← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 04278-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 06/02/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber denied the amparo, finding that the respondent authorities had addressed the environmental and security complaints, without proving an omission that violated fundamental rights.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo al considerar que las autoridades recurridas han atendido las denuncias ambientales y de seguridad, sin que se acredite omisión vulneradora de derechos fundamentales.
SummaryResumen
The petitioner filed an amparo against the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Goicoechea for their alleged repeated inaction regarding an illegal scrapyard and La Montaña Bar, which generated pollution, noise, threats, aggression, and illicit activities in the community. The Constitutional Chamber reviewed the reports from the respondent authorities and the petitioner, finding that the complaints had been handled, albeit with delays and limitations typical of administrative procedures. It rejected the claims of violations to the rights of petition, access to information, due process, equality, or a healthy environment, since the institutions had conducted inspections, issued sanitary orders, closures, and referred criminal complaints to the Prosecutor's Office. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, as no fundamental rights violation was found.La recurrente interpuso amparo contra el Ministerio de Salud y la Municipalidad de Goicoechea por su reiterada inacción ante una chatarrera ilegal y el Bar La Montaña, que generaban contaminación por residuos, ruido, amenazas, agresiones y actividades ilícitas en su comunidad. La Sala Constitucional analiza los informes de las autoridades recurridas y de la recurrente, constatando que las denuncias han sido atendidas, aunque con demoras y limitaciones propias de los procedimientos administrativos. Rechaza la existencia de violaciones a los derechos de petición, acceso a la información, debido proceso, igualdad o ambiente sano, pues las instituciones han realizado inspecciones, emitido órdenes sanitarias, clausuras y derivado las denuncias penales a la Fiscalía. Declara sin lugar el recurso en todos sus extremos, al considerar que no se configura una omisión vulneradora de derechos fundamentales.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Upon reviewing the sworn reports provided by the respondent authorities and the documentary evidence submitted, no current and direct violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights is evident. In the case under study, the petitioner alleges widespread omission, but the documentary evidence reveals a series of administrative and criminal actions aimed at addressing the filed complaints. Consequently, it is not possible to attribute a fundamental rights violation as claimed, and the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to any liabilities that may apply through other legal channels.Revisados los informes rendidos bajo juramento por las autoridades recurridas, así como las pruebas documentales aportadas, no se desprende la existencia de una lesión actual y directa a los derechos fundamentales de la recurrente. En el caso bajo estudio, la recurrente acusa una omisión generalizada, pero lo cierto es que de la prueba documental se desprende una serie de actuaciones administrativas y penales dirigidas a atender las denuncias presentadas. Así las cosas, no es posible endilgar una violación a los derechos fundamentales como se pretende, resultando lo procedente declarar sin lugar el recurso, sin perjuicio de las responsabilidades que pudieran corresponder en otras vías.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Revisados los informes rendidos bajo juramento por las autoridades recurridas, así como las pruebas documentales aportadas, no se desprende la existencia de una lesión actual y directa a los derechos fundamentales de la recurrente."
"Upon reviewing the sworn reports provided by the respondent authorities and the documentary evidence submitted, no current and direct violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights is evident."
Considerando
"Revisados los informes rendidos bajo juramento por las autoridades recurridas, así como las pruebas documentales aportadas, no se desprende la existencia de una lesión actual y directa a los derechos fundamentales de la recurrente."
Considerando
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Type of Case: Amparo appeal CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on February sixth, two thousand twenty-six.
Amparo appeal processed in expediente No. 25-028451-0007-CO, filed by Nombre01, identity card CED02, against the MUNICIPALITY OF GOICOECHEA, and the MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
Whereas:
Another aspect is that, in relation to the minutes of the extraordinary session of July 3, 2025, when the minutes were transcribed, measures were sought to safeguard certain information, noting that the matter presented was a complaint and involved certain subjects, individuals and legal entities, companies, so in sections of said minutes, various proper names were omitted with that intention and insofar as there are currently no subjects against whom any degree of responsibility has been established or proven, and considering that the matter communicated is being preliminarily examined by the Commissions of the Municipal Council, in order to determine whether it is appropriate to adopt actions in relation to the request presented orally and which, it is now observed, is not a mere request for information, and requires the analysis of various circumstances and background on which the Municipal Council has not previously participated.
It is worth noting that, regarding the content of the minutes of the extraordinary session of July 3, 2025, what was stated by the appellant regarding the minutes having been manipulated or altered is not shared. The certified minutes that were provided to her were precisely those that were transcribed and approved by the Municipal Council and, from that moment onward, the minutes do not contain the mention of proper names of denounced persons or spaces referencing persons, and it is this aspect that the appellant interprets as a sort of manipulation of the document. In addition to the above, the appellant formally submitted a brief on September 17, 2025, requesting a certified copy of the video of the extraordinary session, expressing her displeasure because, despite having been able to access the document, she indicated that the video had been taken down from the Facebook platform. Furthermore, she again requested a copy of the minutes, stating that she expected to be presented with minutes without what this person calls omissions or alterations.
In this regard, it is recorded that the following actions were taken by the Secretariat of the Municipal Council: a) Regarding the request filed on September 17, 2025, acknowledgment of receipt was given to the appellant on September 19, 2025, from the email ...01. Furthermore, she was informed that inquiries regarding her petition would be made to external legal counsel, to which the appellant responded that she took note. b) Note that by September 17, 2025, a certified copy of the session minutes of July 3, 2025, had already been provided to the appellant, and she herself stated that she had been able to access the video of the session. c) Regarding the Secretariat of the Municipal Council, it was reported that the matter is under study by the Security and Health Commissions. d) Subsequently, the appellant has not issued further communications addressed to the Municipal Council. However, as stated, the certification of the requested video is pending the provision of the respective electronic device and the payment of the respective stamps.
With respect to the minutes of the session of July 3, 2025, it is emphasized that they have already been delivered to the appellant. It must be specified that the minutes provided are in the terms in which they were issued and approved by the Municipal Council. Under the appellant's criterion, she understands the fact that the names of individuals and legal entities that she enunciated during the public session were not incorporated into them as manipulation of the minutes or a lack of transparency or good faith. However, as stated, this position is not shared, and rather, if the Secretariat of the Municipal Council had subsequently proceeded to incorporate new data into the approved minutes of the session of July 3, 2025, this would have implied manipulation of the text of the minutes. Furthermore, it must be noted that, as was communicated to the petitioner, although in other public agencies minutes must be transcribed literally, this is not a prerogative or applicable rule for the case of Municipalities regarding the minutes of Municipal Council sessions.
In this regard, it has been reported that the Código Municipal has a special rule, Article 47, which, regarding the transcription of what is recorded in the minutes, prevails as a special rule over what is indicated in Article 56 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. On this aspect, the Procuraduría General de la República has stated in opinion C-074-2024 of April 29, 2024, that: "d) In the municipal sphere, the Municipal Council holds the status of a collegial body, therefore its sessions must be recorded in audio and video in light of the provisions of numerals 50 and 56 of the LGAP, however, due to the existence of a special rule in Article 47 of the Código Municipal, the obligation of literal transcription of the minutes does not apply, since the Código Municipal establishes that a succinct transcription must be made." Precisely, the recording verbatim of what was stated by certain persons during a session of the Municipal Council is only appropriate in relation to what the Reglamento interior de orden, dirección y debates del Concejo Municipal of the canton of Goicoechea itself provides, and which indicates in which cases a textual inclusion of statements must be made, particularly, in accordance with Articles 50.b and 59 of the regulations.
It should also be noted that, in the specific case, in the minutes of July 3, 2025, of the Municipal Council, no matters that were dealt with during the session have been eliminated, nor have any interventions been eliminated, nor have topics addressed on July 3, 2025, been omitted; rather, only a measure was adopted to safeguard the names of persons or establishments against which certain conducts, actions, and/or omissions were being imputed, without this affecting the congruence of what was recorded in the minutes, recalling that constitutional jurisprudence itself has indicated the type of treatment that must be given to complaints when they are in their preliminary and investigative phase. It should even be noted that, in consideration of Article 8 of the Ley contra la corrupción y el enriquecimiento ilícito en la función pública, as well as in accordance with Article 6 of the Ley General de Control Interno, the Contraloría General de la República had made a series of warnings in 2022, through official communication DJ-2668, regarding complainants and that, although it was issued in a period different from the inauguration of this Municipal Council, measures to safeguard information have been under examination, both for complainants and for denounced persons, during those phases where the information is not of public access.
In fact, in said document, the controlling body indicates: "Preparation and publication of minutes: The preparation and publication of minutes is also a very relevant control point in the activity of collegial bodies, since the safeguarding of the confidentiality of the identity of complainants must also be reflected in the documentation issued as a result of the sessions or activities carried out by said bodies, omitting information that may infringe upon said legal protection, such as the name of the complainant or other data that may reveal their identity." In this regard, it is considered that what was reviewed by the controlling body is applicable both to the case of complainants and to denounced persons, particularly in cases that are under investigation and preliminary analysis. While it is understood that residents sometimes find it difficult to understand aspects related to why the reception of complaints orally during Municipal Council sessions against certain legal entities or municipal servants is not promoted, or they may come to understand in the national context that the safeguarding of information and qualities associated with due process would imply some kind of lack of freedom to expose information, it is deeply regretted that, even in the face of the various warnings on the matter and the knowledge that the appellant had of the regulations, she should have used the public and live space not only to identify herself as a complainant, but also to make accusations about persons who have not been subject to due process and the procedures that apply in law. 8.3.
ON THE PROCESSING OF THE MATTER IN COMMISSIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. As previously indicated, the matter presented on July 3, 2025, was referred to the Security and Health Commissions of the Municipal Council for analysis, so that they may recommend to the Municipal Council how to proceed with respect to the petition received, which addresses various topics, including reproaches associated with specific individuals. The Reglamento interior de orden, dirección y debates del Concejo Municipal of the canton of Goicoechea, in its Article 63, allows a matter to be heard by several commissions simultaneously, considering them as an expanded commission. On this issue, it must be noted that, along with what was presented in the session of July 3, 2025, the appellant attached various documentation that was received and forwarded to the aforementioned Commissions. It must be emphasized that, as has been noted to date, the appellant's petition does not consist of a mere request for information that could be addressed forthwith, or that did not require greater intellectual exercise or analysis.
In fact, the information that was already generated and that the petitioner has requested has been made available to her (with the person having to assume the costs of reproduction in the case of certifications) and/or has already been provided to her, and the appellant has been informed accordingly. However, regarding the matter referred on July 3, 2025, in its substantive part, as it entails aspects associated with complaints, as well as technical aspects and actions formulated to the Administration, it requires a particular analysis by the commissions assigned this task. Now then, it must be reported that, in the session of the Security Commission of July 28, 2025, it was ordered that the issue be dealt with jointly with the Health Commission, for which reason a call was issued through official communication Comisión de Seguridad 04-2025 of August 7, 2025, for August 25, 2025. On August 21, 2025, the appellant sent an email to the Presidency of the Municipal Council, as well as to the Municipal Council email address, to request information regarding the petition/complaint of July 3, 2025.
In this regard, the Municipal Council, in its ordinary session of August 25, 2025, through agreement 3.38, ordered that the matter be referred to the Health and Security Commissions so that they could issue an opinion on the issue raised by the appellant, and the petitioner was notified of this. Now then, in official communication Comisión de Seguridad 08-2025 of August 28, 2025, the Presidency of the Security Commission records that the Health and Security Commissions met on August 25, 2025, and references a series of actions adopted by the Commission to gather inputs to analyze the specific case, which include requesting information from the agencies of the Municipal Administration about the actions carried out in said agencies. Subsequently, on August 31, 2025, the appellant sent a query to the Presidency of the Municipal Council requesting information on the status of the matter in the commissions of the Municipal Council.
It is noted that the appellant states in said email that "apparently, my case has been reviewed by the corresponding delegated commissions," complaining that she was not aware of any agreements, decisions, or solutions adopted regarding the situation she raised. Now then, it is noted that the appellant, at the time of sending this communication, knew that the matter was being processed by the Commissions of the Municipal Council. On September 1, 2025, the Presidency of the Municipal Council proceeded to issue official communication MG-CM-PM-OF-29-2025, where it proceeded to inform that the indicated matters were referred to the Security and Health Commissions; at the time, the undersigned assessed the need to issue a call to attention to the Commissions, so that they would address the subject matter of the petition; said document was sent to the appellant herein, as well as to the members of the Security and Health Commissions.
Now then, as has been stated, it has been observed that this matter requires significant intellectual effort, and the timely request for information from the authorities that were previously involved, making a preliminary examination of what is reported. Added to this, given that the appellant filed a request on September 17, 2025, apart from informing the petitioner on October 1, 2025, that the matter continues under study by the aforementioned Commissions. It must also be reported that the undersigned proceeded to consult with the members of said Commissions. Mr. Luis Carlos Barquero, President of the Health Commission, informed this Presidency in due course that the Security and Health Commissions met approximately one month ago, where agreements were made to conduct various inquiries to the Municipal Administration and, once the responses are received, the Commission would be convened again.
Additionally, the President of the Health Commission informs the undersigned that the members of the Health Commission, within the framework of reviewing this matter, made a site visit to the appellant, affirming that she received them. It must be noted, then, that although the matter has taken 3 months to date since the hearing was held on July 3, 2025, the Commissions of the Municipal Council have undertaken internal actions to address the petitioner's complaints, without detriment to observing that addressing matters related to complaints entails special treatment of the information analyzed within said commissions, and without detriment to the fact that the petitioner has been informed about the filed request, where, moreover, the Health Commission considered it pertinent to conduct a visit to the area where, according to the Presidency of the Health Commission, the appellant was present.
In view of the information related to the case that is currently under analysis by the aforementioned Commissions of the Municipal Council, it is considered that the subject matter of the petition requires analysis and the formulation of steps and requests at the institutional level, which will allow said Commissions to adequately examine the varied situations raised by the appellant, and to determine, from the Municipal Council, the actions that can be adopted. C- ON THE TREATMENT OF COMPLAINTS On September 17, 2025, the appellant submits a petition that, as has been stated, was addressed on October 1, 2025, informing the person about the availability of certifying the recording and audio of the extraordinary session of the Municipal Council of July 3, 2025, and indicating that the required session minutes correspond to those that had already been certified for her previously. Furthermore, she is informed that the denounced matter continues under study by the Commissions delegated to address those petitions …".
"… It is in the brief of September 17, 2025, the appellant identifies that what was presented constitutes a complaint; for this reason, in the first place, it is considered relevant to bear in mind that measures must be adopted regarding both complainants and denounced persons, and that the information provided about what is being analyzed or investigated must be handled with due confidentiality, without prejudice to informing the interested party about the course of the petitioned matter. Added to this, it is observed that what was referred contains varied information that is part of the analysis carried out within the commissions of the Municipal Council, and that it requires greater intellectual exercise to give a final response to the substance of the petition; upon re-examining this aspect, it is observed that the effective handling of a complaint requires requests for information, analysis of documents, reports, and even site visits.
D- ON THE RIGHT TO PETITION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION. It is understood that the exercise of the right to petition is protected under Article 27 of the Constitución Política, and refers to the fact that citizens can formulate petitions to public authorities on matters of particular or general interest, insofar as the object of the petition is legally possible and falls within the scope of competence of the authority to which the petition is addressed. In the specific case, it must be emphasized that the appellant has been provided with information about the minutes of the extraordinary session of July 3, 2025, and it has been emphasized to her that the information that was even delivered to her certified, corresponds to the minutes of the Municipal Council session that were approved by the Council and where, the only thing that was sought to safeguard is some information associated with persons against whom the appellant raised reproaches (by action and omission), without this harming the fact that, in the minutes of Municipal Council sessions, it is not a legal prerogative that all interventions must be recorded verbatim.
