma en que su gestión fue resuelta. Por consiguiente, esta falta de notificación del acto que puso fin al procedimiento administrativo constituye una afectación al derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido, consagrado en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política, en tanto dicho derecho no se satisface únicamente con la adopción interna de decisiones administrativas, sino que exige, además, que el administrado sea oportunamente informado de su resultado.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"esta falta de notificación del acto que puso fin al procedimiento administrativo constituye una afectación al derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido, consagrado en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política"
"this failure to notify the act that ended the administrative proceeding constitutes a violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure, enshrined in Article 41 of the Political Constitution"
Considerando V
"esta falta de notificación del acto que puso fin al procedimiento administrativo constituye una afectación al derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido, consagrado en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política"
Considerando V
"el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto el 4 de setiembre de 2025, haya sido puesto en conocimiento formal de la parte amparada, pese a que dicho procedimiento administrativo se originó, precisamente, a partir de la denuncia"
"the closure of Administrative File No. 15376 A, ordered on September 4, 2025, was formally communicated to the plaintiffs, even though that administrative proceeding originated precisely from the complaint"
Considerando V
"el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto el 4 de setiembre de 2025, haya sido puesto en conocimiento formal de la parte amparada, pese a que dicho procedimiento administrativo se originó, precisamente, a partir de la denuncia"
Considerando V
"Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, únicamente por la violación a un derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. En consecuencia, se ordena a … se comunique al recurrente el archivo de la boleta administrativa"
"The amparo is partially granted, only for the violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure. Consequently, it is ordered … to communicate to the petitioner the closure of the administrative file"
Por tanto
"Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, únicamente por la violación a un derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. En consecuencia, se ordena a … se comunique al recurrente el archivo de la boleta administrativa"
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Case File: 25-025996-0007-CO Type of Matter: Amparo Appeal *250259960007CO* CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the thirtieth of January, two thousand twenty-six.
Amparo appeal processed under case file number 25-025996-0007-CO, filed by Nombre130405, identity card CED74585, Nombre130406, identity card CED74586, against the MUNICIPALITY OF GOICOECHEA.
Whereas:
In this regard, the jurist Eduardo Ortiz Ortiz, cited in Legal Opinion C-032-98 of February 25, 1998, of the Procuraduría General de la República, has stated: "The municipal competence to issue urban plans stems from the law, since it covers matters constitutionally reserved to it, but it also has a constitutional basis, since it is a local matter. This means that the law can only delegate this to the Municipality and that a law doing the opposite and empowering, for example, the Executive Branch, would be unconstitutional for violating municipal autonomy." Additionally, the Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda has issued rulings consistent with the position of the Procuraduría General, such as resolution N°128-2008 at 10:30 a.m. on March 7, 2008, N°209-2011 at 2:30 p.m. on June 16, 2011, and N°124-2011 at 9:50 a.m. on April 15, 2012, among many others, emphasizing the absolute responsibility of local governments regarding territorial planning.
Agreement N°0443 of November 30, 2011, of the Board of Directors of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias (CNE), adopted in Extraordinary Session No. 10-11, held on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, and published in La Gaceta N°230 of November 30, 2011, titled: “Recommends to mayors that they proceed immediately to evict occupants from areas of recognized risk and imminent danger and demolish buildings located therein,” which textually concludes by stating: “a. Recommend to all Mayors of the country: i. That in accordance with the duties and powers imposed upon them by the Political Constitution in its articles 50 and 169, the Código Municipal, the Ley de Planificación Urbana, the Ley de Construcciones, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, article 33 of the Ley Forestal, and related regulations, the Ley General de Salud, and the extensive case law on the subject, they proceed immediately to evict occupants from areas of recognized risk and imminent danger, as well as to demolish buildings located therein, and to monitor that they are not again invaded by human settlements, applying the procedural sequence cited in Considering IV, extracted from ruling N.º 12485-2010 of the Sala Constitucional. ii.
That due to the binding nature conferred upon them by the Sala Constitucional, they immediately implement the recommendations that the technicians of the CNE and academic institutions have repeatedly provided them over many years and which are known to them, regarding concrete and timely actions to safeguard human life in areas of recognized risk and imminent danger. The studies and technical recommendations historically issued in each case will be available to the municipalities at the CNE offices. The Internal Audits and Municipal Councils must ensure compliance with these provisions. Disobedience will be considered a breach of duties, and must be brought by the Internal Audits to the attention of the corresponding authority. (…) d. Formally communicate this Agreement to all Mayors and to the Defensoría de los Habitantes. e. Publish this Agreement and the synthesis map of natural hazards of the country (available on the website, www.cne.go.cr) in the official gazette and in a nationally circulated newspaper.” (The underline is not in the original).
At this point, it is necessary to recall that by constitutional mandate, the administration of the local interests and services of the canton is the competence of the Local Government, and for the specific case, the Municipalidad de Goicoechea, as a state legal entity, with its own assets and personality (article 2 of the Código Municipal N° 7794), has full legal capacity to execute all types of acts and contracts necessary to fulfill its purposes and the protection of the most important legal interest to be safeguarded by the Costa Rican State, which is human life and the physical integrity of the citizens of the canton, the safeguarding of public infrastructure, and free transit. 4. The Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (SETENA). The Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) in Costa Rica, attached to the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), has several key competences related to the environmental assessment and management of projects, works, and activities.
Its main functions include harmonization between environmental impact (impacto ambiental) and productive processes, the evaluation of environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental), and the resolution of environmental matters. The nature of the functions under SETENA's charge, especially the assessment of environmental impact studies, leads it to make certain administrative decisions that may have an impact on the national territory, and therefore, the spatial scope over which municipalities exercise jurisdiction. These powers, as recognized by the Sala Constitucional, do not harm the autonomy of municipalities, which are not exempt from the application of the constitutional norm and its implementing legislation; even more so in such a sensitive matter as environmental protection. The duty of coordination referred to in article 6 of the Código Municipal between municipalities and other state entities or bodies does not allow the former, unless legally provided, to substitute or coerce the making of decisions that are the sole purview of national entities or bodies.
