← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 10005-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 20/03/2026
OutcomeResultado
The amparo action is denied because no arbitrariness is proven, as the denial of potable water availability was based on objective technical and environmental criteria.Se declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo por no acreditarse arbitrariedad, ya que la negativa de disponibilidad de agua potable se basó en criterios técnicos y ambientales objetivos.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denies an amparo action filed by the owner of a lot on Calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, against the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur Jiménez and the ICAA. The petitioner alleged that for thirteen years she had been unjustifiably denied potable water availability despite nearby infrastructure and costs assumed jointly with neighbors. The Chamber found that the property is located in a central sector of the community not covered by ICAA aqueduct systems, and that the ASADA has not submitted technical studies to extend service. Additionally, there are environmental restrictions related to protection of a highly vulnerable aquifer, which impose limits on new connections. The Chamber reiterates its case law that the right to water is not absolute when technical, legal, or environmental impediments are proven, and that verification of legal and technical requirements corresponds to ordinary jurisdiction. The Chamber also dismisses the alleged discrimination for lack of a valid comparison parameter. The amparo is denied, with a dissenting vote of two justices who would order ARESEP to report.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto por la propietaria de un lote en la calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, contra la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur Jiménez y el ICAA. La recurrente alegó que durante trece años se le ha negado injustificadamente la disponibilidad de agua potable, pese a existir infraestructura cercana y haber asumido costos junto con otros vecinos. Sin embargo, la Sala determinó que el inmueble se ubica en un sector central de la comunidad que carece de cobertura de los sistemas de acueducto del ICAA y que la ASADA no ha presentado estudios técnicos para extender el servicio. Además, constan restricciones ambientales vinculadas a la protección de un acuífero altamente vulnerable, lo que impone límites a nuevas conexiones. La Sala reitera su jurisprudencia en el sentido de que el derecho al agua no es absoluto cuando existen imposibilidades técnicas, jurídicas o ambientales acreditadas, y que la verificación de requisitos legales y técnicos corresponde a las vías ordinarias. Finalmente, desestima la alegada discriminación por falta de un parámetro de comparación válido. El recurso se declara sin lugar con voto salvado de dos magistrados que ordenarían solicitar informe a ARESEP.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The Chamber sees no reason to change the transcribed criterion. Indeed, the denial is not considered unreasonable or capricious when it is based on a technical justification, as in this case, the deficient hydraulic capacity of the aqueduct. The discussion of the merits may be raised in the ordinary jurisdiction. (...) Likewise, it is not for this Chamber to determine whether the petitioner meets the legal or technical requirements for the request to be approved, since verification is a function of the corresponding administrative authorities, and this Chamber may not enter into the matter, as it pertains to ordinary legality beyond its competence.La Sala no observa motivos para cambiar el criterio transcrito. En efecto, no se estima que la denegatoria sea irrazonable ni antojadiza cuando se basa en una justificación técnica como es, en este caso, la deficiente capacidad hidráulica del acueducto. La discusión del tema de fondo puede ser planteada en la vía de legalidad. (...) Asimismo, no le corresponde a esta Sala definir si el recurrente cumple o no los requisitos legales o técnicos para que la solicitud sea aprobada, ya que su verificación es una función de las autoridades administrativas correspondientes, sin que esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, por tratarse de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido consistente en señalar que el derecho al agua no implica obligación de otorgar el servicio cuando exista imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o ambiental debidamente acreditada."
"Constitutional case law has consistently held that the right to water does not imply an obligation to provide the service when there is duly proven technical, legal, or environmental impossibility."
Considerando IV
"La jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido consistente en señalar que el derecho al agua no implica obligación de otorgar el servicio cuando exista imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o ambiental debidamente acreditada."
Considerando IV
"No le corresponde a esta Sala definir si el recurrente cumple o no los requisitos legales o técnicos para que la solicitud sea aprobada, ya que su verificación es una función de las autoridades administrativas correspondientes, sin que esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, por tratarse de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia."
"It is not for this Chamber to determine whether the petitioner meets the legal or technical requirements for the request to be approved, since verification is a function of the corresponding administrative authorities, and this Chamber may not enter into the matter, as it pertains to ordinary legality beyond its competence."
Considerando IV
"No le corresponde a esta Sala definir si el recurrente cumple o no los requisitos legales o técnicos para que la solicitud sea aprobada, ya que su verificación es una función de las autoridades administrativas correspondientes, sin que esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, por tratarse de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia."
Considerando IV
"Cuando se acusa vulneración al numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, no basta con que la parte recurrente afirme que se ha producido un trato distinto entre dos sujetos para tener por demostrado el quebranto a la norma constitucional, toda vez que quien alega la violación a este derecho está obligado a aportar ab initio elementos suficientes que sugieran -con un grado de probabilidad razonable- que de modo injustificado se ha dado un trato diferenciado a situaciones iguales."