In any case, it is emphasized that the appellant has been able to access and download the video with the information related to the extraordinary session of July 3, 2025, and if this certified information is required, as the appellant has requested, she has already been informed that said certified information will be provided once the device to copy the digital document is submitted, and the stamps associated with the certification are paid. In said recording, the audio and video information of the persons against whom the appellant made various reproaches is recorded, information that the appellant already possesses (since she stated she was able to download it) and that can be provided to her certified, without prejudice to the warnings made to the appellant in the same session of July 3, 2025. On the other hand, Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees access to information. The Sala Constitucional recognized that canon 30 of the Carta Magna comprises in its content, among other aspects, "access to archives, registries, files, and physical or automated documents," as well as the "right to know the content of physical or virtual documents and files" and "obtain certifications or copies thereof at one's own cost." In the specific case, regarding the information requested by the appellant, it is not observed that the principles of transparency, good faith, or the right of access to information have been violated; as has been stated, the appellant requested a copy of the minutes of the extraordinary session of the Municipal Council of July 3, 2025, and she was provided with the minutes approved by the Municipal Council; the minutes have been delivered to the appellant in full, and it has been reiterated to her that the certified document delivered corresponds to the complete text of the minutes approved by the Municipal Council.
It is reiterated that, as has been stated, aspects related to complaints must be treated with the respective confidentiality and, the only things that do not appear in the minutes that the appellant alleges are proper names of persons or establishments regarding which the appellant reproached alleged conducts (actions or omissions), which is part of what the Security and Health Commissions are examining. In addition to this, the petitioner has been informed that the matter that was referred to the Commissions of the Municipal Council is under analysis, given that actions have also been adopted to date.".
This concludes the expansion of the report submitted yesterday, all in the interest of ascertaining the real truth of the facts that motivate the appellant here, Mrs. Nombre01, to file this amparo appeal and thereby obtain a solution to the reported problem through the actions of the relevant public institutions.”.
(folio 00121 denuncia D-352-2024) 71. August 22, 2025: Licda. Catalina Chavarría Solorzano forwarded to Mr. Manfred Montero Córdoba, an official of SENASA, matters concerning animal health reported in complaint 352-24, informing him that during an on-site inspection, the existence of approximately 10 cats, dogs, and chickens without adequate care by their owners was observed, for the corresponding intervention by SENASA. (folio 00034, denuncia D-369-19 and folio 00122 denuncia D-352-2024) 72. September 6, 2025: A sound measurement (sonometría) was conducted within the property of Mrs. Nombre01 in follow-up to the complaint filed against the establishment Restaurante La Montaña. (folio 00117 denuncia D-351-2024) 73. September 19, 2025: Report CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1404-2025 was generated regarding the sound measurement (sonometría) performed, and it was concluded that the sound value recorded with the generating source exceeded the legal limit during nighttime hours.
For this reason, the corresponding administrative act was issued. (folio 00120 denuncia D-351-2024) 74. 23 of 1180 of 2025: Sanitary order MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1474-2025 was notified to Mr. Nombre09, legal representative of the establishment Restaurante La Montaña, ordering him: To suspend the activity or use of amplifying equipment, similar devices used for the production or reproduction of sound, and musical instruments, in the entirety of the establishment. Furthermore, he was instructed that should he resume the use of sound amplifying equipment, he must carry out a confinement plan in accordance with the provisions of Decreto 44486-S. (folio 00126 denuncia D-351-2024) 75. October 8, 2025: Mrs. Nombre01 was informed via official letter CARTA MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1573-2025 of the actions taken in response to complaint D-351-2024. (folio 00128 denuncia D-351-2024) 76. October 8, 2025: Via official letter CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1574-2025, official MSc. Diana Benavides León informs Dra. Jéssica Chavarría that because complaints 369-19 and 352-24 are both filed by Mrs.
Nombre01 and report the same aspects against the same respondents, for this reason, everything related to complaint D-369-19 must be referred to and is observable within the case file for complaint D-352-24. (folio 00036, denuncia D-369-19). ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. As a result of the complaint filed by the appellant, the accumulation of waste at the reported location has been identified, though the commercial activity described by the appellant, Mrs. Nombre01, could not be confirmed. Regarding the persistence of waste at the location described by the appellant, Mrs. Nombre01, the partial removal of waste has been evidenced, as well as the gradual demolition of structures on the site that lack habitability conditions due to unsanitary, ruinous, and/or dangerous conditions, as stipulated in the administrative acts notified by this institution. The appellant indicates the filing of complaints about musical disturbances (escándalos musicales), regarding which she claims she has been provided false information and a lack of response, this being erroneous, since this Directorate of the Goicoechea Health Area (Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea), as demonstrated in the actions carried out in complaint D-102-2021, attempted in multiple ways (email, telephone call, on-site inspection) to coordinate, and it was not possible to coordinate and execute the respective sound measurement (sonometría), for which reason that complaint was closed.
The appellant alleges non-compliance by this Directorate of the Goicoechea Health Area (Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea) regarding the request from the Adjacent Prosecutor's Office of the Second Circuit of San José (Fiscalía Adjunta del II Circuito de San José) in case file 21-000073-0611-PE; however, it is observed in the actions taken under case file D-28-2022, that a joint visit was made with the Municipality of Goicoechea, although, during the period indicated by the Prosecutor's Office, said office did not appear; nonetheless, an administrative act closing the activity was equally issued, demonstrating the availability of cooperation and attention requested by the Prosecutor's Office, and to date, no further meeting has been convened nor any other type of information requested. Regarding what was stated about leaks and illegal construction and the absence of a dividing wall, evidence exists of what was mentioned by the appellant, as uninhabitable conditions were observed due to unsanitary, ruinous, and/or dangerous conditions, therefore the administrative acts notified by this institution have consequently been issued.
Concerning the allegations made by the appellant regarding the inaction of this Directorate of the Goicoechea Health Area (Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea), the institutional effort for the constant and timely attention to the complaints filed by the appellant is evident (a table is inserted containing the complaints filed, the date of filing, and a description of the complaints) ...”. “… It should be noted that due to the number of existing dwelling spaces on the property of Mrs. Nombre02 and others, as well as the reluctance of the inhabitants to allow access, the investigation process and the gathering of all technical and legal bases for decision-making regarding dwelling units—this process has not yet concluded. The appellant points out that there is a relationship between the complaint against Mrs. Nombre02 (and others) and Bar la Montaña, these being distinct situations, on different properties; and regarding the latter (the noise activity at Bar la Montaña), an inspection was conducted, the problem was identified, and the corresponding administrative act was issued; these are reported situations that are distinct in form and in the approach to addressing them.
Finally, the appellant points out that the report to the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes) does not contain significant details; however, it does present the steps of the investigation and evidence-gathering process to support decisions with technical and legal foundations. Due to the foregoing, this health authority considers that the complaints initiated by the appellant have been duly addressed, meetings have been held with the appellant, the handling of what was reported has been explained to her, the case files have been provided to her in form and in their entirety in accordance with the legislation that public administration allows, and constant and expeditious communication has always been sought, both with the appellant and with other authorities that have requested it in their time (Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and the Adjacent Prosecutor's Office of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Fiscalía Adjunta del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José)).
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the present articulation BE DECLARED WITHOUT MERITS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS given that the complaints were addressed at the time in accordance with regulations and the situations previously set forth are currently being addressed expeditiously …”.
Includes all the facts relating to the Mayor's misconduct, the manipulation of the minutes, the omission of Nombre10, the falsehood in the Public Force reports, and the abandonment of the duty of citizen protection.”.
The lack of confidentiality in the handling of information provided by a complainant constitutes a serious violation of the Data Protection Law (Ley de Protección a la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales, Law No. 8968), as well as of the duties of functional confidentiality and protection of the integrity of individuals who approach public authorities seeking justice. Subsequently, on November 6, 2024, a meeting was held at the Municipality of Goicoechea, attended by Mr. Fernando Chavarría Quirós, municipal Nombre04; Mr. Álvaro Cascante, advisor to the mayor; Mr. Roy Díaz Elizondo, chief of the Municipal Police; and Mrs. Nombre10, who was an eyewitness to what happened. During that meeting, Mr. Nombre04 expressed in a derogatory, offensive, and unacceptable manner that, "ONLY YOU COMPLAIN, THAT'S WHY THEY DAMAGE YOUR PROPERTY; IF IT WERE TWENTY NEIGHBORS, THEY WOULDN'T DAMAGE OR THREATEN 20 PEOPLE OR FAMILIES," a phrase that constitutes an act of re-victimization, discrimination, and contempt toward my person and toward the legitimate exercise of my rights as a citizen.
That expression, made in the presence of municipal officials and a civilian witness, Mrs. Nombre10, a community resident, highlights Nombre04's disdain for victims, his lack of ethics and public empathy, and his tacit acknowledgment that the damages suffered by my family were a consequence of my complaints, which further aggravates his institutional and moral responsibility. This type of conduct constitutes a direct violation of the right to human dignity (article 33 of the Political Constitution, Constitución Política), the principle of equality before the law, and the right of access to justice and protection against threats (articles 21, 41, and 48 of the Constitution), constituting an institutional omission and degrading treatment by a public authority. It should also be highlighted that the owner of Bar La Montaña, a person repeatedly denounced by the community and by myself, worked years ago as a municipal councilor (regidor) in Goicoechea, maintaining, according to public and neighborhood knowledge, a relationship of friendship and closeness with Nombre04 and other municipal officials.
This situation generates a clear conflict of interest and compromises the impartiality of administrative action, which could explain the institutional tolerance and the lack of concrete actions in the face of repeated complaints of irregularities and crimes committed in said establishment. Consequently, the Municipality of Goicoechea, under the administration of Mr. Fernando Chavarría Quirós, has incurred a serious omission of its legal and constitutional duties, by not guaranteeing citizen security, not addressing the complaints filed with due diligence, and by allowing, through action or omission, those denounced to continue affecting my physical, emotional, and property integrity, as well as the peaceful coexistence of the community. This conduct violates the guiding principles of public service and constitutes administrative, patrimonial, and potentially criminal liability, pursuant to articles 11, 50, 140, and 169 of the Political Constitution, articles 4, 5, 7, 13, 74, and 75 of the Municipalities Law (Ley de Municipalidades), and articles 190 and 199 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), as well as article 339 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), which sanctions the breach of duties by public officials.
Subsequent to the meeting held on November 6 in the office of Mr. Nombre04 of the Municipality of Goicoechea, it must be noted that, on October 9 (an earlier date in the same year), the Municipal Police of Goicoechea, together with the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), carried out an operation at the establishment called "Bar La Montaña." It is important to place on record that said operation constitutes the only procedure of this type carried out in over a year, despite the multiple formal complaints filed by the undersigned and by other community residents, which is striking and generates the well-founded perception that said action was executed only with the purpose of feigning an institutional response or silencing the complaints we had been filing against said premises and its irregular activities. Likewise, it is extremely concerning that on the same day that said operation was carried out—and at a time when a considerable number of police officers were on the public road, in front of my home—a new act of vandalism occurred against my property, consisting of white paint being thrown on my red gate, acts that were duly documented through photographs already incorporated into the file.
Upon noticing what had happened, I proceeded to leave my home and inquire directly with the officers present, as well as with the owners of the adjacent scrapyard (chatarrera) and some patrons of the bar; however, inexplicably, everyone stated they had seen absolutely nothing, despite the evident police presence at the location. It is implausible that, with such a number of officers present in the area, none had observed what happened. At the hearing on July 3 before the Municipal Council, copies and audio of which are on file, Mr. Nombre04 stated that, regarding complaints of vandalism and illicit conduct under the Municipal Police's jurisdiction, the action of said institution was not immediate, but generally occurred after a week or fifteen days. However, in that episode, the acts of vandalism and the death threats against my family, my home, and my person materialized just 3 days after the complaints were filed.
Said act was reported to the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) under file No. 24-03338-0042-PE, which is still under investigation. Nevertheless, I reiterate it is impossible not to question whether this event is related to my participation in the meeting held three days earlier with the Mayor, his subordinate, the Chief of the Municipal Police, Mrs. Nombre10, and myself, in which I again denounced the conduct of the bar owner and the illicit activities that take place there almost daily. It is worth asking whether this act of vandalism could have been executed as retaliation or an attempt at intimidation, under the assumption that I had prompted the police operation or for the simple fact of having raised my voice in defense of public order and the tranquility of the community. These comments are not mere personal conjecture, but rather reflect the general feeling among the neighbors, who have expressed their concern and fear of possible reprisals resulting from the complaints filed.
I clearly establish that I maintain no enmity or conflict with any person and have no personal motives that justify the aggression suffered, which reinforces the hypothesis that these acts are due to a deliberate intention of harassment and retaliation against me for exercising my legitimate citizen's right to report and demand the intervention of the competent authorities.
5. On June 5 of this year, the owners of the adjacent scrapyard received a notification issued by the National Animal Health Service (Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, SENASA), in which they were required to address the conditions of abandonment, neglect, and lack of veterinary care for the animals they keep in that place. Said intervention, a result of the multiple neighborhood complaints filed, generated the immediate violent reaction of the tenants and owners of the property, who proceeded to utter insults, threats, and abuse against me and my family. In the evening hours of that same day, and after various complaints had been filed with the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes), the Municipality of Montes de Oca, and the General Directorate of Transit (Dirección General de Tránsito), regarding the constant passage of carts (vagonetas), the improper use of the public road as a workshop, illegal dismantling operation (deshuesadora), and shelter for homeless people and drug use, the definitive removal of a truck belonging to one of the tenants of the scrapyard occurred, which was duly fined for being irregularly parked.
This event apparently provoked the annoyance and retaliations of the owners and tenants of the property, as during the night verbal threats, insults, offenses of all kinds, and even death threats were recorded, culminating in a direct physical aggression against my person and my daughter, acts that are duly reported to the competent authorities. It is necessary to point out that, faced with this scenario, Mr. Nombre04 could allege ignorance or disassociation from the facts; however, the reality is that this entire conflict is a direct consequence of institutional inaction, as countless complaints have been filed for years with different municipal departments and public entities, without any definitive or effective measure having been executed to date to eradicate the reported problem. The institutions, instead of applying concrete sanctions or referring the cases for non-compliance to the courts or the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público) and following up on them, limit themselves to making sporadic visits and issuing administrative notifications warning of possible future sanctions, which never materialize.
Examples of this are the reiterated orders related to the construction of a dividing wall, the cleaning of the land used as a scrapyard, or the management of abandoned animals, all unfulfilled without any consequence. The real problem lies in the fact that the institutions indefinitely prolong the procedures, omit follow-up, and lack diligent and timely action, which generates an environment of impunity that fosters violence and aggressiveness on the part of those who are denounced. It is evident that institutional passivity has contributed to escalating conflict in the community, to the point of endangering the physical and emotional integrity of the complaining neighbors, especially the undersigned and my family. Therefore, it is imperative that the competent authorities assume with responsibility and commitment their legal duty to protect the well-being of the communities, effectively following up on complaints, executing the corresponding sanctions, and guaranteeing that administrative and judicial actions do not remain mere formalities. Only in this way can citizen trust in the institutions be restored and prevent such regrettable events as those described herein from being repeated or remaining unpunished.
IV.REGARDING POINT FIVE, ON THE ALLEGATION OF Nombre04 REGARDING THE MEDIATION ATTEMPT Nombre04 has stated that "he has no proof" that the reported situation was presented to him on multiple occasions, and alleges that it is not his responsibility to intervene regarding the mediation attempt I made with the owner of the scrapyard. It is important to note that said allegation lacks legal foundation. First, because the obligation of the Municipality and its authorities does not depend on direct mediation with the owner; the function of oversight, land-use control, inspection, and attention to neighborhood complaints is of a mandatory and continuous nature, as established in the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and in the regulations for citizen protection and neighborhood coexistence. Second, the fact that a mediation attempt existed does not exempt or relieve the Municipality of its legal duty to act in the face of events that affect the safety, health, and rights of the community, so the justification of "it is not his responsibility" is inadmissible as an argument to omit his duty of supervision and administrative response.
Finally, the lack of knowledge alleged by Nombre04 cannot be considered a cause for exemption from administrative responsibility, given that the complaints were formally filed and there were repeated documented communications that required attention from the municipal authority. The omission or disinterest in addressing said complaints constitutes an act that violates the rights of the neighbors and the obligation of the Municipality to ensure legality and public order in its jurisdiction.