Thus, for example, in the case of SETENA, municipalities could not issue their own environmental feasibilities (viabilidades ambientales) in substitution of those expressly assigned to it, nor issue joint resolutions approving or disapproving environmental impact studies (the scenario in which these local corporations participate in proceedings before SETENA to provide information they deem opportune to be analyzed by it is different). Much less can the principle of coordination imply that SETENA's decisions lose their eminently technical and objective nature, even if this means that its resolutions do not coincide in some cases with the interest of the municipalities. The significance of the fact that SETENA sends an extract of the environmental impact assessments (evaluaciones de impacto ambiental) received by it to the municipalities in whose jurisdiction the works, activities, or project to which they refer will be carried out, is that such municipal corporations can make the observations they deem opportune within the administrative files (expedientes administrativos) in which such assessments are analyzed, so that they are evaluated by SETENA itself.
With the same objective, municipalities can inform the involved communities of the existence of such assessments, with the purpose that persons who deem it convenient appear before the same municipality or directly before SETENA in defense of their local interests. In accordance with the same article 22 referred to, municipalities, as public entities that they are, have the right to be heard by SETENA at any stage of the evaluation process, and their observations will be included and assessed for the final report. This means that SETENA is obligated to consider the statements presented to it by municipalities in the files (expedientes) of environmental impact assessments, but it is not bound by them. In any case, it is recalled, the resolutions issued by SETENA must be substantiated and reasoned (article 19 of Law No. 7554). In the event that a municipality disagrees with a specific component of an environmental impact assessment approved by SETENA because it considers that it affects or violates its competences, article 87 of Law No. 7554 provides for the possibility of filing an appeal for revocation against the final decision of SETENA and an appeal before the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, in accordance with the provisions of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; without prejudice to also appearing before the courts of justice in defense of its interests.
Furthermore, according to numeral 22 of that Law, municipalities continue to have the right to be heard during the operational phase of the work or project; since, as is known, it may be the case that acts harmful to the environment may occur at that stage, implying reconsideration in administrative decision-making. 5. Regarding the Competences and Responsibilities of the CNE: The Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias (CNE) is the governing public institution regarding the coordination of preventive efforts for situations of imminent risk (riesgo inminente), mitigation, and response to emergency situations; it is a body of maximum deconcentration attached to the Presidency of the Republic, with instrumental legal personality for the management and administration of its budget and for the investment of its resources, with its own assets and budget. Its domicile is at Dirección10689, where it has its main headquarters.
The actions of the CNE must be guided in accordance with the principles established by Law N° 8488 in Article 3, among them state of necessity and urgency (estado de necesidad y urgencia) understood as a situation of danger to a legal interest that can only be saved by violating another legal interest, with the least possible damage to the second and subject to subsequently rendering the accounts demanded by economic, legal, and fiscal control laws; protection of life, considering that those who are in the national territory must be protected in their life, their physical integrity, their property, and the environment, against disasters or dangerous events that may occur; and finally prevention, as anticipatory action aimed at reducing vulnerability, as well as measures taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts of hazardous events or disasters; due to their very nature, these actions or measures are of public interest and mandatory compliance.
Ordinary and extraordinary actions have as their fundamental principle the protection of life, not only of Costa Ricans but of every inhabitant or resident in the country. Indeed, article 3 of the Law establishes that protection of life as a fundamental principle. However, the statement of the principle does not limit protection to the life and physical integrity of the person within the national territory. On the contrary, the protection of life is inclusive of the protection of the environment and the property of resident persons, regardless of their nationality. Protection of life, physical integrity, property, and security are the basis of other principles established for the purpose of attending emergencies and risk situations, as is the case with the principle of solidarity. Within its ordinary competences, according to Law N°8488, there is the obligation to: "Article 14- Ordinary prevention competences of the Commission.
The Commission shall be the governing entity regarding risk prevention and preparations for attending emergency situations. It must comply with the following competences: (…) c) Issuing binding resolutions on situations of risk, disaster, and imminent danger, based on technical and scientific criteria, aimed at guiding regulation and control actions for their effective prevention and management, which regulate or provide for their effective compliance by State institutions, the private sector, and the population in general. Officials of the competent bodies and entities to execute or implement such binding resolutions may, in no case, disapply them. Natural or legal persons, public or private, who build or improperly use areas restricted by these binding resolutions shall be subject to the obligation to demolish or eliminate the work, pursuant to article 36 of this Law. (…) g) Promoting and fostering surveillance and management of risk situations, through the study or implementation of observation, surveillance, and alert measures, that allow for the anticipation, reduction, and avoidance of the impact and damage of possible disaster events.
Additionally, if necessary, coordinating the surveillance and management of such situations. (…)” Likewise, it has its extraordinary competences defined in article 15, which textually states: "Once the state of emergency established in article 29 of this Law is declared, the Commission shall be responsible for planning, coordinating, directing, and controlling actions aimed at resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. To this end, it must execute, at a minimum, the following actions: a) The coordination, direction, and control of attention to emergencies declared as such by the Executive Branch shall be carried out according to the phases defined in article 30 of this Law; for this, the Commission, through the Executive Directorate, must elaborate the General Emergency Plan (Plan General de la Emergencia), according to the terms referred to in Chapter VI of this Law. b) It must coordinate damage assessment, for which the institutions of the Central Administration, the Decentralized Public Administration of the State, Local Governments, and state-owned enterprises shall be responsible for assessing the damages and coordinating their execution with the Commission. c) Planning, coordinating, organizing, and supervising the execution of rescue actions by public and private, national and international organizations. d) Coordinating the scientific and technical investigations necessary for the Plan, as well as physical and economic recovery programs, and giving them the necessary follow-up. e) Appointing as executing units the public institutions that have under their scope of competence the execution of the works defined in the General Emergency Plan and supervising their execution. f) Contracting the specialized personnel it requires for determined periods and according to the emergency declaration.