"When a violation of Article 33 of the Political Constitution is alleged, it is not enough for the petitioner to assert that a different treatment has occurred between two subjects to deem the constitutional norm breached, since whoever alleges the violation of this right is obliged to provide ab initio sufficient elements that suggest—with a reasonable degree of probability—that unjustified differentiated treatment has been given to equal situations."
Considerando IV
"Cuando se acusa vulneración al numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, no basta con que la parte recurrente afirme que se ha producido un trato distinto entre dos sujetos para tener por demostrado el quebranto a la norma constitucional, toda vez que quien alega la violación a este derecho está obligado a aportar ab initio elementos suficientes que sugieran -con un grado de probabilidad razonable- que de modo injustificado se ha dado un trato diferenciado a situaciones iguales."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the twentieth of March two thousand twenty-six.
Amparo action processed in case file no. 25-039976-0007-CO, filed by Nombre01, identity card CED02, on behalf of Nombre02, identity card CED03, against the ASOCIACIÓN DE ACUEDUCTO RURAL (ASADA) BUENOS AIRES SUR JIMÉNEZ AND THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (ICAA).
Whereas:
The AyA does not intervene or participate in real estate transactions, nor can it, by itself, guarantee the availability of essential public services without the technical, legal, and environmental requirements established in the current regulations first being met." SECOND: It is not true. According to the technical report sent via memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 of January 21, 2026, from the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA, it is indicated that: "In the records of the UEN Gestión de ASADAS of AyA, there is no record of a request for drinking water availability for the northern sector of the community, specifically where the appellant's property is located. Consequently, no specific technical analysis (studies for urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregations) has been carried out that would allow the feasibility of supply to be assessed, in accordance with the provisions of the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del AyA." The regulation cited in this fact does not correspond to the current articles of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del AyA; the certificates of service availability are found in articles 7, subsection 31, 15, 29, 30, and concordant articles.
THIRD: It is not true. According to a report sent by the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA, it is indicated, in summary, that: (see report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237): 1. It is not true that the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur was established specifically to supply the sector where the property is located. 2. With document No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2021-00953 dated March 5, 2021, it was indicated that: "…according to the registry information provided, these are 40 properties that would be included in the project…" therefore, the appellant is not correct in stating that the service was restricted without technical basis to support the denial of water availability. 3. That the projection for possible granting will only be that indicated for the northern sector of the community, specifically along the street towards the sector where the Green Valley School is located. 4. The action carried out corresponds exclusively to a request submitted by the neighborhood committee of Valle Verde, a hamlet (caserío) made up of approximately 40 existing dwellings located at the southern end of the area.
Said action bears no relation to the Dirección02 sector, where the appellant's property is located. 5. For this sector, the ASADA of Buenos Aires Sur de Pococí has not conducted any technical study aimed at urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregation processes before the UEN Gestión de ASADAS of AyA. Therefore, it is not appropriate to attribute technical validity to the document they provide for the benefit of the northern sector where the appellant's property is located. 6. Currently, AyA is developing technical studies in response to the formal request submitted by the ASADA of Buenos Aires, to assess the feasibility of this ASADA assuming the administration of the water supply system currently operated by an unauthorized manager in the community of Valle Verde – Dirección02 (Dirección03). In this context, there are binding environmental criteria, which are decisive for decision-making. 7.
Document UEN-GA-2025-03793 (see attachment) is provided, issued by the UEN Ambiental, which states, among other things, the following: (…) "Likewise, considering that the area of the 'Water Committee Zone Valle Verde – Dirección03' coincides with the area of a request for an urban development project for sewer system exemption called 'Nuevo Guápiles', processed as expediente No. 640 in the year 2014, on cadastral map L239023-95, which was denied by the UEN Gestión Ambiental due to technical inconsistencies of a hydrogeological nature that were never corrected by the interested party." 8. Document SUB-AID-GA-2015-432 (see attachment) is provided, corresponding to a categorical technical criterion from the Directorate stating: (…) "This Directorate of the Área Funcional de Hidrogeología, from the hydrogeological, geological, aquifer protection, and AyA Numancia Sources point of view, and based on all the existing technical studies in the area, as well as the Diagnóstico del Plan Regulador de Pococí – Tomo I, does not recommend the exemption of the Proyecto Urbanización Nuevo Guápiles, located in Barrio Emilia, Guápiles, Pococí, Limón, cadastral map L-239023-95, because it is an aquifer highly vulnerable to pollution." Similarly, according to technical report No. GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067 (attached) sent by the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, it indicates that: "With respect to the third point, as indicated in official letters GSP-RHCP-2017-00781 and GSP-RA-P-2019-00843 (attached), the Valle Verde sector is outside the coverage area of the aqueducts administered directly by AyA.
Specifically, the HC-A-13 Cariari - Anita Grande and HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez systems (see image number 2). Given the above, because it is located outside the jurisdiction of AyA – Región Huetar Caribe, no criterion has been issued regarding water availability for the land located in that sector." FOURTH: We cannot attest to the response issued by the ASADA as no proof is provided in this regard; as for the other aspects mentioned, they are not true. The appellant lists five alleged justifications for the rejection: 1. municipal permits, 2. personal discrimination, 3. lack of water, 4. non-existence of a budget, and 5. proximity to AyA infrastructure, which are referenced in the technical reports provided by the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA and the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA. (see attached reports No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 and No. GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067): FIFTH: It is not true.