V.REGARDING POINT SIX, MUNICIPAL NON-COMPLIANCE AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION OF THE DIVIDING WALL In relation to what was indicated by Mr. Nombre04 in his written response to the filed appeal, regarding the sixth point, the following is recorded: 1. Lack of construction of the dividing wall: Despite the municipality's claims, no dividing wall has been built on the adjacent property. The photographs provided, including those taken on October 3, 2025, demonstrate that the place remains full of scrap (chatarra) and garbage, without having proceeded to the total and definitive cleaning or the ordered delimitation of the property as indicated in Notification 13247-A. 2. Distortion of information by municipal officials: o Mr. William Salas Pérez, inspector of the corresponding office, indicated that "there are no constructions in progress" and that the only thing done was "remove all kinds of scrap." However, the photographs confirm that the scrap remained on and around my wall, evidencing that the municipal order was not complied with. o Mr.
Mario Iván Sánchez Rojas alleged that boundary disputes are private problems and that the municipality "does not act as a judge," attempting to distort the nature of the complaint. This interpretation is incorrect, as the complaint filed is not limited to a boundary conflict, but refers to illegal constructions, risks of leaks, contamination, noise, smoke, and danger to the safety of the neighbors, powers that do correspond to the municipality according to the Municipalities Law (Ley N.º 7794, articles 52 and 53) and the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones, Law No. 7 of 1942). 3. Documentation and evidence provided: o Photographs from October 3, demonstrating the non-existence of the wall and the permanence of scrap and garbage. o Copies of emails from November 2024 and March 2025, evidencing the lack of institutional response to the complaint. o Notification 13247-A, ordering the construction of the dividing wall, the elimination of all adjacent structures, and the correction of leaks and bad odors, without the order having been executed. 4.
Non-compliance and violation of rights: The repeated omission and distortion of information by municipal officials constitutes: o Breach of their legal duties, by not guaranteeing compliance with construction and territorial planning regulations. o Denial of justice, by not protecting my rights as an affected neighbor, nor executing the measures ordered in Notification 13247-A. o Violation of my constitutional rights, including the right to safety, a healthy environment, and the protection of my property, established in articles 50 and 74 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica. 5. Formal requirement: It is requested that the municipality: o Provide documentary, photographic, and technical evidence that supports any action regarding the construction of the dividing wall. o Report in detail the administrative procedures or procedures in other legal instances carried out regarding the denounced owners. o Immediately execute the measures ordered in Notification 13247-A, guaranteeing the protection of my rights and the security of my property.
Mr. Nombre04 Fernando Chavarría Quirós, in his written response, states that he will not refer to the seventh point, on the grounds that part of the information presented falls under the purview of the Ministry of Health. However, this statement lacks foundation, as the complaints filed with the Ombudsman's Office are based on a series of repeated omissions and shared responsibilities among several institutions, including the Municipality of Goicoechea, the Ministry of Health, the Municipality of Montes de Oca, and the National Animal Health Service (SENASA), within their respective areas of competence. By virtue of the lack of administrative responses, the denial of justice, and the absence of effective actions in the face of situations of risk, unsanitary conditions, and urban disorder, recourse was made to the Ombudsman's Office in order to request its intervention. Below are detailed the main complaints formulated and the corresponding institutional actions (or inactions): * Scrapyard operating illegally On May 5, 2025, a formal complaint was filed with the Ombudsman's Office against the Municipality of Goicoechea for the illegal operation of a scrapyard located in a residential area.
On May 14, 2025, the Municipality sent a response with a copy of the administrative file, in which only Notification Record No. 13247-A is recorded, stating the construction of a dividing wall, the removal of scrap on my wall, and the removal of adjacent structures. This notification was addressed to Mr. Nombre02 and Mr. Nombre03, owners of the property where the scrapyard operates. Said documentation was the only information provided both in January 2025 and in the subsequent response sent by the Municipality to the Ombudsman's Office, as the sole document, evidencing the lack of subsequent actions, follow-up, and control by the municipal authority. On May 30, 2025, the Ombudsman's Office sent a request for additional information in relation to said notification, expressly addressed to the Mayor, without receiving a response. Subsequently, on June 25, 2025, the Ombudsman's Office sent a second warning, requiring the submission of a report and related administrative actions; no response was obtained either.
Finally, on September 5, 2025, the Ombudsman's Office issued a final report with recommendations, urging the Municipality to apply current regulations and, if necessary, proceed judicially. However, again no institutional response was received. On October 13, 2025, the Ombudsman's Office reiterated the request for a response through a reminder, to which Mr. Nombre04 alleged that he had not been able to open the final report document, thus justifying his lack of response. It is not normal nor legally justifiable for a public institution to repeatedly allege that it "could not open documents" as an excuse for not responding, investigating, or resolving citizen complaints. This type of justification does not release the Administration from its constitutional and legal obligation to act with diligence, effectiveness, and good faith, nor does it constitute a valid cause to keep a file in inaction or ignore complaints affecting fundamental rights.
From a legal standpoint, this behavior reflects a clear institutional disinterest, contrary to the principles of effectiveness, continuity, and service to the public interest enshrined in articles 11 and 113 of the General Law of Public Administration, which impose on every authority the duty to process and resolve matters submitted to its knowledge promptly. The excuse of "not having been able to open the documents" not only denotes administrative negligence, but could even constitute disciplinary or functional liability, in accordance with article 192 of the Political Constitution and articles 110, 111, and 113 of the General Law of Public Administration, for breach of duties and disregard for the general interest. Furthermore, this practice violates the right to petition and prompt response (article 27 of the Political Constitution), the right to due process and effective judicial protection (articles 39 and 41), and the principle of good administration, widely developed by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) (Votos 4654-2003, 2013-015943, and 2020-016092, among others), which has held that public entities cannot excuse themselves through formalities or internal deficiencies to fail in their duty to substantively resolve the claims and complaints of citizens.
Therefore, when a public institution repeatedly alleges that it "could not open files" or "did not receive the complete documentation" and, consequently, does not respond or advance the process, an unjustified institutional omission is configured, an expression of a lack of real interest in resolving the complaints and ensuring effective solutions for the affected neighbors and communities. * Indiscriminate transit of carts The problem of the constant passage of carts (vagonetas) was denounced on June 1, 2025, before the Ombudsman's Office, and on June 9 of the same year, the Municipality of Montes de Oca sent a response to the Ombudsman's Office, which is on file, but does not offer an effective or comprehensive solution to the problem raised. On July 14, 2025, I spoke out and reiterated the complaint before both municipalities, again requesting the installation of preventive signage and compliance with the commitments assumed since 2021 by the Municipality of Goicoechea.
A copy was attached of the minutes of the meeting of March 22, 2021, held with both mayors and their subordinates, where concrete control and mitigation measures were agreed upon, which have not been complied with or executed. There are also emails and communications sent between 2020 and 2025, demonstrating the persistence of the situation and the total lack of sustained institutional response over time. * "La Montaña" Bar In relation to the establishment called Bar La Montaña, a complaint was filed before the Ombudsman's Office, which, on August 7, 2025, sent a formal request for a report to the Municipality of Goicoechea. To date, said request remains unanswered, again constituting an omission and denial of administrative justice. * Animals in a state of abandonment On May 19, 2025, a complaint was filed before SENASA for the presence of abandoned animals belonging to the owners of the scrapyard.
Although this institution notified those responsible, no effective measure has been executed; they continue to keep dogs and cats in the place in a state of abandonment and negligence. Since September 2024, complaints have been filed with both municipalities regarding the massive presence of large stray dogs, which represent a health, environmental, and citizen safety risk, without any response, action, or institutional coordination in this regard. Mr. Nombre04 Fernando Chavarría Quirós, far from assuming the responsibility that falls to him, has repeatedly maintained that it is not the Municipality's responsibility to address these issues, or that they have already been resolved, which does not conform to the factual or documentary reality.
Hearing before the Municipal Council and lack of responses On July 3, 2025, at a hearing before the Municipal Council, when questioned about the lack of response to the Ombudsman's Office, Nombre04 responded in an arrogant, contemptuous, and rude manner, stating that he "had already answered everything" and that the Ombudsman's Office "was possibly satisfied with the information sent." However, the files demonstrate the opposite: there are no complete responses or subsequent administrative actions, thus constituting a denial of justice, violation of the principle of legality, and omission of public duties. The conduct of the municipal authority, by ignoring the warnings, requests, and reports of the Ombudsman's Office, directly violates articles 11, 27, and 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as the principles of due process, transparency, and accountability. Consequently, the existence of a repeated, systematic, and conscious omission of institutional duties is reaffirmed, which constitutes a clear denial of administrative justice and violation of fundamental rights of the undersigned and the affected community.
Perfect. I have made the requested corrections and adjustments, eliminating the incorrect date of October 2, correcting the session to 34-2025, and reinforcing the text with observations on the constant denial of justice and the action of all municipal leadership and authorities. I present below the complete, integrated, and corrected text:
VII.The phrase where he states that "He did not find records in the municipality dated September 17, 2025, Facts No. 1 'Dividing wall built'" It is recorded that, verbally, the inspector from the Engineering Office reported that a sheet metal wall had been built on the adjacent property. However, this statement is improper and lacks support for the following reasons: 1. Non-existence of prior compliance: For the construction of any dividing wall, in accordance with municipal and urban planning regulations, any structure or ranch (rancho) illegally erected on the land had to be previously eliminated. This condition has not been met, so any subsequent construction lacks validity. 2. Impropriety of constructing a sheet metal wall on inhabited land: The building of sheet metal walls is contemplated only for vacant lots (terrenos baldíos), never for inhabited parcels. In the present case, the adjacent parcel is inhabited, making the construction of the wall improper, considering the risks it represents for the safety, health, and living conditions of the neighbors. 3.
Structural and health risks: The construction of the sheet metal wall would aggravate humidity problems, given that there are no adequate drainage systems, downspouts, or gutters, and the roofs are makeshift. This increases the risk of structural deterioration, leaks, and effects on the health of neighboring properties. 4. Additional risks to safety and coexistence: o Increased risk of fires due to burning and accumulation of combustible material on the property. o Lack of noise confinement and passage of smoke to neighboring properties. o Existence of illegal and unshielded electrical wiring, with risk of electrocution and damage to third parties. 5. Tax non-compliance and illegal operation: The owners of the land have not complied with their fiscal obligations for years, despite having more than nine habitable structures. In addition, they operate scrap recycling activities without the proper municipal authorization, constituting an illegal commercial activity that requires immediate intervention. 6.
Lack of formal documentation: No documentation has been presented accrediting: o Formal permit issued by the Municipality for the construction. o Technical authorization from a competent professional (surveyor or engineer) supporting the work. o Photographic and administrative evidence demonstrating that the works have been carried out in accordance with regulations. Visually, the inspections carried out have confirmed that the property continues to be full of scrap material and no wall has been built, as demonstrated by the photograph dated October 3 previously provided. 7. Municipal competence and supervision obligation: The Municipality has the responsibility to supervise, sanction, and regulate constructions, ensuring compliance with urban planning, safety, and health standards. This includes the removal of illegal structures, the regularization of constructions, and the prevention of risks to neighbors. 8.
Legal basis: According to the Law of Urbanism, Territorial Planning, and Constructions (Ley de Urbanismo, Ordenamiento Territorial y Construcciones), every dividing wall must guarantee safety, health, structural stability, and protection of neighboring properties. The indicated works do not meet these requirements, making them improper. For all the above, the Municipality is requested to: * Verify the existence of irregular constructions on the property. * Demand the removal of illegal structures and hazardous materials. * Ensure that any future construction complies with formal permits, technical authorizations, and safety, health, and urban planning regulations. * Take measures regarding the illegal operation of scrap recycling and the breach of tax obligations by the owners.
Facts No. 2 Facts regarding requests sent to the Secretary of the Municipality of Goicoechea * On July 8, 2025, I submitted to the Secretariat of the Municipal Council of Goicoechea a formal request for a certified copy of the public hearing held on July 3, 2025, in which I participated by presenting complaints of personal and communal interest, including those on administrative irregularities, effects on the community, and alleged omissions by the municipal authorities. At said hearing, I formally presented situations that affect basic neighborhood rights, which is recorded in the corresponding minutes.
• Subsequently, I reiterated my request expressly indicating that I required a certified copy of the minutes, an audiovisual recording, a transcript, or other means of supporting the hearing, by virtue of my constitutional right of access to public information, in accordance with article 30 of the Political Constitution and articles 4 and 5 of Law No. 8220. • On July 18, 2025, I was informed that the certification was ready. However, upon communicating by telephone with the Municipal Secretariat, I was informed that only the written document had been certified, and that the audiovisual recording could not be provided, suggesting that it could be downloaded from the municipality's social media (Facebook). Such conduct is irregular, since access to an official recording of a public hearing constitutes information of a public nature and must be provided directly by the institution, in accordance with the principle of administrative transparency enshrined in article 11 of the Political Constitution and in article 272 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP). • While it is true that the certified copy of the Coexistence Minutes (Acta de Convivencia) was finally delivered, the wording did not correspond to the complete version, given that the names of reported individuals and mentioned businesses were removed, which constitutes an unlawful alteration of a public document and a violation of the right of full access to public information, protected by constitutional article 30 and the principle of documentary integrity provided for in the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the Archives Law (No. 7202), and the Internal Control Law (No. 8292). • On August 21, 2025, I sent an email addressed to Ms.
Gloriana Ramona, President of the Municipal Council, and to the Municipal Secretariat, requesting to be informed immediately and in writing which municipal commissions had handled my complaints, the current status of the process, and the administrative actions taken or underway. To date, I have not received a formal response. I was only verbally informed that the complaints were referred to two commissions, without detailing their handling or providing any documentary support, which constitutes administrative silence and a violation of the duty to resolve, in accordance with article 27 of the Political Constitution, article 301 LGAP, and article 4, subsection 1) of Law No. 8220. • On August 25, 2025, the Municipal Secretariat reported that my note had been acknowledged in Ordinary Session No. 34-2025 of the Municipal Council. However, said communication was limited to verifying the formal acknowledgment of the request, without issuing a substantive response or indicating concrete actions.
This action is part of a pattern of constant denial of justice by the Municipality, where all the heads and competent authorities of each 24 department rely on the same version, do not resolve, respond only to acknowledge receipt, and deny justice. The authorities claim that the complaints filed are not within their purview, referring them to the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público) or other instances; however, this is incorrect, since municipal legislation is clear regarding each of the rights and procedures requested. Said actions reflect a lack of interest in the well-being of the people and a systematic omission of administrative duties, contrary to articles 11, 27, and 30 of the Political Constitution, and articles 272 and 301 LGAP. • ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2025, I filed a new proceeding requesting a formal response regarding the institutional conduct in relation to my complaints, the assigned commissions, and the current status of the process.
In the same request, I reiterated the petition for delivery of the audiovisual recording of the July 3 hearing, which had been previously denied. However, I did not receive a response, nor was I informed about the stage of the procedure, again constituting an administrative omission and a tacit denial of information. • On September 22, 2025, the Municipality merely acknowledged receipt of my note filed on September 17, without providing a substantive response or a solution to what was requested. This action constitutes an act of administrative inactivity contrary to the duty to expressly resolve citizen petitions, as established by article 301 LGAP and the reiterated case law of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in rulings No. 2000-1084, 2005-11113, and 2019-002474. • On October 6, 2025, I was notified via email, through Licentiate David Salazar Morales, that I could appear to collect the audiovisual recording requested since the month of July.
This late delivery, after multiple proceedings and reiterated requests, evidences a lack of institutional diligence, unjustified delay, and constant denial of justice, to the detriment of the fundamental right of access to information. • Furthermore, Licentiate Nombre01 stated that the certified copy of the written minutes delivered corresponded to the version approved by the Municipal Council, denying the possibility of obtaining a complete copy that included the names and data originally recorded. Regarding the information on the course of the complaints referred to municipal commissions, it was indicated that, if they were in the investigative stage, the information would be “confidential.” However, to date, I have not been formally informed about the status of the complaints, actions taken, or recommendations issued, which constitutes a direct violation of the right of access to public information, petition, and citizen participation, regulated by arts. 27 and 30 of the Political Constitution, arts. 4 and 5 of Law No. 8220, and arts. 3, 4, and 13 of the Municipal Code. 25 It is important to note that, during the July 3 hearing, I raised issues of highly relevant community interest, such as: • Lack of drinking water supply in the Community Hall (Salón Comunal) for more than 20 years. • Deterioration and abandonment of the public park, without maintenance or cleaning, in uninhabitable and unsanitary conditions. • Absence of non-traditional garbage collection in the community. • Lack of cleaning and maintenance of gutters and other public infrastructure.