Except as provided in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission shall attend, without an emergency declaration by the Executive Branch intervening, local and minor emergencies that, due to the high frequency with which they occur and the serious impact they cause on communities, demand the provision of a first-impact humanitarian service, consisting of the delivery of blankets, food, mattresses, and, if necessary, the acquisition of materials to rehabilitate basic services and enable shelters, as well as the contracting of a maximum of one hundred machine hours for cleaning the most affected area of the zone" (the underline is not in the original). In accordance with the stated regulations, for this particular case, the CNE has no involvement in the described problem. As established below. 6. Regarding the specific case: After reviewing and analyzing what was requested and according to the factual picture presented, it can be deduced with clear clarity that the situation presented by the appellant concerns a complaint about a supposed impact on a forest protection zone (zona de protección forestal) and common goods, in addition to the granting of construction permits (permisos de construcción) in an unauthorized zone, among other matters, which has nothing to do with situations falling within the framework of our competences provided by Law No. 8488, and where there is no situation where a national emergency decree has intervened nor where the supposed impact is reported in any General Emergency Plan by any of the institutions indicated supra, to whom, due to their competences and governance, its attention corresponds.
In this sense, according to what was reported, it must be under direct surveillance by the Corporación Municipal de Goicoechea as the owner and guardian of its territory, not only with the capacity for tax administration, but also for safeguarding the protections and fundamental rights of its constituents, ensuring as the most important legal interest to protect human life and the physical integrity of its citizens, as well as that they are in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In that sense, since the situation concerns an alleged environmental protection activity, the competences of other institutions, such as the Secretaría técnica Ambiental, must converge within the principle of coordination mentioned above. In this sense, ordinary situations from other government entities cannot and must not be addressed by the CNE; since, were this to happen, it would result in substituting the attention of their own competence activity for a regime by exception, which is clearly improper.
For greater abundance, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, through its ruling No. 3410-92 at 2:45 p.m. on November 10, 1992, reiterated in ruling No. 1369-2001 at 2:30 p.m. on February 14, 2001, and where said jurisprudential line has been maintained, ratified, and strengthened to date, in countless further judgments, states the following: "An end was put to the vicious practice of the Executive Branch and other institutions of declaring any ordinary activity typical of the provision of public services, which at most could be framed as mere urgency, as a state of necessity and urgency to except the application of ordinary procedures." Consequently, the Sala Constitucional considered that investments in public services and works "...escape the concept of 'state of necessity and urgency' and, on the contrary, all of them constitute the matter that the entire Public Administration must ordinarily attend to, through the normal channels of our legal system...
But replacing the current and applicable legal system with an expeditious means that allows evading the control regulations is not only contrary to what article 180 of the Political Constitution provides, but also to article 184 ibidem, regarding the ordinary functions attributed to the Contraloría General de la República. The Sala is obligated to distinguish, for what has been expressed, between three concepts: 'the state of necessity and urgency', as conceived by the Political Constitution; 'the urgency' in satisfying collective needs, motivated by meta-legal reasons; and the 'urgent need' to improve public services, WHICH DUE TO THE SAME ACTIVITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED, HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A STATE OF IMMINENT NEED FOR UPDATING AND IMPROVEMENT. The latter two are problems pertaining to the way the Executive Branch conceives and carries them out, WHICH IT MUST RESOLVE THROUGH ORDINARY LEGAL CHANNELS; the first is the constitutional exception that cannot be altered, neither by ordinary law nor by simple decrees." (The lettering, italics, and capitalization do not correspond to the original).
Under this order of ideas, adequate communication and joint, duly coordinated action between the authorities of the Corporación Municipal de Goicoechea and the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental is recommended, since, as the main actors in the case under study, they have the duty to bring their competences together toward the same end, in a concerted and systemic manner, so that the situation presented by the appellants is clarified and it is possible to determine the material truth of the facts. Therefore, the CNE has not violated any constitutional protection of the appellants, and this Commission is barred from establishing ordinary or extraordinary measures since, by constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential mandate, a national emergency situation (due to a state of necessity and urgency) is not accredited, but on the contrary, the problem must be addressed through the normal and ordinary channels of the entities competent in that matter".
Drafted by Judge Garro Vargas; and,
Considering:
I.Object of the recurso. The appellants question the actions of the Municipalidad de Goicoechea concerning the processing and inspection of a construction permit (permiso de construcción) granted in favor of the Asociación Amigos de Dios, on a property located in the vicinity of Dirección10686. They maintain that, despite their repeated requests for information and complaints, the municipal authority has limited itself to providing partial and generic responses, based on technical official letters that, in their opinion, do not comprehensively address the warnings issued by other public institutions, particularly the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, regarding the possible impact on protection zones (zonas de protección) and the existing risk in the area. They affirm that, even though an administrative order was subsequently issued directing the constructing association to eliminate structures located in a protection zone, said order was not executed or effectively supervised by the Municipality, allowing the works to continue.
In this context, they consider that the respondent authorities have unduly minimized the problem raised, qualifying it as a neighborhood controversy, without exercising the control and environmental protection powers that correspond to them under the legal system. Based on the foregoing, the appellants consider that the actions and omissions attributed to the municipal authority violate fundamental rights, in particular the principle of legality and the constitutional duties of environmental protection, which is why they request the intervention of this Tribunal to order the cessation of the reported irregularities and the adoption of the necessary measures to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
II.Preliminary matter. Prior to analyzing the merits of the case – for the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and completed procedure – it must be clarified that, based on ruling No. 2008-02545 at 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Sala has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction – with some exceptions – those matters in which it is discussed whether the public administration has complied with the deadlines established by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (articles 261 and 325) or by sectoral laws relating to special administrative procedures, both for resolving an administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) by final act – initiated ex officio or at the instance of a party – and for hearing the pertinent administrative appeals. Precisely, in this case, a scenario of exception is posed, as we are facing a complaint describing an environmental problem that has allegedly not been resolved within a reasonable time by the respondent municipality. Having clarified this point, we proceed to resolve the specific situation raised in this recurso de amparo.