To date, the Municipality has not provided follow-up, explanation, or concrete solution to any of these issues, limiting itself to superficial pronouncements or acknowledgments of receipt, denying justice, and showing evident disinterest in the well-being of the community. Consequently, the conduct of the Municipality of Goicoechea and of all the heads and competent authorities constitutes a systematic denial of administrative justice, omission of legal duties, and violation of fundamental rights, including: • Right to petition and prompt response (art. 27 Political Constitution). • Right of access to public information (art. 30 Political Constitution). • Right to good administration and legality (art. 11 Political Constitution). • Right to an effective and reasoned administrative procedure (arts. 41 Political Constitution; art. 301 LGAP). • Right to citizen participation and community oversight (arts. 3, 4, and 13 Municipal Code).
These actions or omissions could also constitute the crimes of breach of duties (art. 339 Criminal Code) and serious faults of administrative responsibility, by systematically denying information and unjustifiably delaying the resolution of citizen petitions. Perfect. Below, I present the complete, formal, and legally structured text, ready to be included in your amparo action before the Constitutional Chamber, with the documentary evidence section (already corrected) and the final conclusion integrated. The document maintains a solid, coherent, and respectful legal tone, based on Costa Rican administrative and constitutional law. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE For purposes of accrediting the facts stated and supporting this amparo action, it is recorded that the documentary evidence was provided from the beginning of the complaint and is related as follows: 26 1. Physical copy of the Minutes (Acta) of the Municipality of Goicoechea, corresponding to the hearing held on July 3, 2025, in which the complaints and statements made by the undersigned are recorded.
Said copy was provided by the Municipal Secretariat and forms an integral part of the file. 2. Certified copy of the electronic communications sent to the Presidency of the Municipal Council and the Municipal Secretariat, on dates July 8, 18, 21, and 25, as well as September 17 and 22, and October 6, 2025, through which information was requested on the status of the complaints, the audiovisual recordings, and the complete minutes, including the identification of the commissions tasked with handling the matters. 3. Responses issued by the Municipal Secretariat and the Legal Advisory (Lic. David Salazar Morales), where it is verified that the replies were limited to simple acknowledgments of receipt, without resolving the substance of the procedures raised, which constitutes a denial of administrative justice and an omission of the duty of timely and reasoned response, in contravention of articles 27 of the Political Constitution, 4 and 6 of Law No. 8220, and 301 of the General Law of Public Administration. 4.
Downloaded copy of the audiovisual recording of the July 3, 2025 hearing, initially obtained from the institutional Facebook social network, which was subsequently removed, its formal delivery being denied by the Municipality. This fact evidences an undue restriction of access to public information and a possible alteration or manipulation of the evidentiary content, which is contrary to the principle of transparency and publicity of administrative acts. 5. Copy of the formal complaints filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República), which detail the same facts reported to the Municipality of Goicoechea, particularly the omission of local authorities, the lack of administrative management, the permissiveness regarding community irregularities, and the direct impact on my rights and those of the community of Salitrillos. Said complaints were filed with the proper supporting documentation and are on record in the main file. 6.
Proof of receipt and certification issued by the Municipal Secretariat, which accredits the partial delivery of the requested documentation and proves that the audiovisual recording and the complete minutes with the names of the reported individuals were denied. This document demonstrates the lack of institutional transparency and the deliberate omission in the total delivery of the required public information, constituting a violation of the right of access to administrative information, in accordance with articles 30 of the Political Constitution and 3, 4, and 6 of Law No. 8220. FINAL CONCLUSION. From all the foregoing, it is clear that the Municipality of Goicoechea, through its various heads, departments, legal advisors, and competent authorities, has engaged in repeated conduct involving omission, neglect, unjustified delay, and denial of administrative justice. 27 The responses provided by the institution have been limited to mere formal communications or acknowledgments of receipt, without addressing the substance of the complaints and requests made, and without executing any concrete action to resolve the reported problems.
This attitude reflects a pattern of inaction, lack of transparency, and institutional disinterest that violates the principles of legality, efficiency, publicity, and good administration, established in articles 11, 27, and 30 of the Political Constitution, as well as in the General Law of Public Administration and Law No. 8220 on protection of the citizen against excessive requirements and administrative procedures. Likewise, a clear violation of my fundamental rights has occurred, including: • The right of petition and prompt response (article 27 of the Political Constitution). • The right of access to public and administrative information (article 30 of the Political Constitution). • The right to an efficient, transparent public administration serving the general interest (article 11 of the Political Constitution). • The right to due administrative process and effective judicial protection, recognized in the constant case law of the Constitutional Chamber.
It is evident that the municipal actions, rather than seeking the defense of community interests and proper attention to residents, have been marked by a systematic practice of indifference, delay, and evasion of responsibilities, falsely claiming that the reported matters “are not the responsibility of the Municipality,” when the Municipalities Law (Law No. 7794) is clear in attributing to local governments competencies in matters of public services, community order, infrastructure, health, and neighborhood protection. The repeated refusal to resolve constitutes not only an administrative fault but a direct violation of constitutional rights and an illicit act by omission, which must be corrected through the intervention of this Honorable Chamber. THEREFORE: Based on articles 7, 11, 27, 30, and 48 of the Political Constitution, in accordance with articles 4, 6, and 8 of Law No. 8220, and articles 190, 192, 193, 300, and 301 of the General Law of Public Administration, I respectfully request this Constitutional Chamber: 1.
To accept as presented and provided the documentary evidence described above. 2. To grant this amparo action, recognizing the violation of my constitutional rights of petition, information, and good administration. 28 3. To order the Municipality of Goicoechea to issue a comprehensive, well-founded, and reasoned response to all proceedings and complaints filed, within the deadline determined by the Chamber. 4. To order that the corresponding administrative and disciplinary measures be adopted against the officials responsible for the omission, delay, and denial of administrative justice. 5. To exhort the Municipal Council and the Mayor's Office to guarantee transparency, efficiency, and compliance with the principle of legality in addressing neighborhood and community complaints. VIII. CONCLUSION AND FINAL PETITION For all the foregoing, I reiterate to this Honorable Constitutional Chamber: 1.
The veracity of the facts and the repeated omission of the Municipality of Goicoechea in complying with its legal and constitutional obligations. 2. The appropriateness and necessity of granting this amparo action, recognizing the violation of fundamental rights of the appellant and the community. 3. The obligation of the Municipality to comply with the measures requested in the petition, guaranteeing respect for the right to information, security, legality, good administration, and a healthy environment. 4. To approve, in principle, the possibility of claiming damages through a future compensatory action, derived from the prolonged violation of fundamental rights suffered by the appellant throughout so many years of municipal inaction and omission. A copy of all the documentary evidence provided is attached, and the Chamber is requested to take into account the reiterated case law that protects the rights invoked.
Therefore, respectfully, the Honorable Constitutional Chamber is requested to accept the present response and to uphold the amparo sought, with all the corrective and preventive measures indicated, including the authorization to judicially claim the corresponding damages.”.\n\n9.- By brief added to the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System (Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales) of this Chamber on October 17, 2025, the appellant notes the following: “… RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. l. FACTS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE REQUEST FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. That since the year 2021, and not as the president of the Municipal Council erroneously indicates by stating it was not until 2022, formal, written, verbal, and in-person complaints have been filed before the Municipality of Goicoechea, exposing a series of problems that directly affect my family, my property, and the community in general.
These complaints have been related to possible administrative irregularities, institutional omissions, inaction in the face of situations that put health, safety, and neighborhood well-being at risk, as well as events that could constitute influence peddling (tráfico de influencias), leaking of internal information, and institutional complicity to the detriment of my property right.\n\nDespite the insistence and constancy of my proceedings, the institution's participation has been minimal, late, and ineffective, without providing definitive solutions or responses within a reasonable time in most cases, in accordance with the duty of prompt and complete justice imposed by article 41 of the Political Constitution and articles 198 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP). I have accompanied my statements with documentary evidence, which accredits the continuity of the reported problems and the lack of effective follow-up by the Municipality.
The administration, in most cases, has limited itself to issuing simple acknowledgments of receipt or pronouncements lacking decisive content or institutional responsibility, thereby incurring administrative omissions contrary to the principles of efficiency, legality, and good administrative faith …”.\n\n10.- By resolution at 1:43 p.m. on October 27, the instructing magistrate ordered the addition of the parties.\n\n11.- Víctor Fernández Fernández reports under oath, in his capacity as acting director (director a.i.) of the Northern Region 1 of the Public Police Force (Fuerza Pública), who alleges the following: “… According to the report provided by the Deputy Chief of the Montes de Oca Delegation, Eber Malespín Palacios, official letter No. MSP-DM-DVURFP-DGFP-DRSJN-DPMON-1647-2025 dated November 3, 2025, he indicates that at the request of Ms. Licentiate Elena González Salazar, attorney from the Victim Attention and Protection Office (oficina de atención y protección a la víctima), a patrol with monitoring was requested for 40 days for Ms.
Nombre01, for which the corresponding proof is attached. Furthermore, following the request of the regional director for that period, Commander Edwin Miranda, the operations order No. 0033-2024-DRIN-D11-OP (proof No. 3) was issued, provided by the deputy post chief, with an execution date from October 1 to November 9, 2024. Said patrol was carried out in San José, Montes de Oca, San Rafael, Salitrillos, Cuesta Grande, Address05 belonging to Ms. Nombre01. In relation to the evidence provided on the CD, I must say the following: “… Ms. Nombre05 in the Amparo Action states, among other things, that: 'on October 15, 2019, an initial complaint was filed for an illegal scrapyard (chatarrera) before the Ministry of Health in Goicoechea, for which an inspection was carried out and the accumulation of waste was verified and the commercial scrap activity was confirmed, leading to the issuance of health order number CS-DARS-G1427-19 which gave a period of four months for cleaning; waste management; and cessation of commercial activity.
She relates that the inspection was rescheduled on several occasions until March 18, 2021, on which date compliance could not be verified as the waste remains on the site. She comments that on June 9, 2021, a new health order is issued with number CS-DARS-G1577-2021 and on November 4, 2021, during the inspection, persistent waste from the unpermitted commercial activity is observed. Furthermore, in April 2021, another complaint was filed for musical scandals and disturbance of public order, to which false information was provided about visits and about a supposed lack of response from the protected party, which led to the closure of the file being notified to her on November 30, 2021. She alleges that on December 13, 2021, the Ministry of Health received the notification from the Deputy Prosecutor's Office of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José for file 21-000073-0611-PE, in which the alleged crime of illegal storage of ordinary waste is investigated, in which it was requested to indicate if the accused persons had an operating permit and to remit the administrative file of the respective complaints and health orders; however, the Ministry of Health failed to comply with this.
She comments that, on the other hand, on March 22, 2021, the situation was reported to the Municipality of Goicoechea and also the threats received at her home by the person who runs the welding shop. She argues that the Municipality did not respond to the complaint filed with the Prosecutor's Office regarding this situation. She indicates that in September 2024 she returned to the country, as she was told she could not be assisted because she was outside the country, so she again filed complaints and new procedures via WhatsApp, as she was told it was a direct means of communication, which ultimately lent itself to a possible leak of information. She states that she has tried to maintain assertive communication with the neighbor who owns the scrapyard, seeking a peaceful solution to the existing problems, to which the man has flatly refused. She notes that in October 2024, the owners of the scrapyard were notified about leaks and illegal construction, an order to build a dividing wall and remedy water issues, which has been breached and has not been followed up on; additionally, she met with municipal officials who made evident conduct including threats, institutional mockery, and gender-based discrimination.
She accuses the persistent inaction of the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Goicoechea, and that this situation has kept her in a state of constant fear, anxiety, and frustration, due to continuous exposure to threats, harassment, and acts of violence of various kinds by third parties. She asserts that in May 2025, a complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against the Municipality of Goicoechea, the Ministry of Health, and SENASA for the abandonment of animals belonging to the owners of the scrapyard and other neighbors. She alleges that said complaint is related to the activities of the scrapyard Nombre02 and Nombre03 and the Bar La Montana, and reports the indiscriminate transit of wagons at high speed, with risk to the community, the urgent need for signage with speed limit and prohibition of passage for heavy vehicles, an order that had been issued by Nombre04 in 2021 and is never executed, in addition to the narrow cantonal road, without sidewalks, surrounded by houses that puts the community's residents at risk.
She indicates that on May 12, 2025, the Ministry of Health responds and claims the need for multiple inspections without providing concrete dates or coordination and only mentions the visit scheduled for May 15, 2025, and denied a copy of the file. Furthermore, on May 14, 2025, the respondent Municipality provided the same information it already had, without follow-up or continuity related to the notification in 2024 about the construction of the dividing wall and the cleaning of the area. She relates that the Ombudsman's Office issued a warning to the Municipality, which is not answered, and requests the Ministry of Health's visit report, which is sent without relevant details. She notes that on July 3, 2025, she appeared at the Municipality of Goicoechea's hearing to present the facts that affect her, such as the lack of response to the Ombudsman's Office, manipulation of the hearing minutes (acta de audiencia), violation of the principles of transparency, good administrative faith, and the right to complete information.
She alleges that on September 17, 2025, she requested for the third time a complete written copy of the hearing minutes and was given an incomplete one. Based on the arguments presented, she believes that, with the challenged actions, her fundamental rights are being violated. She requests that the remedy be granted with the legal consequences …”. “… Ms. Nombre01 has had different types of problems such as Traffic, Municipal, and Ministry of Health matters, that she has gone to various institutions trying to resolve all her problems, that the Public Police Force was not involved until the month of September 2024 (patrol with monitoring at the request of the Victim Attention and Protection Office of the Judicial Investigation Organization) and the year 2025 where incidents were attended to where the affected party was Ms. Nombre05 and where she was provided certified copies of the logbooks where the incidents involving this lady were recorded.
The Public Police Force has provided the service that Ms. Nombre05 has requested correctly, through the correct channels, complying with the regulatory standards in the most effective and efficient manner, providing protection to her, fully complying with the functions established in the General Police Law and with the provisions of our Political Constitution.”\n\n12.- By brief added to the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on November 12, 2025, the appellant argues that the Public Police Force of Montes de Oca repeatedly breached its duty of protection and prevention, despite having known for years of the situation of risk, violence, drug consumption, public scandals, and threats generated mainly by persons linked to a scrapyard adjacent to her home and to the Bar “La Montaña”. She affirms that the special patrol ordered by the Victim Attention Office of the Judicial Investigation Organization (OIJ) between October 1 and November 9, 2024, was not adequately executed, that multiple visits were omitted or falsely recorded, and that police reports contain inaccurate statements about her supposed absence from the domicile.
She alleges that, in repeated calls to 9-1-1 between 2019 and 2025, the police closed incidents as “attended” without appearing or intervening, and that in specific events—especially on September 23 and 25, 2024, November 9, 2024, and June 5, 2025—there was negligence, inaction, falsehood in reports, and denial of justice. She points out that on June 5, 2025, she suffered physical aggressions and threats along with her daughter, that the officers refused to transport them to the Court, omitted filing a truthful report, and improperly identified the matter as a contravention instead of referring it to the Prosecutor's Office. She alleges that all of the foregoing violates her rights to life, personal integrity, security, truth, good administration, a healthy environment, and effective judicial protection, and requests that the remedy be granted, that corrective and preventive protective measures be ordered, and that the moral damage suffered be recognized.\n\n13.- By brief added to the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on January 6, 2026, the complainant alleges: “…
By this means, I attach recent photographs that evidence the current state of one of the walls of my property, as well as a copy of the notification record served to the adjacent owners for the construction of a dividing wall, an order that has not been complied with as established by that Municipality. Likewise, I record that the formal commitment assumed in 2021 by Mr. Mayor, through which the installation of “Prohibited passage of wagons” and “Speed limit” signs was ordered in the Cuesta Grande sector—a measure ordered as a mitigation action for the serious damages, risks, and impacts generated by the heavy traffic associated with the scrapyard—has also not been fulfilled. To date, said administrative order remains unexecuted, despite the time elapsed and the multiple complaints and procedures carried out, which constitutes a serious omission by the Municipality in the face of a situation that continues to generate structural damages, road risks, and impacts on health, safety, and the quality of life of the neighbors.
Consequently, I demand the immediate fulfillment of both the order for the construction of the dividing wall in accordance with the law, and the installation of the signage ordered in 2021, by virtue of being valid, final, and mandatory provisions, the non-observance of which perpetuates and aggravates the damage suffered by my property and my family.”.\n\n14.- By brief added to the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on January 6, 2026, the complainant alleges that since 2019 she has filed multiple complaints before the Municipality of Goicoechea mainly related to the operation of the so-called Bar La Montaña, an adjacent scrapyard, allegedly irregular constructions, and various activities that—according to her claim—affect her property, her health, her security, and her tranquility. She alleges that, despite the institutional knowledge of such situations, the municipality has not adopted effective corrective measures nor processed the corresponding administrative procedures.
She indicates that in October 2024, the owners of the scrapyard were notified of the order to build a dividing wall for reasons of security and protection of her property; however, she points out that said order has not been fulfilled nor supervised by the municipal authority.
Likewise, she states that on July 3, 2025, she appeared before the Municipal Council to once again present her complaints and provide documentary evidence, without this leading to concrete actions. She adds that on August 28, 2025, the Security Committee of the Municipal Council requested reports from various municipal departments with a ten-business-day deadline, which—she maintains—were not provided. Subsequently, on October 28, 2025, the Council reiterated the request for reports to different municipal areas (engineering, municipal police, environmental management, collections, licenses and patents, among others), also without obtaining a response. In view of this, the appellant filed a second petition on November 14, 2025, and a third on November 26, 2025, which—she affirms—have not been addressed to date. The claimant also refers to the intervention of the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes), noting that the Municipality has also allegedly failed to respond in a timely manner to the requirements made by that legality oversight body, which, in her opinion, demonstrates a pattern of institutional neglect and violation of her constitutional rights.
In relation to the Ministry of Health, the appellant alleges inaction in the processing of her complaint identified as D-352-2024. She indicates that, due to the lack of response, the Ombudsman's Office requested information on November 19, 2025, and asked to conduct sanitary assessments and verify compliance with previous orders. She points out that, although the Ministry responded on November 26, 2025, she considers that action to be insufficient. She details that the Ministry of Health issued sanitary orders on September 1, 2025 (case Nombre03) and on October 10, 2025 (case Nombre02), which included provisions for eviction, electrical disconnection, and total demolition of certain structures. Likewise, she mentions an extraordinary inspection carried out on October 16, 2025, in which—she maintains—partial demolition and the persistence of waste and risk conditions were verified. She affirms that on November 1, 2025, technical reports were added to the file, without this translating into material actions or effective notifications.
Finally, the appellant makes a request for expedited processing, alleging that the impact is constant, progressive, and daily, and that the structural, health, and emotional risks increase over time. She requests that this Chamber prioritize the hearing and resolution of the appeal, accept her request as filed, assess the urgency of the case, and adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the immediate and effective protection of her fundamental rights.
15. By means of the resolution at 11:55 a.m. on January 19, 2026, the investigating magistrate ordered an expansion of facts.
Consequently, it is legally improper for Nombre04 to attempt to claim ignorance or lack of competence when prior formal communication directed to his office exists regarding an event that directly compromises urban control, human safety, and the municipal oversight authority. Subsequently, the matter was elevated to the knowledge of the Municipal Council, which proceeded to “approve” or validate said structure as a supposed solution to the conflict, which constitutes an absolutely improper and illegal action, since a Municipality cannot render legitimate a work that lacks permits, technical backing, and regulatory compliance. 6 A) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF APPROVING ILLEGAL WORKS WITHOUT PERMITS It must be made absolutely clear that a Municipality, as a Public Administration strictly subject to the principle of legality, cannot approve, tolerate, or validate construction works lacking the minimum requirements demanded by the legal system.
An enclosure or dividing wall work requires, obligatorily, before any material execution: i) prior construction permit; ii) construction plans duly approved by the CFIA; iii) designation of an incorporated responsible professional; iv) official work logbook; v) compliance with the Reglamento de Construcciones; vi) observance of the Código Sísmico de Costa Rica; and vii) respect for applicable sanitary, environmental, and urban development regulations. None of the above exists in an improvised structure of metal sheets (“pared de latas”), which completely lacks technical, legal, and construction backing. As I stated verbatim in my formal rebuttal: “What was built is neither a wall in a legal nor technical sense, but rather an improvised structure, completely lacking legality…” “There is no construction permit, there are no approved plans, there is no responsible professional…” Therefore, accepting said structure as a dividing wall constitutes not only an irregular act, but a form of de facto legalization of a precarious work, without controls, without permits, and without minimum guarantees of structural and sanitary safety.
It is even more inadmissible that there was an attempt to deem a serious construction obligation fulfilled through the simple placement of scrap metal sheets, when the adjoining property is not a vacant lot, but a site where a high-impact activity such as an illegal scrap yard operates, with structures occupied as tenement housing (cuartería) by multiple persons, directly adjoining inhabited homes. 7 B) INCOMPETENCE OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO VALIDATE A CONSTRUCTION ILLEGALITY It must also be noted that the Municipal Council lacks the competence to make legal a work that openly infringes the legal system. The Council cannot, through an agreement, “approve” or give the appearance of legitimacy to a structure that violates imperative regulations such as: i) Ley de Construcciones N.° 833; ii) Reglamento de Construcciones; iii) Ley Orgánica del CFIA; iv) Código Sísmico de Costa Rica; v) Ley General de Salud; and vi) the constitutional right to a healthy environment protected by Article 50 of the Constitución Política.
Consequently, any municipal administrative act that attempts to validate an illegal structure as a “dividing wall” constitutes an arbitrary action, lacking regulatory support and contrary to the principle of legality. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitución Política, all public authority is subject to the legal system, and no municipal body may act outside its powers nor legitimize manifestly illegal facts. Therefore, any agreement that attempts to approve an improvised structure, without permits or minimum technical conditions, is null and void ab initio, produces no valid legal effects, and aggravates institutional responsibility for omission, negligence, and tolerance of construction illegalities. In short, the institutional validation of a precarious and illegal work, added to Nombre04's omission to pronounce and act in accordance with the law, evidences a negligent and evasive administrative conduct that perpetuates the reported impact, violating fundamental rights such as a healthy environment (Article 50 of the Constitution), the right to petition and prompt response (Article 27 of the Constitution), and the principle of administrative legality.
VI. SERIOUS MUNICIPAL OMISSION IN VALIDATING A WORK THAT AGGRAVATES DAMAGE AND RISK The “pared de latas” is not only illegal: it exponentially aggravates the existing impact: • increases extreme humidity 8 • increases seepage • concentrates toxic mold • redirects water towards my home • accelerates structural deterioration • increases health and fire risk Far from correcting the problem, this structure further encloses the humidity and increases condensation. VII. SERIOUS EVASION BY NOMBRE04 AND CONTINUED ADMINISTRATIVE OMISSION If the Alcalde (Mayor), as the highest municipal administrative authority, maintains that it is “not within his purview” or that he is “unaware” of what occurred, the institutional question inevitably arises: WHO ANSWERS? If the head official does not act, even less so will his subordinates. The Municipality is obliged to apply effective administrative procedures: • inspection • closure • sanction • urban control • environmental control • community protection • enforcement of final agreements Denying responsibility in the face of repeated complaints since 2019 constitutes an inadmissible evasion of legal duties.
In addition, it must be stated expressly that the notifications I have received from the institution have consisted solely of reports lacking material veracity, incomplete, and devoid of resolutional content, since they have neither addressed nor solved the root problem reported, nor guaranteed the minimum services and improvements that we as a community have the right to demand. In practice, the Municipality has limited itself to sending internal emails and apparent requests for reports between departments, without any real administrative action, without sanctions, without closures, without effective procedures, and without concrete legal measures. 9 The only “action” mentioned as a supposed institutional response has been the so-called “dividing wall,” which I have repeatedly indicated does not constitute a legal or technical wall, but rather an improvised structure of metal sheets that is absolutely illegal, and therefore cannot be considered a solution or a valid action.
Consequently, what exists is not a substantive resolution, but a chain of internal communications with no real effects, which evidences a continued institutional omission, without proceeding administratively or legally against the reported infractions. VIII. BREACH OF FORMAL COMMITMENT BY THE MUNICIPALITY SINCE 2021: SIGNAGE PROHIBITING THE PASSAGE OF WAGONETAS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL It must be stated for the record before this Sala Constitucional that, since 2021, Mr. Nombre04, who was in office at that time, formally assumed an institutional commitment to order and install in the Cuesta Grande sector the corresponding signage for: • “PROHIBITED PASSAGE OF WAGONETAS”; • “SPEED LIMIT”; • appropriate preventive and community signage. However, to date, said administrative provision has never been executed. Despite repeated requests made by the community and by myself for the fulfillment of this commitment —presented as a minimal measure of solution to the reported problems— the Municipality has remained negligent, allowing the situation to continue severely affecting the families of the sector.
This non-compliance has been claimed through multiple formal writings and even through proceedings carried out before the Defensoría de los Habitantes, without any effective response or material action from the Municipality. The absence of signage and traffic control has allowed the following to persist: • indiscriminate heavy traffic on narrow residential streets; • excessive speed at all hours of the day; • a permanent traffic risk for children, elderly adults, and pedestrians, especially in an area where there are no sidewalks; • atmospheric pollution from smoke emissions; • intolerable noise levels; • and vibrations that cause structural damage to adjoining homes. It is also concerning that, despite the seriousness and repetition of the complaints, construction companies continue to transit freely and deposit dirt and waste in surrounding areas, without effective municipal control, which creates an appearance of unjustified institutional tolerance that must be duly clarified. 10 Consequently, it is requested that this Court order the Municipality to immediately execute the signage measures committed to since 2021, as part of the minimum protection of road, environmental, and community safety that it must guarantee.
IX. EARTH AND TRASH DUMP: REPEATED UNADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION Drivers of wagonetas dump dirt, debris, and trash in surrounding areas, generating direct environmental contamination. This violates Article 50 of the Constitution and obliges the Municipality to oversee, sanction, and prevent. It is especially serious that drivers claim to have a “MUNICIPAL PERMIT” to transit and deposit dirt, which demands immediate investigation. X. CLEAR DIFFERENTIATION: COMPLAINT TO SENASA VS. MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRAY ANIMALS It must be expressly clarified that two distinct issues exist: A. COMPLAINT TO SENASA: ANIMALS OF THE SCRAP YARD OWNERS A timely complaint was filed before the Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal (SENASA) regarding the existence of dogs belonging to the scrap yard owners, regarding which an express sanitary order was even issued mandating that they be kept inside the home and under control.
However, the owners continue to breach said provision. Despite this, SENASA proceeded to close the case under the assumption that compliance had been verified, which does not conform to reality, as the dogs remain constantly on the public road, without any supervision or control, generating impact and risk for the community. It should be noted that this point was set forth from the first writings presented before this Sala Constitucional within the appeal, so it is fundamental that it be duly taken into 11 account as part of the context of institutional omission and persistence of the reported conditions. Consequently, the reactivation of the notification and the corresponding sanitary follow-up is required, in order to guarantee the effective compliance with the measures ordered and the protection of public health. B. MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY: STRAY DOGS AND ABANDONED CATS IN THE COMMUNITY Apart from the above, the existence of the following was formally reported to the Municipality: • more than eight large stray dogs, • an excessive number of cats, • absolute absence of municipal control, • risk of attacks, • health hazard.
This constitutes direct municipal competence in matters of community safety and local public health, and the Municipal authority continues to evade its duties and responsibilities, and we remain without a solution to this problem. XI. MUNICIPAL ABANDONMENT IN ESSENTIAL SERVICES: TRASH, DRAINAGE DITCHES, COMMUNAL HALL In the hearing of July 3, 2025, additional omissions were reported: • lack of cleaning of drainage ditches (caños), • refusal to provide maintenance schedules, • insufficient garbage collection, • current accumulation of waste, • abandonment of the communal hall, • repeated excuses of “NO BUDGET” for over twenty years. XII. PROBLEM OF THE “BAR LA MONTAÑA” AND OMISSION IN LICENSE AND LAND-USE REPORTS The situation of the commercial establishment known as “Bar La Montaña” was formally reported from the beginning of this appeal, regarding which the Municipality of Goicoechea has repeatedly omitted to deliver the corresponding technical and legal reports, particularly in relation to: 12 • the compatibility of the land use according to the Plan Regulador (Zoning Plan); • the existence and validity of the respective municipal licenses (patentes); • and the sanitary, environmental, and operational conditions of the premises.
Despite the efforts made before both the Municipality and the Defensoría de los Habitantes, and even within this constitutional proceeding, Mr. Nombre04 once again omits providing clear, complete, and verifiable reports on this business, denying or evading essential technical pronouncements to determine its legality and suitability within a predominantly residential area. It must be highlighted that this situation has been repeatedly reported before various instances, without the Municipality having provided concrete information on what the Plan Regulador provides regarding the operation of bars in residential areas, limiting itself to maintaining a negligent attitude that violates the citizen's right to public information and to a prompt response. The absence of a formal response constitutes a direct violation of Article 27 of the Constitución Política, which guarantees the right of petition and obliges all public authority to respond in a timely, complete, and reasoned manner.
Likewise, it is especially concerning that there exist public statements and known background in the community regarding a possible relationship or institutional closeness with the owner of the establishment —who would have held municipal positions in previous years— which has been brought to the knowledge of the Municipality itself on multiple occasions. In this context, the lack of transparency and the repeated refusal to provide technical reports fuel an appearance of privileged treatment or lack of administrative impartiality, an aspect that must be assessed with special attention. Consequently, it is requested that this Court, with all due respect, hold the municipal omission in this regard as accredited and order the immediate delivery of the corresponding technical and legal reports, as well as the verification of compliance with the Plan Regulador, licenses (patentes), and applicable sanitary conditions.
XIII. SYSTEMATIC OMISSION IN APPLYING ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURES The Municipality, as the competent Public Administration and guarantor of local interest, is legally obligated to apply effective and timely administrative procedures, including, among others: • conducting periodic technical inspections; • adopting closure measures when appropriate; 13 • imposing administrative sanctions for proven infractions; • exercising urban, environmental, and sanitary control within its jurisdiction; • and the actual execution of final municipal agreements adopted by its bodies. Likewise, given the repeated non-compliance with municipal orders —such as the obligation to build a dividing wall in accordance with regulations, or the permanence of illegal constructions sustained for years— the Municipality must not only initiate internal procedures, but also file the corresponding formal complaints before the Ministerio Público, when the facts may constitute disobedience, serious urban infractions, or potential criminal liabilities, also providing the due institutional follow-up.
However, despite the clarity of these obligations, Mr. Nombre04 continues to evade his responsibility as municipal executive head, unduly transferring the burden to other bodies or claiming lack of competence, while the competent technical and administrative departments remain negligent, without executing concrete actions, without resolving substantively, and without providing effective responses to repeated complaints. The prolonged and unjustified omission of these actions, despite constant efforts since 2019, constitutes a serious and continued violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to live in peace, in safe conditions, and in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, protected by Article 50 of the Constitución Política, as well as the right to petition and prompt response enshrined in Article 27 of the Constitution. XIV. LEGAL BASIS, HIERARCHICAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALCALDE, SALA IV JURISPRUDENCE, AND FINAL REQUEST It is especially serious that Mr.
Nombre04 intends to deny or minimize his institutional responsibility by claiming that it is "not within his purview," when multiple objective elements exist that demonstrate his direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported facts. In particular: • The current Nombre04, Mr. Fernando Chavarría, has had direct knowledge since 2024, through meetings held in his office and prior communications; • he has been present at official sessions of the Municipal Council where the complaints were formally presented; • he has received technical reports addressed expressly to his office regarding the situation of the scrap yard and the irregular constructions; • and his administrative departments, under his hierarchy, have omitted to provide effective and timely responses. It must also be emphasized that, pursuant to the municipal administrative procedure, after each session of the Municipal Council, the Secretaría formally communicates to the Nombre04 the agreements 14 adopted, as well as the matters discussed and the writings heard in the session.