III.Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited as such or because the respondent party has omitted to refer to them as provided for in the initial order:
It is common knowledge that this area is at high risk due to the flooding and problems that the Quebrada Los Cangrejos suffers each year from the rains, and I come before you again today because the problem is increasing with the construction currently being erected by pastor Gerardo Rodríguez on the property adjoining my house (see attached photograph), without providing for the mandatory reserve areas contemplated in Forest Law (Ley Forestal) number 7575, in article 33, which cites protection areas and in its subsection b) states the following: “A strip of fifteen meters in rural areas and ten meters in urban areas, measured horizontally on both sides, on the banks of rivers, streams (quebradas) or creeks, if the land is flat, and fifty horizontal meters, if the land is steep…” Likewise, the criteria from years ago on this same matter from SETENA, MINAE, CNE, SINAC, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, AYA, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSPERSON have been disregarded, which must be on file in the municipal records and which have been issued since 2009 and repeatedly over the years due to the vulnerability of the area and the insistence of pastor Rodríguez, representative of the Amigos de Dios Association, on building in a complex area naturally bounded by the Quebrada Los Cangrejos, as well as an easement (servidumbre) for Aqueducts and Sewers, and with the passage of time and the emergencies that have arisen in the area, the Stream has changed its course and therefore the property of the aforementioned Association has been altered, as it is a natural margin or boundary.
It is worth clarifying that when Nombre130407 acquired that property, he bought it with the limitations of the easement (servidumbre) and the naturally changing boundary of the Quebrada Los Cangrejos. The Municipal Engineers who have been in charge of Municipal Engineering throughout all these years of struggle, all the Mayors from the first one to yourself today, municipal officials from the various areas of interest on the matter, have all known about the problem, but for some strange reason they did not act in the past. I do not know if there is some political tint, strange favoritism, or a religious aspect to this situation, but the time has come for the municipal administration you represent to act with great boldness in protection of nature, the neighbors, and their real estate, which would be affected once again by the municipal permissiveness toward the aforementioned pastor. In the most vehement manner, I appeal to the Municipal administration in your person, so that you act in this matter once and for all, this because the pastor is currently erecting a large building made of perling material, in addition to what already exists, namely a dwelling house and the bathrooms that encroach upon the setback area stipulated by law, which despite demolition orders in the past, he did not comply with and the administration did not enforce; these works, carried out in plain view and with the patience of everyone who passes through the area, certainly encroach upon the setback area stipulated by law, and soon the rains will begin, and one does not need to be a visionary or have a crystal ball to know that we will be in a historic emergency once again, since the slope continues to wash away, there is great erosion, and the pastor and all those involved in this matter know the consequences of these irresponsible acts that place all the neighbors of the area at imminent risk.
Therefore, I appeal to your person as the highest authority in the Canton to provide effective intervention on your part and to prevent emergencies in the approaching winter, in which it must be remembered that this sector of San Francisco has always been of great risk due to the force of the waters of the Stream, where construction permits have been granted without assessing the risk, and in the event of a tragedy, the Local Government must assume the consequences of the irregularities in the granting of permits in a setback area. It must be remembered that over time, there have been multiple complaints, grievances, reports, and inspections by the Municipality and other entities interested in the common good, such as health. For the foregoing, I request: A) That I be informed whether the construction works currently being carried out by Nombre130407 on the property of the Amigos de Dios Association have a permit granted by Municipal Engineering.
According to the survey of the protection zone of the Quebrada Los Cangrejos carried out in 2015 (10 years ago). I request to be informed why, for the same property in different years, land uses (usos de suelo) and construction permits with different requirements have been issued by the Engineering Department, and being the same land and maintaining the regulatory body that governs us and the same Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), different requirements are demanded, such as construction lines with less area and a front yard (antejardín) first of 5 meters in 2005, and in 2015 the construction line is smaller, a sidewalk of 2 meters and 2 meters of front yard (antejardín). My query is why the same engineering department with criteria and an area reduction of more than fifty percent in favor of a problematic land? Along the same lines, I am concerned that as of today, the front yard (antejardín) is no longer required.
I request to be informed why, if in 2014 Municipal Engineering, through official letter DI-2999-2014, indicates that the possibility of processing new remodeling in that place has been denied to the Amigos de Dios Association, in 2015 they granted construction permit TRAM.29191 for a 6.5 m2 dwelling, without detailing either the responsible professional or complying with the forest law previously cited, and currently the construction works are in plain view and with the patience of all. I request to be informed why in official letter DI-2999-2014 in point 3, it is stated that the aforementioned Association was granted a period of 7 days to demolish what was built in the protection zone (the bathrooms) and it was not executed? (j) I request to be informed why, if the cadastral plan-SJ-1372252-2009 exists, which provides INVU guidelines and indicates which laws affect the land and how many meters must be respected in the protection zone, demonstrating that the land is not suitable for construction because it is a fill, because it is crossed by a Stream, because it has the branch of the sub-collector of black waters La Cangreja, the Administration has not acted with demolitions from 2014 to date?
Only: That the claimant Nombre130406 was formally notified of the archiving of administrative ticket No. 15376 A, ordered by the Directorate of Engineering and Operations of the Municipality of Goicoechea on September 4, 2025, on the grounds that the demolition of the structure enclosure executed without a construction permit by the Amigos de Dios Association was verified, and the consequent compliance with the municipal order issued regarding the unauthorized works.