Even the topics to be addressed in said sessions are sent in advance. Consequently, it is legally unsustainable for the Nombre04 to claim ignorance or lack of competence, when formal and constant institutional communication exists regarding the complaints filed. From a constitutional standpoint, Article 11 of the Constitución Política enshrines the principle of administrative legality, providing that all public authority is subject to the legal system and must exercise its powers mandatorily, without arbitrariness or evasion. Likewise, Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of petition and prompt response, imposing on all public authority the duty to formally resolve the requests submitted by citizens. Added to this is Article 50 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right of every person to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, generating a reinforced duty of action against polluting activities, health risks, and serious urban development impacts.
Additionally, the Código Municipal is clear in establishing in its Article 17 that the Nombre04 is the principal executive official and administrative head of the Municipality, responsible for directing the administration and guaranteeing the execution of the necessary institutional actions. Therefore, he cannot unduly transfer his duty to act to internal disputes nor shield himself behind alleged incompetence in the face of repeated and formally filed complaints. In the same vein, the Ley General de la Administración Pública imposes on the Administration the duty to act in accordance with the principles of efficiency, coordination, continuity of public service, institutional responsibility, and duty to resolve. The citizen cannot be left defenseless due to prolonged omissions or the lack of action between internal bodies. The reiterated jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional has consistently held that the Public Administration cannot use internal divisions of competence as an excuse to evade its obligation of response and effective action, with the duty of the head official being to guarantee a timely, reasoned, and lawful response.
Likewise, this Court has pointed out that unjustified administrative silence, prolonged inaction, and the lack of execution of corrective measures in the face of serious complaints constitute direct violations of the right to petition, the right to a healthy environment, and the effective protection of fundamental rights. Consequently, the refusal of Nombre04 to assume his role as municipal executive head, added to the lack of concrete actions from October 2024 to date —a period in which I have not received a comprehensive response or effective solution— perpetuates the reported harm and constitutes a continued administrative omission, incompatible with the principle of legality (Article 11 of the Constitution), the right of petition and prompt response (Article 27 of the Constitution), and the right to a healthy and safe environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). 15 XV. ADDITIONAL BLOCK ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER AND INADMISSIBLE TECHNICAL OMISSION It must be expressly pointed out before this Sala Constitucional that, within the chain of reported institutional omissions, the action —or lack of action— of the Municipal Engineer in charge is particularly relevant, as he constitutes a principal technical official in matters of construction and urban development control.
From the beginning of the complaints filed, said official has had direct knowledge of the existence of structures erected more than ten years ago without construction permits, without approved plans, without compliance with the Reglamento de Construcciones, nor observance of the Código Sísmico. Despite this, the effective application of the corresponding municipal powers is not evidenced, nor the adoption of real corrective measures against serious urban infractions sustained over time. Moreover, it is absolutely irregular and inadmissible that, with full technical knowledge, a supposed “solution” consisting of an improvised structure of metal sheets (“pared de latas”) as a dividing wall has been allowed or even institutionally endorsed, which lacks any legal, technical, and construction basis. A formal enclosure work requires, at a minimum, a prior permit, plans approved by the CFIA, a responsible professional, a work logbook, and compliance with the Reglamento de Construcciones.
None of this exists in a precarious structure of scrap metal sheets, the validation of which constitutes an arbitrary action contrary to the principle of legality. Likewise, it is not legally acceptable for the technical official to limit himself to claiming that he “communicated with the Ministerio de Salud,” thereby attempting to transfer institutional responsibility to another entity. The Municipality possesses its own and non-delegable powers in matters of urban control, construction oversight, imposition of sanctions, closure, and execution of administrative measures, which do not disappear by the simple act of sending information to another institution. Consequently, the prolonged technical omission, the tolerance of long-standing illegal constructions, and the acceptance of an absolutely irregular work as a “dividing wall” evidence an undue delegation of responsibilities, a serious breach of functional duties, and an institutional failure that has perpetuated the reported impacts.
Therefore, it is requested that this Court order not only the immediate action of the Municipality in corrective terms, but also the determination of internal administrative responsibilities against technical officials who, with full knowledge of construction illegalities, 16 omitted to proceed in accordance with the law and allowed irregular actions that aggravate the structural, health, and community risk. XVI. LEGAL BASIS OF THE DUTY OF FORMAL COMMUNICATION OF COUNCIL AGREEMENTS TO THE ALCALDÍA AND THEIR MANDATORY EXECUTION It must be pointed out before this Sala Constitucional that, within the ordinary functioning of the Costa Rican municipal regime, the agreements adopted by the Concejo Municipal (Municipal Council) do not remain isolated nor can they be ignored by the Alcaldía (Mayor's Office). Rather, by legal mandate and by the municipal administrative procedure itself, they must be formalized, communicated, and executed by the executive head.
Indeed, under the Código Municipal, the Concejo Municipal is the deliberative body responsible for adopting agreements, while the Nombre04 is the principal executive official responsible for the general administration and for executing what is resolved by the collegiate body. Article 17 of the Código Municipal expressly establishes the Nombre04 as the administrative head and maximum municipal executive authority, which necessarily implies the duty to know, follow up on, and guarantee compliance with agreements made in official sessions. Likewise, the Código Municipal regulates that Council agreements must be formally recorded in official minutes, become final, and be subject to institutional communication for execution purposes. Within this framework, the Secretaría Municipal fulfills an essential function as the formalizing body of the Council's acts: it drafts minutes, certifies agreements, and carries out the corresponding communications and notifications to the Alcaldía and to the administrative departments responsible for their compliance.
Therefore, after each session of the Concejo Municipal, a formal administrative act occurs: the official documentation of what was heard in the session, the writings incorporated, the complaints presented, and the agreements adopted, which must be transferred to the Alcaldía for execution. This constitutes a regular and obligatory procedure within the municipal regime, which legally prevents the Nombre04 from claiming ignorance or lack of competence regarding matters officially addressed. It must also be emphasized that, in accordance with the principle of administrative legality enshrined in Article 11 of the Constitución Política, all public authority is obligated to exercise the powers assigned to it by the legal system, without the possibility of evading them through internal excuses. Similarly, the right of petition and prompt response recognized in Article 27 17 of the Constitución Política imposes on the Municipality the duty to formally respond and act upon the requests filed.
Added to this is the fact that the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment protected by Article 50 of the Constitución Política generates a reinforced duty of municipal action against polluting activities, health risks, and serious urban development impacts. Likewise, the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes guiding principles such as inter-agency coordination, efficiency, continuity of public service, and hierarchical responsibility, such that the citizen cannot be left defenseless due to internal omissions or the lack of execution of final agreements. Consequently, it is legally unsustainable for Mr. Nombre04 to attempt to disassociate himself from the reported facts by claiming that it is "not within his purview" or that he is "unaware of the follow-up," when municipal agreements are formally communicated to his office, and it is precisely the Alcaldía that is obligated to execute them through the corresponding administrative procedures.
The omission to act, despite said formal communication and repeated institutional knowledge, constitutes a violation of the principle of legality (Article 11 of the Constitution), the right of petition and prompt response (Article 27 of the Constitution), and the right to a healthy environment (Article 50 of the Constitution), consolidating a continued administrative omission incompatible with the Rule of Law. XVII. FINAL REQUEST TO THE SALA CONSTITUCIONAL I respectfully request INTEGRATED FINAL PETITION (FOR RIGHT OF PETITION DENIED FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS) For all the reasons stated, I respectfully request this Sala Constitucional: 1. TO HOLD THE REPORT RENDERED BY THE MUNICIPAL NOMBRE04 AS REFUTED IN ALL ITS EXTREMES, as it proves to be evasive, improper, and lacking sufficient reasoning, in attempting to disassociate himself from the powers and duties that correspond to him as municipal executive head. 2.
TO HOLD AS DEMONSTRATED THE FORMAL AND MATERIAL KNOWLEDGE OF NOMBRE04 ABOUT THE REPORTED FACTS, since at least October 2024, as well as his receipt of technical reports addressed expressly to his office and his participation in official sessions of the Municipal Council where the complaints were formally presented. 18 3. TO HOLD AS ACCREDITED THAT ALL RIGHTS OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE MUNICIPALITY HAVE BEEN FORMALLY KNOWN BY THE ALCALDE, as the writings and complaints were incorporated into the official agenda of the Municipal Council sessions, an agenda that Nombre04 knows in advance before each hearing, and subsequently formally communicated to the Alcaldía through the respective agreements and minutes. 4. TO HOLD AS ACCREDITED THE DIRECT AND CONTINUED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION AND PROMPT RESPONSE, as more than six months have elapsed since the formal hearing held before the Municipal Council —in which all the complaints were reiterated and specific reports and actions were requested— without the Municipality, nor Mr.
Nombre04 as executive head, having provided a formal, complete, and reasoned response to the filed rights of petition. This prolonged omission constitutes a direct violation of Article 27 of the Constitución Política, as the Administration cannot remain silent indefinitely nor keep the citizen in uncertainty regarding serious complaints that compromise the environment, public health, community safety, and the structural integrity of adjoining homes.
The failure to respond is not limited to the absence of reports, but rather to the nonexistence of specific administrative acts demonstrating the opening of procedures, adoption of corrective measures, or execution of firm agreements, constituting an unjustified administrative silence and a continued institutional omission. 5. TO HOLD AS PROVEN THE REPEATED AND PROLONGED MUNICIPAL OMISSION, in urban planning, construction, environmental, health, road, and community matters, in the face of ongoing complaints filed since 2019, without a comprehensive response or effective action. 6. TO DECLARE WITH MERIT THE PRESENT AMPARO PETITION IN WHAT PERTAINS TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF GOICOECHEA, for violation of the right of petition and prompt response (Article 27 of the Constitution), the principle of legality (Article 11 of the Constitution), and the right to a healthy and safe environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). 7.
TO ORDER THE MUNICIPALITY OF GOICOECHEA TO ISSUE A FORMAL, COMPLETE, REASONED, AND DOCUMENTED RESPONSE, regarding all the complaints raised, including those processed before the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and reiterated in sessions of the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal). 8. TO ORDER THE IMMEDIATE OPENING AND EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF THE CORRESPONDING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, to inspect, sanction, and correct: 19 a) the irregular operation of the reported scrap yard (chatarrera); b) the existence of constructions without permits sustained over years; c) the dangerous structural conditions and the improper use of structures as a tenement house (cuartería) occupied by multiple persons. All of this without limiting itself to awaiting pronouncements from the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), since the municipal competence in urban control and human safety is direct and non-delegable. 9.
TO EXPRESSLY ORDER THE MUNICIPALITY TO COMPEL THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BUILD A REAL, SAFE, AND LAWFUL DIVIDING WALL (pared divisoria), complying with prior permits, approved plans, a responsible professional, a construction log (bitácora de obra), and observance of the Construction Regulations (Reglamento de Construcciones) and Seismic Code (Código Sísmico). 10. TO ORDER THAT, IN THE EVENT OF NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, the Municipality is obligated to impose effective sanctions, execute corrective measures, and, if appropriate, file a formal complaint before the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) or competent judicial bodies. 11. TO HOLD AS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER THE INSTITUTIONAL VALIDATION OF THE SO-CALLED “TIN WALL” (PARED DE LATAS), as it completely lacks permits and technical requirements, ordering the annulment of any municipal act that may have intended to approve or legitimize said irregular structure. 12.
TO ORDER THAT THE MUNICIPALITY EXERCISE ITS OWN AND NON-DELEGABLE COMPETENCIES, guaranteeing inspection, sanction, closure (clausura), and real execution of corrective measures, without limiting itself to simple referrals to other institutions. 13. TO ORDER THE DETERMINATION OF INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, including possible disciplinary sanctions regarding technical officials who, with full knowledge of long-standing illegal constructions, omitted to proceed according to law. 14. TO ORDER THE EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMITMENT ASSUMED SINCE 2021, consisting of the installation of signage prohibiting the passage of heavy transport carts (vagonetas) and the dumping of earth and garbage. 15. TO ORDER THE DELIVERY OF REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT “BAR LA MONTAÑA”, including land use (uso de suelo), current business licenses (patentes), and sanitary conditions. 16.
TO ORDER TO ADDRESS AND RESOLVE THE HISTORIC NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY HALL (SALÓN COMUNAL), including structural improvements and the allocation of potable water service (paja de agua) requested for more than twenty years. 17. TO ORDER THE EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF BASIC MUNICIPAL SERVICES, such as periodic cleaning of drainage ditches (caños) and extraordinary garbage collection at least twice a year. 20 18. TO ORDER SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR THE CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF STRAY DOGS AND PROLIFERATION OF CATS, a problem repeatedly reported due to the health and community risk. 19. TO ORDER IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, ROAD, AND STRUCTURAL PROTECTION, guaranteeing the restoration of the effective enjoyment of the violated fundamental rights.".
21- By document filed in the Costa Rican System for the Management of Judicial Proceedings of this Chamber on January 28, 2026, the petitioner refutes the report from the Municipal Council.
Drafted by Magistrate Hess Herrera; and,
Considering:
Before analyzing the merits of the matter, it must be clarified that, starting from judgment number 2008-02545 at 08:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred—with some exceptions—to the administrative contentious jurisdiction those matters in which it is discussed whether the public administration has complied or not with the reasonable deadlines set to resolve the requests made by the administered parties, in light of the provisions of Article 41 of the Political Constitution. Precisely, in the sub lite case, an exception circumstance is raised, as we are faced with a complaint regarding the irregular operation of a neighboring scrap yard and bar, the persistent accumulation of waste, noise pollution, the existence of presumably illegal constructions, the improper occupation of public roads, and the generation of health and safety risks in the immediate surroundings of her dwelling, which has allegedly not been resolved within a reasonable timeframe and endangers the integrity of the petitioner and other persons in the community. Given the nature of the subject matter dealt with in the proceeding, this Chamber will assess possible delays in the resolution of the complaint raised. Having clarified the point, we proceed to resolve the specific situation raised in this amparo petition.
The petitioner filed an amparo petition alleging prolonged inaction in response to complaints filed since 2019 regarding the irregular operation of a neighboring scrap yard and bar, accumulation of waste, illegal constructions, occupation of public roads, and health and safety risks that affect her health, integrity, property, and tranquility. She maintains that, despite the issuance of health and administrative orders, these have not been effectively executed or inspected, that petition rights and requests for information have been neglected, and that a repeated institutional omission persists. As a claim, she requests that the petition be declared with merit, that the respondent authorities be ordered to adopt immediate, effective, and coordinated measures to correct the reported irregularities.
Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven:
Regarding the Municipality of Goicoechea.
Under warning of closure coordinated with the Ministry of Health, granting a 24-hour period (see sworn report and attached evidence).
• Regarding the Goicoechea Health Governing Area:
• Regarding the Dirección de la Región 1 Norte de la Fuerza Pública:
In accordance with the set of facts duly accredited in the record, the documentary evidence incorporated into the case file, and the reports rendered under oath by the respondent authorities, this Chamber concludes that the present recurso de amparo must be declared WITHOUT MERIT, inasmuch as a direct and current injury attributable to the sued institutions to the detriment of the fundamental rights invoked is not accredited, but rather, primarily, a disagreement by the appellant with the practical outcome, timeliness, or material sufficiency of the administrative actions deployed in a complex and prolonged conflict.
Firstly, with respect to the Municipalidad de Goicoechea, it is verified that, although the appellant places the origin of the problem in a complaint for an alleged illegal scrapyard dating back to October 2019, the truth is that the Municipality has indeed executed various interventions within its sphere of competence, particularly through its Dirección de Gestión Ambiental and other internal bodies. Indeed, since 2019, the issuance of official communication DGA-123-2019 is reported, which records community and operational actions aimed at improving sanitary and safety conditions in the sector (neighborhood meetings, preventive dissemination, signage and cleaning of the main road, in addition to coordination with Fuerza Pública). Subsequently, for the year 2021, it is accredited that the Dirección de Gestión Ambiental issued official communication MG-AG-DGA-338-2021, through which it managed coordination with municipal departments and the Health Governing Area, and additionally, filed a complaint before the Public Prosecutor's Office against the owners for an alleged clandestine operation, a process that culminated in referral to conciliation, a homologating resolution, and definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) (August 2023), confirmed on appeal by resolution dated May 16, 2024.
Thus, in this regard, an absolute municipal inactivity is not observed, but rather actions of management, coordination, and channeling, even towards the criminal route, without the recurso de amparo being a mechanism to review the merit of decisions adopted in that venue, nor to reopen controversies already concluded by the competent authority.
Regarding the impacts linked to infrastructure and the conditions of the adjoining property (dampness/humedades, leaks/filtraciones, foul-smelling water, and alleged irregular constructions), it is accredited that the Municipality, through the Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones, issued Notification No. 13247 A (October 9, 2024) ordering the owners to eliminate an attached structure, build their own/dividing wall, and address water problems, under warning of closure coordinated with the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, it is proven that on October 10, 2024, official communication MG-AG-DI-2864-2024 was sent to the Health Governing Area requesting its sanitary intervention, and that joint inter-institutional visits were conducted (October 2024 and January 2025). It is even recorded that in January 2025, the appellant was given a copy of the available documentation, and that the Municipality subsequently reiterated its actions through official communications such as MG-AG-DI-01175-2025 and MG-AG-DI-01216-2025, in addition to communicating to the Defensoría de los Habitantes its approach to the case and the referral to Health due to the sanitary nature of several of the reported aspects.
Finally, a subsequent municipal report is on record indicating that the dividing wall was built, complying with what was ordered. In this context, the appellant's claim, in substance, is aimed at questioning the sufficiency of the solutions or their practical effectiveness; however, this Chamber has repeatedly held that the recurso de amparo is not a review instance of technical merit, nor a means to substitute the Administration in defining the specific manner of executing its ordinary competencies, unless a manifest and prolonged omission or an evident tolerance of a serious and imminent risk were accredited, an extreme that, under the standard proper to this jurisdiction, does not emerge from the material provided.
Regarding the component related to the transit of wagons and heavy vehicles, the appellant affirms the existence of a municipal order in 2021 regarding a traffic prohibition that would not have been executed. In this respect, this Chamber deems it necessary to specify that the regulation, oversight, and sanctioning of traffic violations are subject to the specific regulatory framework and the administrative authorities competent in road matters; therefore, it is not appropriate to attribute to the authorities sued herein powers that the legal order does not confer upon them to directly correct eventual non-compliance with traffic provisions. Consequently, any violation or irregular situation relating to vehicular circulation, heavy traffic, or conduct on public roads must be reported and processed before the specialized administrative authorities and through the ordinary channels provided, without this jurisdiction being able, through amparo, to reconfigure the distribution of competencies or order measures whose execution depends on bodies with legally determined competencies, such as MOPT, and much less so without a prior formal complaint before the competent authority for such matters.
On the other hand, regarding the Ministry of Health (Goicoechea Health Governing Area), an extensive sequence of administrative actions is accredited since 2019: inspections, issuance of sanitary orders (including order CS-DARS-G-1427-19 in November 2019 and order CS-DARS-G-1757-2021 in June 2021), justified rescheduling during the COVID-19 emergency, new verification proceedings, attention to noise complaints (with attempts at sound level measurement/sonometría and coordination efforts), as well as coordinated actions with the Prosecutor's Office and the Municipality, including a joint inspection in February 2022 and closure due to waste accumulation without a sanitary permit. More recently, following new complaints in October 2024 (noise pollution/contaminación sónica and physical-sanitary conditions), the Ministry conducted inspections and technical coordination (meetings with the complainant, regional infrastructure report, partial inspections, and joint visits), culminating in the issuance of sanitary orders in 2025 (among them, MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1180-2025 and MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1179-2025) declaring the indicated dwelling uninhabitable, ordering eviction (desalojo), electrical disconnection, demolition, and sanitary disposal of waste, with administrative remedies and notification efforts also being recorded, which have been hampered by the inability to locate some owners or the lack of access to the property on certain occasions.
This picture shows that there is no absolute omission by the Ministry of Health, but rather a sustained administrative procedure, with staggered actions and progressive measures, the pace and effectiveness of which may depend on execution factors and the cooperation of the administered parties, without such contingencies, by themselves, transforming the situation into a constitutional injury attributable to the respondent authority.
As for Fuerza Pública, it is proven that incidents associated with the appellant were attended, that records and certified copies were provided when requested, and that, at the request of the Office of Victim Assistance and Protection, a patrol with monitoring was executed for forty days (October to November 2024) pursuant to a specific operational order.
While the appellant expresses concern regarding threats, security, and conflict in the surrounding area, the elements proven do not allow for the conclusion of an absolute refusal to provide assistance, nor of generalized police inaction, but rather the provision of reasonable attention and measures within the framework of their operational competencies.
Regarding the National Animal Health Service (Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, SENASA), from the examination of the evidentiary record, the existence of a formal complaint or administrative procedure filed directly before that institution, indicating a date, case file number (número de expediente), specific action, or institutional response, is not proven. Although the appellant mentions SENASA as an involved authority, particularly within the framework of a complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsperson (Defensoría de los Habitantes) for alleged abandonment of animals, this circumstance does not allow for an omission attributable to that entity to be considered demonstrated, since the mere indirect reference to its competence or inclusion as a respondent does not satisfy the minimum burden of proving a prior procedure or a specific, unfulfilled duty to act. Consequently, it is not possible to attribute a constitutionally relevant omissive conduct to SENASA, nor to derive liability for inaction, an additional reason why the appeal (recurso) is unfounded in this respect.
Finally, regarding the alleged violation of the right to petition (derecho de petición) and to a prompt response, this Chamber verifies that, as is evident from the duly proven facts and the documentary evidence incorporated, the respondent authorities did indeed address the procedures raised by the appellant, through formal responses, written official letters (oficios), verifiable administrative actions, granted hearings, and the delivery of documentation, both at the administrative level and before the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) and other bodies. Indeed, the issuance of multiple official letters, the conduct of inspections, inter-institutional coordination, and the express communication of the status of the procedures are documented, which demonstrates that there was no absolute refusal nor prolonged administrative silence in response to the requests made. The fact that the responses provided do not fully satisfy the appellant's expectations or do not immediately translate into the intended material results does not, by itself, imply a transgression of the fundamental right to petition, which guarantees access to the Administration and the receipt of a reasoned response, but does not ensure a favorable decision or the immediate execution of what was requested.
Based on the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that the present matter reflects a multi-factorial, long-standing neighborhood, environmental, health, and public order conflict, which has been the subject of administrative interventions and inter-institutional coordination. However, the amparo appeal (amparo) protects fundamental rights against arbitrary or illegitimate acts or omissions, and does not constitute a mechanism to impose specific results on the Administration, nor to substitute the ordinary channels for technical oversight, sanction, or material execution, especially when the file shows concrete actions, institutional responses, and decisions adopted within the scope of competence of each authority. Therefore, as a direct, current constitutional injury attributable to the respondent party is not proven, the appropriate course is to declare the appeal WITHOUT MERIT (SIN LUGAR).
I have supported this Court's position that when a party alleges a violation of the right to prompt and complete justice at the administrative level, those who must hear the legal controversy are the Contentious-Administrative Courts (Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo) and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Law Regulating the Right of Petition (Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición), it has been established that this right is susceptible to judicial protection through the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) established by Article 32 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), 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, as, based on article 7 of its Law, it is exclusively responsible for defining its own competence. Therefore, except for those legal-constitutional controversies that have been recognized by this same Chamber as exceptional cases that may be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional guarantee process of amparo, 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 authorities are the Judges of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is in accordance with Article 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.
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 removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not removed within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Regulation on the Electronic Case File before the Judicial Branch" (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial), in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore (Por tanto):
The appeal is declared without merit. Magistrate Castillo Víquez records a note.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
CASE FILE (EXPEDIENTE) N° 25-028451-0007-CO Telephones: Telf02/ ALA-4TA (Telf03). Fax: Telf04 / Telf05. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección06, Dirección07, 100 meters south of the Perpetuo Socorro church).
It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 07-05-2026 15:47:14.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del seis de febrero de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente N° 25-028451-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED02, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE GOICOECHEA, y el MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Resultando:
Pese a la insistencia y constancia de mis gestiones, la participación de la institución ha sido mínima, tardía e inefectiva, sin brindar soluciones definitivas ni respuestas en tiempo razonable en la mayoría de los casos, conforme al deber de pronta y cumplida justicia que impone el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política y los artículos 198 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP). He acompañado mis exposiciones con prueba documental, la cual acredita la continuidad de los problemas denunciados y la falta de seguimiento efectivo por parte de la Municipalidad. La administración, en la mayoría de los casos, se ha limitado a emitir simples acuses de recibo o pronunciamientos carentes de contenido resolutivo o de responsabilidad institucional, incurriendo así en omisiones administrativas contrarias a los principios de eficiencia. legalidad y buena fe administrativa …”.
15. Mediante la resolución de las 11:55 horas del 19 de enero de 2026, la magistrada instructora orden ampliación de hechos.
21- Por escrito agregado al Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales de esta Sala el 28 de enero de 2026, la recurrente refuta el informe del Concejo Municipal.
Redacta la Magistrada Hess Herrera; y,
Considerando:
Antes de analizar el fondo del asunto debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia número 2008-02545 de las 08:55 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 razonablemente pautados para resolver las solicitudes planteadas por los administrados a la luz de lo dispuesto por el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política. Precisamente, en el sub lite, se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia por funcionamiento irregular de una chatarrera y un bar colindante, la acumulación persistente de residuos, la contaminación sónica, la existencia de construcciones presuntamente ilegales, la ocupación indebida de la vía pública y la generación de riesgos sanitarios y de seguridad en el entorno inmediato de su vivienda, que presuntamente no ha sido resuelta dentro de un plazo razonable y pone en riesgo la integridad de la accionante y demás personas de la comunidad. Atendiendo a la naturaleza de la temática que trata la gestión, esta Sala valorará las posibles dilaciones en la resolución de la denuncia planteada. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
La recurrente interpuso recurso de amparo alegando inacción prolongada frente a denuncias formuladas desde 2019 por el funcionamiento irregular de una chatarrera y un bar colindante, acumulación de residuos, construcciones ilegales, ocupación de vía pública y riesgos sanitarios y de seguridad que afectan su salud, integridad, propiedad y tranquilidad. Sostiene que, pese a la emisión de órdenes sanitarias y administrativas, estas no han sido ejecutadas ni fiscalizadas eficazmente, que se han desatendido derechos de petición y solicitudes de información y que persiste una omisión institucional reiterada. Como pretensión, solicita que el recurso sea declarado con lugar, que se ordene a las autoridades accionadas adoptar medidas inmediatas, efectivas y coordinadas para corregir las irregularidades denunciadas.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Goicoechea.
10)El 09 de octubre de 202, se realizó visita conjunta al sitio con participación del Ministerio de Salud (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
11)El 06 de enero de 2025, se realizó una segunda visita conjunta (Municipalidad–Ministerio de Salud) y se indica que se entregó a la recurrente copia de la documentación disponible del caso, incluyendo boleta/notificación 13247 A (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
12)El 12 de mayo de 2025, la Municipalidad refiere el oficio MG-AG-DI-01175-2025 (Dirección de Ingeniería) que consigna que desde la visita conjunta de octubre 2024 no existe aún resolución de inhabitabilidad por parte del Ministerio de Salud (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
13)El 14 de mayo de 2025, se emitió el oficio MG-AG-DI-01216-2025 (Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones) reiterando actuaciones (notificación 13247 A, traslado a Salud, visitas conjuntas) y señalando entrega de documentación (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
14)El 05 de mayo de 2025, se menciona el oficio de la Defensoría N.° 04567-2025-DRH, relativo a denuncia de la recurrente por afectaciones ambientales y otros aspectos; la Municipalidad indica haber trasladado el caso al Ministerio de Salud, dada la naturaleza sanitaria (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
15)El 11 de junio de 2025, la recurrente solicitó audiencia al Concejo Municipal para exponer situaciones que afectan a la comunidad (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
16)El 16 de junio de 2025, el Concejo Municipal adoptó acuerdo (se cita 2.13, sesión 24-2025) para que la presidencia asignara fecha y se concediera audiencia (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
17)El 03 de julio de 2025, se celebró sesión extraordinaria del Concejo Municipal en la que se recibió a la recurrente en audiencia; se le realizaron advertencias sobre límites del espacio público; finalmente se dispuso remitir el asunto a Comisiones de Seguridad y Salud (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
18)El 18 de julio de 2025, se emitió la certificación CERT-459-2025, mediante la cual se entregó a la recurrente copia certificada del acta de la sesión del 3 de julio de 2025 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
19)El 28 de julio de 2025, en Comisión de Seguridad se dispuso tratar el tema conjuntamente con Comisión de Salud (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
20)El 07 de agosto de 2025, se emitió convocatoria (oficio Comisión de Seguridad 04-2025) para reunión conjunta de comisiones el 25 de agosto de 2025 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
21)El 07 de agosto de 2025, la Defensoría emitió el oficio N.° 09099-2025-DRH solicitando informe por presunta inacción (se indica que fue remitido por correo sin adjunto y luego reenviado) (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
22)El 21 de agosto de 2025, la recurrente envió correo solicitando información sobre su gestión/denuncia del 03 de julio de 2025 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
23)El 25 de agosto de 2025, en sesión ordinaria del Concejo se adoptó acuerdo (3.38) reemitiendo y confirmando el traslado del asunto a Comisiones de Salud y Seguridad; además, las comisiones se reunieron esa fecha (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
24)El 28 de agosto de 2025, se emitió oficio Comisión de Seguridad 08-2025, dejando constancia de acciones adoptadas y requerimientos de información a dependencias municipales (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
25)El 31 de agosto de 2025, La recurrente remitió nueva consulta a la presidencia del Concejo sobre el estado del asunto en comisiones (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
26)El 01 de setiembre de 2025, la presidencia del Concejo emitió el oficio MG-CM-PM-OF-29-2025, informando el estado y trasladando comunicación a integrantes de comisiones (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
27)El 17 de setiembre de 2025. la recurrente presentó escrito solicitando: Copia certificada del video de la sesión del 03 de julio de 2025. Nueva copia del acta, alegando omisiones/alteraciones. Además, reconoce (según el informe del Concejo) que pudo descargar el video desde Facebook en algún momento (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
28)El 19 de setiembre de 2025, la Secretaría del Concejo acusó recibido de la gestión del 17 de setiembre y comunicó que haría consultas a asesoría legal (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
29)El 01 de octubre de 2025, se atendió a la recurrente indicándole que la certificación del video procede con entrega de dispositivo y pago de timbres; se reiteró que el acta entregada corresponde al acta aprobada; se informó que el asunto continúa en estudio por comisiones (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
30)El 06 de octubre de 2025, la Alcaldía comunicó a la Defensoría que el oficio 09099-2025-DRH no se había adjuntado inicialmente; ese día la Defensoría lo remitió correctamente (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
31)El 09 de octubre de 2025, se emitió el oficio MG-AG-DGA-274-2025 (Gestión Ambiental) donde se detalla intervención histórica (2019) y abordaje del caso de chatarrera clandestina (gestiones 2021) y se concluye que las denuncias ambientales han sido atendidas dentro de competencias (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