V.On the specific case. The claimant maintains that the Municipality of Goicoechea has incurred irregular actions and omissions in the processing and oversight of a construction permit granted to the Amigos de Dios Association, since, despite his efforts and the warnings from other institutions about risks and impacts on protection zones, partial responses have been provided, an administrative order issued has not been effectively executed or overseen, and the continuation of the works has been permitted, which in his view violates the principle of legality and the constitutional duties of environmental protection.
Firstly, from a comprehensive examination of the proven facts, it is evident that the respondent municipal authority did deploy concrete and verifiable administrative actions aimed at addressing the problem reported by the protected parties, even in light of what was stated in the technical report issued by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. Indeed, after receiving the technical assessment from the CNE, the Directorate of Engineering and Operations of the Municipality of Goicoechea conducted inspections, identified the existence of works not covered by the current construction permit, and proceeded to issue an express administrative act addressed to the Amigos de Dios Association, whereby it ordered the elimination of all structures located in the protection zone of the Quebrada Cangrejos.
Likewise, it is on record that this order was followed up by the Administration, since on September 4, 2025, that is, prior to the issuance of the resolution that admitted this amparo appeal, the municipal authority itself recorded in the administrative file that the structure enclosure executed without a permit had been demolished, which is why the archiving of administrative ticket No. 15376 A was ordered, the order issued regarding the unauthorized works being considered complied with. In this manner, the evidentiary record accredits that the respondent municipal entity not only exercised its oversight power but also materially verified compliance with what was ordered, neutralizing the situation that had given rise to the technical warning about the protection zone.
Consequently, from this perspective, no omission is observed in the face of a certain environmental impact that justifies granting the appeal on the merits of the environmental complaint, since the accredited municipal action reveals an effective administrative response consistent with the detected situation. Therefore, on this point, the amparo appeal must be dismissed, as no injury attributable to the respondent authority is configured regarding the supervision and correction of the works executed in the protection zone.
However, having clarified the above, the analysis cannot be exhausted in that single aspect, since a different element that does possess constitutional relevance emerges from the same evidentiary set. In particular, it is not evident from the report rendered under oath by the municipal authority, nor from the rest of the evidentiary record incorporated into the file, that the archiving of administrative ticket No. 15376 A, ordered on September 4, 2025, was formally communicated to the protected party, despite that said administrative procedure originated, precisely, from the complaint and the request for assessment promoted by the claimant Nombre130406.
In that sense, although the Administration internally verified compliance with the order and concluded the oversight procedure against the inspected party, the truth is that the absence of communication of that final result to the person who activated the administrative intervention prevented the claimant from having timely knowledge of how his petition was resolved. Consequently, this lack of notification of the act that ended the administrative procedure constitutes an impact on the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure, enshrined in Article 41 of the Political Constitution, insofar as said right is not satisfied only with the internal adoption of administrative decisions, but also requires that the citizen be promptly informed of its result. Hence, even though the respondent municipality acted diligently in correcting the detected construction irregularity, the omission of formally communicating the archiving of the administrative ticket to the protected party constitutes an autonomous and specific injury of constitutional relevance. Therefore, the proper course is to grant the appeal, as is indeed done.
VI.Regarding the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, from the joint examination of the evidentiary record, it is clear that both authorities addressed the efforts raised by the claimant within the scope of their respective competencies, without an action or omission of constitutional relevance being configured.
Indeed, regarding the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, it is on record that the claimant requested a risk assessment related to the works carried out in the vicinity of the Quebrada Cangrejos, a request that was addressed through the issuance of official letter No. CNE-UIAR-INF-0585-2025, in which said institution carried out the corresponding inspection, recorded its technical conclusions, and formulated recommendations directed to the competent municipal authority. In this way, the CNE effectively exercised the functions proper to it, without an unjustified refusal, undue delay, or non-compliance with its legal duties being evident from the file regarding the claimant.
For its part, with respect to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, it is accredited that on April 3, 2025, the claimant filed a complaint before that body, which was processed immediately. Thus, through official letter No. SETENA-SG-0480-2025 of April 4, 2025, the General Secretariat determined that there was no active administrative file at SETENA related to the reported facts and, in application of the current regulatory framework, proceeded to transfer the complaint to the Administrative Environmental Tribunal, the competent body to hear it. Likewise, it is on record that on April 21, 2025, said official letter was communicated to the protected person, which shows that the administrative action not only conformed to SETENA's legal competencies but was also promptly communicated to the complainant.
Consequently, since no action or omission attributable to the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response or to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat that has caused a direct and current impact on the fundamental rights of the protected party is accredited, the amparo appeal must be dismissed insofar as it is directed against both authorities.
VII.Note by Magistrate Castillo Víquez, regarding prompt and fulfilled administrative justice. I have supported this Court's thesis that when a claimant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and fulfilled justice in the administrative venue, those who must hear the legal dispute are the Contentious-Administrative Courts and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Law Regulating the Right of Petition, it has been established that this right is subject to judicial protection through the amparo appeal established by Article 32 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, in relation to Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the material actions of the Administration, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting their fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted regulation does not imply that this Court must modify its jurisprudential line, which, based on numeral 7 of its Law, is exclusively responsible for defining its own competence.
Therefore, except for those legal-constitutional disputes that have been recognized by this same Chamber as exceptional cases, which are properly heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional process of amparo guarantee, in all other cases, and for the reasons this Court has given (judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), the competent ones are the Judges of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is in accordance with numeral 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal norms based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
VIII.Note by Magistrate Salazar Alvarado. I consider that in environmental matters, if there has already been intervention by the Public Administration, their knowledge and resolution correspond to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. However, I do hear the merits of the case when other rights of the persons affected by the source of contamination are at stake, among them, health, quality of life, and the right to enjoy a healthy and pollution-free environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution), as happens in this case, in which the claimant asserts having reported, before the Municipality of Goicoechea, the problem presented at the Quebrada La Cangreja, with the construction of structures within the protection area, which puts the integrity of the neighbors at risk due to the alteration of the channel and affects the right to enjoy a healthy, ecologically balanced environment and a dignified level of quality of life for the claimant, but which has not been definitively resolved.