32)Fecha no determinada (posterior al 09 de octubre de 2024), el Director de Ingeniería informó por correo electrónico que la pared divisoria fue construida, cumpliendo lo ordenado en la Notificación 13247 A (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
En cuanto al Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea:
11)El 04 de noviembre de 2021, se intentó realizar inspección en la vivienda de la denunciante para la sonometría; no fue atendido el funcionario (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
12)El 26 y 27 de noviembre de 2021, se intentó coordinar telefónicamente la sonometría; no hubo respuesta de la denunciante (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
13)El 27 de noviembre de 2021, se realizó visita a la vivienda de la denunciante a las 6:25 p.m.; no se obtuvo respuesta (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
14)El 30 de noviembre de 2021, se envió correo electrónico a la denunciante solicitando contacto y confirmación de persistencia del ruido (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
15)El 03 de diciembre de 2021, ante la falta de respuesta, se recomendó el cierre del caso D-102-2021 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
16)El 08 de diciembre de 2021, se autorizó el cierre y archivo del expediente D-102-2021 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
17)El 31 de diciembre de 2021, la Fiscalía Adjunta del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José solicitó certificación del permiso sanitario y copia del expediente administrativo (exp. penal 21-000073-0611-PE) (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
18)El 27 de enero de 2022, se recibió convocatoria de la Fiscalía para inspección conjunta (D-28-2022) (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
19)El 24 de febrero de 2022, se realizó inspección conjunta con la Municipalidad de Goicoechea (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
20)El 24 de febrero de 2022, se notificó clausura por acumulación de residuos sin permiso sanitario (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
21)El 10 de octubre de 2024, la denunciante interpuso denuncia D-351-2024 contra el Bar La Montaña por presunta contaminación sónica (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
22)El 10 de octubre de 2024, la denunciante interpuso nueva denuncia D-352-2024 por malas condiciones físico-sanitarias, chatarrera ilegal, residuos, aguas residuales, animales sin cuido, humo, humedad estructural y riesgos de incendio (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
23)El 18 de octubre de 2024, se realizó inspección; no se obtuvo atención en la vivienda de la denunciante (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
24)El 30 de octubre de 2024, se informó a la denunciante que la inspección no se pudo realizar y se reprogramó para noviembre (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
25)El 07 de noviembre de 2024, se inspeccionó la vivienda de la denunciante, constatándose humedad en la pared colindante; se indicó que coordinaría con la Municipalidad (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
26)El 21 de noviembre de 2024, se realizó inspección conjunta con la Municipalidad, evidenciándose deficiencias físico-sanitarias y de seguridad en la propiedad denunciada (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
27)El 25 de noviembre de 2024, la denunciante agradeció la inspección y consultó sobre el estado de su pared (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
28)El 20 de diciembre de 2024, se solicitó apoyo técnico a la Región Central Sur para valoración de infraestructura (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
29)El 27 de enero de 2025, se realizó reunión entre autoridades de salud y la denunciante para explicar el estado del expediente y el acceso a la información (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
30)El 01 de febrero de 2025, se intentó realizar sonometría en el Bar La Montaña; la denunciante indicó que no era necesaria por ausencia de ruido en ese momento (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
31)El 05 de marzo de 2025, se realizó inspección técnica con ingeniero sanitario regional para valorar condiciones de las unidades habitacionales (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
32)El 14 de marzo de 2025, se recibió informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-URS-IT-0106-2025, determinando múltiples inconformidades (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
33)El 15 de mayo de 2025, se inspeccionaron cuatro de nueve viviendas en la propiedad denunciada (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
34)El 01 de setiembre de 2025, se notificó orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1180-2025 al señor Nombre03 declarando inhabitable la vivienda donde habita la Señora Nombre02 y familiares, y ordenando el desalojo, desconexión de la electricidad, demolición y la disposición sanitaria de los residuos generados por la demolición de la vivienda. Se encuentra pendiente la notificación de la Sra. Nombre02, debido a que siempre refieren que no se encuentra en la propiedad. Así como la notificación de los otros propietarios del terreno Nombre12 y Nombre13. Se aclara que la propiedad denunciada según el registro nacional pertenece a 4 personas: Nombre02, Nombre03, Nombre12 y Nombre13 (las últimas dos personas mencionadas no habitan en el sitio y no ha sido posible localizarlas, incluso los señores Nombre06 manifiesta no conocerlos) (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
35)El 05 de setiembre de 2025, ingresó recurso de revocatoria por parte del Sr. Nombre03, contra la orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1180-2025 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
36)El 06 de setiembre de 2025, se realizó sonometría en seguimiento a la denuncia contra el Bar La Montaña (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
37)El 11 de setiembre de 2025, se remitió a la Dirección Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Central Sur, informe en respuesta al recurso de revocatoria para su resolución (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
38)El 19 de setiembre de 2025, se emitió informe concluyendo superación del límite legal de ruido nocturno (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
39)El 23 de setiembre de 2025, se realizó inspección en el sitio denunciado de manera conjunta los funcionarios MSc. Diana Benavides León, Lic. Agustín Rodríguez Madariaga (ambos funcionarios de la Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea), el Ing. Allan Bolaños Benavides (Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud de la Dirección Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Central Sur), Policía Municipal y personal de patentes municipal, al llegar al sitio nos atendió el Sr. Nombre14, se identifica como inquilino, manifestó que no se encuentra la Sra. Nombre02, ni el Sr. Nombre03, por lo que no permite el ingreso a la propiedad. Por esta razón no se logró ingresar a la propiedad y realizar la respectiva inspección de las viviendas (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
40)El 23 de setiembre de 2025, se notificó orden sanitaria al Bar La Montaña ordenando suspender el uso de equipos amplificadores (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
41)El 06 de octubre de 2025, en seguimiento a la denuncia 352-2024, se contactó vía telefónica a los denunciados, respondiendo a la llamada la Sra. Nombre15 quien se identifica como pareja del Sr. Nombre03, se le explicó y se dejó el mensaje para que el Sr. Nombre06 se comunicara con la Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud con el propósito de coordinar una inspección en la propiedad y que en caso de no tener respuesta se procedería a solicitar el allanamiento a la propiedad. Se acordó como fecha límite para dar respuesta el 08 de octubre del 2025 (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
42)El 08 de octubre de 2025, ingresó a la Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud mediante el correo electrónico de la funcionaria MSc. Diana Benavides León, oficio del Sr. Nombre03 en el que autoriza al personal de Ministerio de Salud el ingreso a la totalidad de la propiedad para realizar las inspecciones necesarias el día 16 de octubre de 2025 después de las 17:39 horas (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
43)El 10 de octubre de 2025, se notificó orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1179-2025 a la Señora Nombre02, propietaria del terreno donde se ubican las viviendas denunciadas por la Sra. Nombre01, indicándole que se declara inhabitable la vivienda que habita la Señora Nombre02 y familiares, desalojar la totalidad de la vivienda, desconectar el circuito eléctrico de la vivienda antes mencionada, demoler la totalidad de la vivienda y disponer sanitariamente los residuos generados por la demolición de la vivienda (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
44)El 16 de octubre de 2025, se realizó inspección extraordinaria ingresando a todas las viviendas; se constató que la vivienda principal ya había sido demolida (ver informe rendido bajo juramento y prueba adjunta).
En cuanto a la Dirección de la Región 1 Norte de la Fuerza Pública:
De conformidad con el elenco de hechos debidamente acreditados en autos, la prueba documental incorporada al expediente y los informes rendidos bajo juramento por las autoridades recurridas, esta Sala concluye que el presente recurso de amparo debe declararse SIN LUGAR, por cuanto no se acredita una lesión directa, actual y atribuible a las instituciones demandadas en perjuicio de los derechos fundamentales invocados, sino, principalmente, una disconformidad de la parte recurrente con el resultado práctico, la oportunidad o la suficiencia material de las actuaciones administrativas desplegadas en un conflicto complejo y prolongado.
En primer término, respecto de la Municipalidad de Goicoechea se constata que, aunque la recurrente sitúa el origen del problema en una denuncia por supuesta chatarrera ilegal desde octubre de 2019, lo cierto es que la Municipalidad sí ha ejecutado diversas intervenciones dentro de su ámbito competencial, particularmente mediante su Dirección de Gestión Ambiental y otros órganos internos. En efecto, desde 2019 se reporta la emisión del oficio DGA-123-2019, en el que se consignan acciones comunitarias y operativas orientadas a la mejora de condiciones sanitarias y de seguridad en el sector (reuniones vecinales, difusión preventiva, rotulación y limpieza de la vía principal, además de coordinaciones con Fuerza Pública). Posteriormente, para el año 2021 se acredita que la Dirección de Gestión Ambiental emitió el oficio MG-AG-DGA-338-2021, mediante el cual gestionó coordinación con dependencias municipales y el Área Rectora de Salud, y adicionalmente, elevó denuncia ante el Ministerio Público contra los propietarios por presunta operación clandestina, proceso que culminó con la remisión a conciliación, una resolución homologatoria y el sobreseimiento definitivo (agosto de 2023), confirmado en alzada mediante resolución del 16 de mayo de 2024.
Así, en este extremo no se advierte una inactividad absoluta municipal, sino actuaciones de gestión, coordinación y canalización incluso hacia la vía penal, sin que el amparo sea un mecanismo para revisar el mérito de decisiones adoptadas en esa sede, ni para reabrir controversias ya finalizadas por autoridad competente.
En lo relativo a las afectaciones vinculadas con infraestructura y condiciones del inmueble colindante (humedades, filtraciones, aguas con mal olor y presuntas construcciones irregulares) se acredita que la Municipalidad, por medio de la Dirección de Ingeniería y Operaciones, emitió la notificación N.° 13247 A (09 de octubre de 2024) ordenando a los propietarios eliminar una estructura adosada, construir pared propia/divisoria y atender problemas de aguas, bajo apercibimiento de clausura coordinada con el Ministerio de Salud. Además, se comprueba que el 10 de octubre de 2024 se remitió el oficio MG-AG-DI-2864-2024 al Área Rectora de Salud solicitando su intervención sanitaria y que se realizaran visitas conjuntas interinstitucionales (octubre de 2024 y enero de 2025). Incluso, se consigna que en enero de 2025 se entregó a la recurrente copia de la documentación disponible y que posteriormente la Municipalidad reiteró actuaciones mediante oficios como MG-AG-DI-01175-2025 y MG-AG-DI-01216-2025, además de comunicar a la Defensoría de los Habitantes su abordaje del caso y el traslado a Salud por la naturaleza sanitaria de varias de las aristas denunciadas.
Finalmente, consta informe municipal posterior indicando que la pared divisoria fue construida, cumpliendo lo ordenado. En ese contexto, la pretensión de la recurrente, en lo sustancial se dirige a cuestionar la suficiencia de las soluciones o su eficacia práctica; sin embargo, esta Sala ha sostenido de manera reiterada que el amparo no es una instancia revisora del mérito técnico, ni una vía para sustituir a la Administración en la definición del modo concreto de ejecución de sus competencias ordinarias, salvo que se acreditara una omisión manifiesta y prolongada o una tolerancia evidente a un riesgo grave e inminente, extremo que no se desprende, con el estándar propio de esta jurisdicción, del material aportado.
En cuanto al componente relacionado con tránsito de vagonetas y vehículos pesados, la recurrente afirma la existencia de una orden municipal en 2021 sobre prohibición de paso que no habría sido ejecutada. Al respecto, esta Sala estima necesario precisar que la regulación, fiscalización y sanción de infracciones de tránsito se encuentra sujeta al marco normativo específico y a las instancias administrativas competentes en materia vial, por lo que no corresponde atribuir a las autoridades aquí recurridas potestades que el ordenamiento no les confiere para corregir de manera directa eventuales incumplimientos de disposiciones de tránsito. En consecuencia, cualquier infracción o situación irregular relativa a circulación vehicular, tránsito pesado o conductas en vía pública debe denunciarse y tramitarse ante las autoridades administrativas especializadas y por los cauces ordinarios previstos, sin que esta jurisdicción pueda, mediante amparo reconfigurar el reparto competencial ni ordenar medidas cuya ejecución dependa de órganos con competencias legalmente determinadas como el MOPT y mucho menos sin una previa denuncia formal ante la autoridad competente para ello.
Por otra parte, en lo tocante al Ministerio de Salud (Área Rectora de Salud de Goicoechea) se acredita una secuencia extensa de actuaciones administrativas desde 2019: inspecciones, emisión de órdenes sanitarias (incluida la orden CS-DARS-G-1427-19 en noviembre de 2019 y la orden CS-DARS-G-1757-2021 en junio de 2021) reprogramaciones justificadas durante la emergencia por COVID-19, nuevas diligencias de verificación, atención de denuncias por ruido (con intentos de sonometría y gestiones de coordinación), así como actuaciones coordinadas con Fiscalía y Municipalidad, incluyendo inspección conjunta en febrero de 2022 y clausura por acumulación de residuos sin permiso sanitario. Más recientemente, a raíz de nuevas denuncias en octubre de 2024 (contaminación sónica y condiciones físico-sanitarias) el Ministerio efectuó inspecciones y coordinaciones técnicas (reuniones con la denunciante, informe regional de infraestructura, inspecciones parciales y visitas conjuntas), hasta culminar con la emisión de órdenes sanitarias de 2025 (entre ellas, la MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1180-2025 y la MS-DRRSCS-DARS-G-1179-2025) que declaran inhabitable la vivienda indicada, ordenan desalojo, desconexión eléctrica, demolición y disposición sanitaria de residuos, registrándose además recursos administrativos y gestiones de notificación que se han visto dificultadas por la no localización de algunos propietarios o la falta de acceso al inmueble en ciertas oportunidades.
Este cuadro evidencia que no existe una omisión absoluta del Ministerio de Salud, sino un procedimiento administrativo sostenido, con actuaciones escalonadas y medidas progresivas, cuyo ritmo y eficacia pueden depender de factores de ejecución y de colaboración de los administrados, sin que tales contingencias, por sí mismas, conviertan la situación en una lesión constitucional imputable a la autoridad recurrida.
En cuanto a la Fuerza Pública, se comprueba que se atendieron incidentes asociados a la recurrente, que se brindaron registros y copias certificadas cuando fueron solicitadas, y que, a requerimiento de la Oficina de Atención y Protección a la Víctima, se ejecutó un patrullaje con monitoreo por cuarenta días (octubre a noviembre de 2024) conforme a orden operativa específica. Si bien la recurrente expone preocupación por amenazas, seguridad y conflictividad en el entorno, los elementos acreditados no permiten concluir una negativa absoluta de auxilio, ni una inacción policial generalizada, sino la prestación de atenciones y medidas razonables dentro del marco de sus competencias operativas.
En lo que respecta al Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal (SENASA) del examen del acervo probatorio no se acredita la existencia de una denuncia o gestión administrativa formal presentada directamente ante dicha institución, con indicación de fecha, número de expediente, actuación concreta o respuesta institucional. Si bien la parte recurrente menciona a SENASA como autoridad involucrada, particularmente en el marco de una queja interpuesta ante la Defensoría de los Habitantes por presunto abandono de animales, tal circunstancia no permite tener por demostrada una omisión imputable a esa entidad, pues la sola referencia indirecta a su competencia o inclusión como recurrida no suple la carga mínima de acreditar una gestión previa ni un deber concreto de actuación incumplido. En consecuencia, no es posible atribuir a SENASA una conducta omisiva constitucionalmente relevante, ni derivar responsabilidad por inacción, razón adicional por la cual el recurso resulta improcedente en este extremo.
Finalmente, en relación con la supuesta vulneración del derecho de petición y de pronta respuesta, esta Sala constata que, conforme se desprende de los hechos debidamente acreditados y de la prueba documental incorporada, las autoridades recurridas sí atendieron las gestiones planteadas por la recurrente, mediante respuestas formales, oficios escritos, actuaciones administrativas verificables, audiencias concedidas y entrega de documentación, tanto en sede administrativa como ante el Concejo Municipal y otras instancias. En efecto, consta la emisión de múltiples oficios, la realización de inspecciones, la coordinación interinstitucional y la comunicación expresa del estado de las gestiones, lo cual evidencia que no existió una negativa absoluta ni un silencio administrativo prolongado frente a las solicitudes formuladas. El hecho de que las respuestas brindadas no satisfagan plenamente las expectativas de la recurrente o no se traduzcan de inmediato en los resultados materiales pretendidos, no implica, por sí solo, una transgresión al derecho fundamental de petición, el cual garantiza el acceso a la Administración y la obtención de una respuesta motivada, pero no asegura una decisión favorable ni la ejecución inmediata de lo solicitado.
A partir de lo expuesto, esta Sala concluye que el presente asunto refleja un conflicto vecinal, ambiental, sanitario y de orden público multifactorial y de larga data, que ha sido objeto de intervenciones administrativas y coordinaciones interinstitucionales. Sin embargo, el amparo tutela derechos fundamentales frente a actos u omisiones arbitrarias o ilegítimas, y no constituye un mecanismo para imponer a la Administración resultados específicos, ni para sustituir las vías ordinarias de fiscalización técnica, sanción o ejecución material, especialmente cuando el expediente muestra actuaciones concretas, respuestas institucionales y decisiones adoptadas dentro del ámbito de competencia de cada autoridad. Por ello, al no acreditarse una lesión constitucional directa, actual y atribuible a la parte recurrida, lo procedente es declarar el recurso SIN LUGAR.
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.
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. El magistrado Castillo Víquez consigna nota.
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.