IX.Documentation provided to the file. The parties are warned that, if any document has been provided on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device, or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the “Regulation on Electronic Files before the Judiciary”, approved by the Full Court in Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The appeal is partially granted, solely for the violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure. Consequently, Fernando Chavarría Quirós, in his capacity as Mayor of Goicoechea, or whoever occupies said position, is ordered to take the necessary steps within the scope of his competence, so that, within a maximum period of THREE DAYS, counted from the notification of this judgment, the archiving of administrative ticket No. 15376 A, ordered by the Directorate of Engineering and Operations of said Municipality, is communicated to the claimant. The respondent party is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal and does not comply with it or enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished.
The Municipality of Goicoechea is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Regarding the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, and with respect to the other grievances, the appeal is dismissed. Magistrate Castillo Víquez appends a note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado appends a note. Notify.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
South of the Perpetuo Socorro church).
A faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 07-05-2026 14:21:38.
*250259960007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del treinta de enero de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente número 25-025996-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre130405, cédula de identidad CED74585, Nombre130406, cédula de identidad CED74586, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE GOICOECHEA.
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,
Considerando:
I.Objeto del recurso. Los recurrentes cuestionan la actuación de la Municipalidad de Goicoechea en relación con la tramitación y fiscalización de un permiso de construcción otorgado a favor de la Asociación Amigos de Dios, en un inmueble ubicado en las cercanías de la Dirección10686. Sostienen que, pese a sus reiteradas gestiones de información y denuncia, la autoridad municipal se ha limitado a brindarle respuestas parciales y genéricas, basadas en oficios técnicos que, a su criterio, no atienden de manera integral las advertencias emitidas por otras instituciones públicas, en particular la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, sobre la eventual afectación de zonas de protección y el riesgo existente en el área. Afirman que, aun cuando posteriormente se dictó una orden administrativa dirigida a la asociación constructora para eliminar estructuras ubicadas en zona de protección, dicha orden no fue ejecutada ni fiscalizada de forma efectiva por la Municipalidad, permitiéndose la continuación de las obras.
En ese contexto, estiman que las autoridades recurridas han minimizado indebidamente la problemática planteada, calificándola como una controversia vecinal, sin ejercer las potestades de control y tutela ambiental que les corresponden conforme al ordenamiento jurídico. Con base en lo anterior, los recurrentes consideran que las actuaciones y omisiones atribuidas a la autoridad municipal vulneran derechos fundamentales, en particular el principio de legalidad y los deberes constitucionales de protección ambiental, por lo que solicita la intervención de este Tribunal para que se ordene el cese de las irregularidades denunciadas y se adopten las medidas necesarias para garantizar el cumplimiento de la normativa aplicable.
II.Cuestión preliminar. De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto –por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido– debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia No. 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas del 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa –con algunas excepciones– aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos, pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o por las leyes sectoriales relativas a los procedimientos administrativos especiales, tanto para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– como para conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en este caso se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia que describe una problemática ambiental que, presuntamente, no ha sido resuelta dentro de un plazo razonable por parte de la municipalidad accionada. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
III.Hechos probados. 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 la parte recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
Es de conocimiento general que esa zona es de alto riesgo por las inundaciones y problemas que cada año sufre la Quebrada Los Cangrejos por las lluvias, y hoy acudo nuevamente porque la problemática se aumenta con la construcción que está levantando actualmente el pastor Gerardo Rodríguez en el terreno que colinda con mi casa (ver fotografía adjunta), sin prever las áreas de reserva obligatorias y contempladas las mismas en la Ley Forestal número 7575, en el artículo 33, que cita las áreas de protección y en su literal b) señala lo siguiente: “Una franja de quince metros en zona rural y de diez metros en zona urbana, medidas horizontalmente a ambos lados, en las riberas de los ríos, quebradas o arroyos, si el terreno es plano, y de cincuenta metros horizontales, si el terreno es quebrado…”, asimismo se han dejado de lado los criterios de años atrás sobre este mismo tema de SETENA, MINAE, CNE, SINAC, MINISTERIO DE SALUD, FISCALIA AMBIENTAL, AYA, DEFENSORA DE LOS HABITANTES, los cuales deben constar en los expedientes municipales y que han sido emitidos desde el año 2009 y en repetidas ocasiones al paso de los años por lo vulnerable de la zona y la insistencia del pastor Rodríguez, representante de la Asociación Amigos de Dios de construir en un área compleja que delimite natural la Quebrada Los Cangrejos, así como una servidumbre de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y con el paso del tiempo y las emergencias suscitadas en la zona la Quebrada ha cambiado su curso y por ende la propiedad de la Asociación supra indicada se ve modificada por ser un margen o lindero natural.
Es digno de aclarar que cuando el Nombre130407 adquiere esa propiedad la compró con las limitaciones de la servidumbre y el límite cambiante natural de la Quebrada Los Cangrejos. Los Ingenieros Municipales que han estado al frente de la Ingeniería Municipal al paso de todos estos años de lucha, todos los Alcaldes desde el primero y hoy día usted, funcionarios municipales de las diversas áreas de interés en el tema, todos han conocido la problemática, pero por alguna extraña razón no actuaron en el pasado, desconozco si en esta situación existe algún tinte político, un extraño favorecimiento, o un aspecto de índole religioso, pero es el momento de que la administración municipal por usted representada actúe con gran osadía en protección de la naturaleza, de los vecinos y sus bienes inmuebles que se verían afectados una vez más por la permisividad municipal para con el mencionado pastor.- De la forma más vehemente acudo a la administración Municipal en su persona, para que actúe en este asunto de una vez por todas, esto en razón de que el pastor está actualmente levantando una edificación de grandes dimensiones en material de perling, además de lo existente, a saber una casa de habitación y los baños que invaden la zona de retiro estipulada por ley, que a pesar de existir órdenes de demolición en el pasado no lo hizo y la administración no ejecutó; estas obras realizadas a la vista y paciencia de todo el que pasa por la zona, invaden a ciencia cierta la zona de retiro estipulada por ley y pronto iniciarán las lluvias y no hay que ser visionario, ni tener una bola de cristal para saber que estaremos de nuevo en una histórica emergencia, ya que el talud se sigue lavando, existe gran erosión, el pastor y todos los involucrados en este asunto conocen las consecuencias de estos hechos irresponsables que colocan en un riesgo inminente a todos los vecinos de la zona.
Por ello acudo a su persona como máxima autoridad en el Cantón para que brinde una efectiva intervención de su parte y se eviten emergencias en el cercano invierno, en donde se debe recordar que ese sector de San Francisco siempre ha sido de gran riesgo por la fuerza de las aguas de la Quebrada en donde se han otorgado permisos de construcción en donde no se valoró el riesgo y en caso de una tragedia deberá el Gobierno Local asumir las consecuencias de las irregularidades en el otorgamiento de permisos en un área de retiro. Se debe recordar que al paso de los tiempos son múltiples las denuncias, quejas, informes e inspecciones de la Municipalidad y de otros entes interesados en el bien común como lo es la salud. Por lo anterior, solicito: A) Se me indique si las obras de construcción que está realizando actualmente el Nombre130407 en la propiedad de la Asociación Amigos de Dios tienen permiso otorgado por la Ingeniería Municipal.
Solicito se me informe porque para la misma propiedad en años diferentes se han emitido usos de suelo y permisos de construcción con requerimientos diferentes por la Dirección de Ingeniería, siendo el mismo terreno y manteniendo el cuerpo normativo que nos rige y el mismo Plan Regulador se piden requisitos diferentes, como líneas de construcción de menor área y un antejardín primero de 5 metros en el año 2005 y en el año 2015 la línea de construcción es menor una acera de 2 metros y 2 metros de antejardín, mi consulta porque una misma dirección de ingeniería con criterios y disminución de área en más de un cincuenta por ciento a favor de un terreno problemático? En esa misma línea me preocupa que al día de hoy ya no sea exigido el antejardín. Solicito se me informe porque si en el año 2014 Ingeniería Municipal mediante el oficio DI-2999-2014 señala que se le ha denegado la posibilidad de tramitar nuevas remodelaciones en ese lugar a la Asociación Amigos de Dios, en el año 2015 le otorgan el permiso de construcción TRAM.29191 para una vivienda de 6.5 m2, sin detallar ni el profesional responsable ni cumplir con la ley forestal citada de previo, y en la actualidad se encuentra a vista y paciencia de todos las obras de construcción.
Solicito se me informe porque en el oficio DI-2999-2014 en el punto 3. Se señala que se le concedió a la Asociación supra mencionada un plazo de 7 días para demoler lo construido en la zona de protección (los baños) y no se ejecutó? (j) Solicito se me informe porque si existe el plano catastrado-SJ-1372252-2009 en donde se dan lineamientos del INVU y se indica cuales leyes afectan el terreno y cuantos metros se deben respetar en la zona de protección, donde se demuestra que el terreno no es apto para la construcción por ser un relleno, por estar atravesado por una Quebrada, por tener la ramada de sub- recolector de aguas negras La Cangreja la Administración no ha actuado con las demoliciones desde el 2014 a la fecha? K) En caso de que la Asociación supra citada no cuente con un permiso de construcción, solicito se informe porque no se han sellado las obras, porque no existe una notificación por trabajos realizados de forma irregular, al margen de la ley.
Único: Que al recurrente Nombre130406 se le haya notificado formalmente el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto por la Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones de la Municipalidad de Goicoechea el 4 de setiembre de 2025, con motivo de haberse constatado la demolición del cerramiento de estructura ejecutado sin permiso de construcción por parte de la Asociación Amigos de Dios, y el consecuente cumplimiento de la orden municipal emitida respecto de las obras no autorizadas.
V.Sobre el caso concreto. La parte recurrente sostiene que la Municipalidad de Goicoechea ha incurrido en actuaciones y omisiones irregulares en la tramitación y fiscalización de un permiso de construcción otorgado a la Asociación Amigos de Dios, pues, pese a sus gestiones y a las advertencias de otras instituciones sobre riesgos y afectación de zonas de protección, se le han brindado respuestas parciales, no se ha ejecutado ni fiscalizado de forma efectiva una orden administrativa dictada y se ha permitido la continuación de las obras, lo que a su criterio vulnera el principio de legalidad y los deberes constitucionales de protección ambiental.
En primer término, del examen integral de los hechos probados se desprende que la autoridad municipal recurrida sí desplegó actuaciones administrativas concretas y verificables orientadas a atender la problemática denunciada por los amparados, incluso a la luz de lo señalado en el informe técnico emitido por la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. En efecto, luego de recibida la valoración técnica de la CNE, la Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones de la Municipalidad de Goicoechea realizó inspecciones, identificó la existencia de obras no amparadas por el permiso de construcción vigente y procedió a dictar un acto administrativo expreso dirigido a la Asociación Amigos de Dios, mediante el cual ordenó la eliminación de toda estructura ubicada en la zona de protección de la Quebrada Cangrejos.
Asimismo, consta que dicha orden se le dio seguimiento por parte de la Administración, pues con fecha 4 de setiembre de 2025, esto es, con anterioridad al dictado de la resolución que dio curso al presente recurso de amparo, la propia autoridad municipal dejó consignado en el expediente administrativo que el cerramiento de estructura ejecutado sin permiso había sido demolido, motivo por el cual se dispuso el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, al tenerse por cumplida la orden emitida respecto de las obras no autorizadas. De esta manera, el acervo probatorio acredita que la entidad municipal accionada no solo ejerció su potestad de control, sino que también verificó materialmente el cumplimiento de lo ordenado, neutralizando la situación que había dado lugar a la advertencia técnica sobre la zona de protección.
En consecuencia, desde esta perspectiva, no se advierte una conducta omisiva frente a una afectación ambiental cierta que justifique la estimación del recurso en cuanto al fondo de la denuncia ambiental, pues la actuación municipal acreditada revela una respuesta administrativa efectiva y congruente con la situación detectada. Por ello, en este extremo, el recurso de amparo debe ser desestimado, al no configurarse una lesión imputable a la autoridad recurrida en relación con la fiscalización y corrección de las obras ejecutadas en la zona de protección.
Sin embargo, una vez aclarado lo anterior, el análisis no puede agotarse en ese único aspecto, pues del mismo conjunto probatorio emerge un elemento distinto que sí posee relevancia constitucional. En particular, no se aprecia ni del informe rendido bajo juramento por la autoridad municipal ni del resto del acervo probatorio incorporado al expediente que el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto el 4 de setiembre de 2025, haya sido puesto en conocimiento formal de la parte amparada, pese a que dicho procedimiento administrativo se originó, precisamente, a partir de la denuncia y de la solicitud de valoración promovidas por el recurrente Nombre130406.
En ese sentido, si bien la Administración verificó internamente el cumplimiento de la orden y dio por concluido el procedimiento de fiscalización frente al sujeto inspeccionado, lo cierto es que la ausencia de comunicación de ese resultado final a quien activó la intervención administrativa impidió que la parte recurrente tuviera conocimiento oportuno de la forma en que su gestión fue resuelta. Por consiguiente, esta falta de notificación del acto que puso fin al procedimiento administrativo constituye una afectación al derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido, consagrado en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política, en tanto dicho derecho no se satisface únicamente con la adopción interna de decisiones administrativas, sino que exige, además, que el administrado sea oportunamente informado de su resultado. De ahí que, aun cuando la municipalidad recurrida actuó de manera diligente en la corrección de la irregularidad constructiva detectada, la omisión de comunicar formalmente el archivo de la boleta administrativa a la parte amparada configura una lesión autónoma y específica de relevancia constitucional. Por ende, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso, como en efecto se hace.
VI.En cuanto a la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias y a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, del examen conjunto del acervo probatorio se desprende que ambas autoridades atendieron las gestiones planteadas por el recurrente dentro del ámbito de sus respectivas competencias, sin que se configure una actuación u omisión de relevancia constitucional.
En efecto, respecto de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, consta que el recurrente solicitó una valoración de riesgo relacionada con las obras ejecutadas en las inmediaciones de la Quebrada Cangrejos, gestión que fue atendida mediante la emisión del oficio n.°CNE-UIAR-INF-0585-2025, en el cual dicha institución realizó la inspección correspondiente, consignó sus conclusiones técnicas y formuló recomendaciones dirigidas a la autoridad municipal competente. De esta manera, la CNE ejerció de forma efectiva las funciones que le son propias, sin que del expediente se desprenda una negativa injustificada, una dilación indebida o un incumplimiento de sus deberes legales frente a la parte accionante.
Por su parte, en lo que concierne a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, se acredita que el 3 de abril de 2025 el recurrente presentó una denuncia ante dicha instancia, la cual fue tramitada de forma inmediata. Así, mediante el oficio n.°SETENA-SG-0480-2025 de 4 de abril de 2025, la Secretaría General determinó que no existía un expediente administrativo activo en Nombre3763 relacionado con los hechos denunciados y, en aplicación del marco reglamentario vigente, procedió al traslado de la denuncia al Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, órgano competente para su conocimiento. Asimismo, consta que el 21 de abril de 2025 dicho oficio fue puesto en conocimiento del tutelado, lo que evidencia que la actuación administrativa no solo se ajustó a las competencias legales de SETENA, sino que además fue oportunamente comunicada al denunciante.
En consecuencia, al no acreditarse una acción u omisión imputable a la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias ni a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental que haya provocado una afectación directa y actual a los derechos fundamentales de la parte amparada, el recurso de amparo debe ser desestimado en cuanto se dirige contra ambas autoridades.
VII.Nota del Magistrado Castillo Víquez, en cuanto a la justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales.
A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia. Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.
VIII.Nota del magistrado Salazar Alvarado. Considero que en asuntos ambientales, si ya ha habido intervención de la Administración Pública, su conocimiento y resolución corresponde a la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa. No obstante, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto cuando están de por medio otros derechos de las personas afectadas por el foco de contaminación, entre ellos, la salud, la calidad de vida y el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano y libre de contaminación (artículo 50, de la Constitución Política), tal y como sucede en este caso, en el que la parte recurrente asegura haber denunciado, ante la Municipalidad de Goicoechea, la problemática presentada en la Quebrada La Cangreja, al realizarse la construcción de estructuras dentro del área de protección, lo que pone en riesgo la integridad de los vecinos ante la alteración del cauce y afecta el derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano, ecológicamente equilibrado y de un nivel digno de calidad de vida a la parte recurrente, pero que no ha sido resuelta de forma definitiva.
IX.Documentación aportada al expediente. 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 treinta 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 No. 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la Sesión No. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, únicamente por la violación a un derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. En consecuencia, se ordena a Fernando Chavarría Quirós, en su condición de alcalde de Goicochea, o a quienes ocupen dichos cargos, que gestionen lo necesario dentro del ámbito de su competencia, para que, en un plazo máximo de TRES DÍAS, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se comunique al recurrente el archivo de la boleta administrativa n.°15376 A, dispuesto por la Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones de esa Municipalidad. Se apercibe a la parte recurrida que, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado.
Se condena a la Municipalidad de Goicoechea al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En cuanto a la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias y a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, y respecto a los demás agravios, se declara sin lugar el recurso. El magistrado Castillo Víquez pone nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado consigna nota. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.