According to report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 from the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA, the appellant maintains that they meet the conditions to receive the service and that the denial violates fundamental rights. However, there are no diagnoses or technical feasibility studies submitted in accordance with Definition No. 12 of the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del AyA, which requires verifying water, hydraulic, environmental, and legal capacity. Without such analysis, it is not legally possible to grant drinking water availability (see attached report). Likewise, report No. GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067 signed by the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, states that the protected party has the right to manage the water supply, provided they comply with the established procedures. However, said Cantonal office has not issued certificates of service availability, since it is not within its coverage area.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight what is established in article 7, subsection 134 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del AyA regarding environmental restriction zones. (see attached report). SIXTH: It is not true. According to what is stated in technical reports No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 from the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA and No. GSP-RHCP-2026-00067 from the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, in the order described (see attached reports), it is indicated that: 1. "…The AyA cannot attest to any arbitrary action. The appellant's situation is not comparable to that of the 40 dwellings in the southern sector, which were the subject of a specific, delimited, and duly evaluated technical project." 2. "…The Región Huetar Caribe has not carried out any action in the Valle Verde sector. It must be noted that within the AyA's regulations and procedures, economic contributions are never requested from interested parties." SEVENTH: We cannot attest.
According to what is stated in technical reports No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 from the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA and No. GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067 from the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, in the order described (see attached reports), it is indicated that: 1. "…The AyA cannot attest to any arbitrary action. The appellant's situation is not comparable to that of the 40 dwellings in the southern sector, which were the subject of a specific, delimited, and duly evaluated technical project." 2. "…It is reiterated that AyA – Región Huetar Caribe, has not carried out any action that approves or disapproves the water supply in the Valle Verde sector, since it is located outside the coverage area." EIGHTH: This section is not a fact. However, it is worth citing what is set forth in technical reports No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 from the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA and No. GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067 from the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, in the order described, which are attached and which, in summary, detail: 1.
"Constitutional jurisprudence has been consistent in stating that the right to water does not imply an obligation to grant the service when there is duly accredited technical, legal, or environmental impossibility. In the present case, the denial is based on objective technical and environmental criteria, particularly the protection of strategic supply sources." (see report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237). 2. "… although the excerpts refer to jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional, it can be observed from these that in both rulings (2016-006027 and 2017-005245) the Chamber indicates that no omission or arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authority is accredited, given that the acts were not capricious, but rather are based on technical aspects such as the non-existence of drinking water availability in the sectors." Additionally, it is important to indicate that the Valle Verde sector and surrounding areas are located on an aquifer vulnerable to pollution, as shown in reports SUB-AID-GA-2015-432 and UEN-GA-2025-03793 prepared by the Dirección de Gestión Ambiental of AyA (attached).
As can be seen in image number 2 of this document, AyA maintains its main water sources for the HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez system in the area surrounding Valle Verde (Nacientes Numancia, Pozo Numancia, and Dirección04). Therefore, when conducting the study to supply the sector with drinking water, it must be assessed what system for the collection and treatment of the generated wastewater will be used, in order to guarantee the protection of the quantity and quality of the aquifer underlying this land, which is used to provide service to more than 60,000 people in the canton of Pococí. In these cases, the recommendation is to apply the provisions of the Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo Según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico (Matriz de SENARA), given that there is no specific one for the sector. Likewise, and of great importance, the recent criterion issued by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo is provided as part of the evidence, with document DU-431-12-2025 dated December 17, 2025, which references documents PRE-2025-01153 and PRE-2025-01154, which precisely address the cases in this amparo: Valle Verde, Green Valley, and Proyecto Nuevo Guápiles (see document DU-431-12-2025, annex to report GSP-RHC-P-2026-00067).
This document shows that the Valle Verde subdivision (fraccionamiento), to which the protected party's property belongs, as well as the Urbanización Nuevo Guápiles and the Fraccionamiento Green Valley, according to INVU's criterion, were carried out in disregard of the Laws and Regulations governing urban development, including the requirement for service availability prior to the segregation of the properties. Given the above, it is considered that what the appellant claims bears no relation to the actions of AyA Región Huetar Caribe, given that the community of Valle Verde is outside the coverage area of the aqueduct systems administered by AyA, and that what is intended is for the ASADA of Buenos Aires to grant the drinking water availability, provided that urban planning regulations are complied with, and especially the protection of the water resource underlying these lands, which is used for the drinking water supply for a large part of the population of the canton of Pococí.
It is reiterated that, for the operator delegated by AyA, in this case the ASADA of Buenos Aires Sur de Jiménez, to be able to provide a positive certificate of service availability in favor of the interested parties, these parties must comply with all the requirements established for this purpose. In cases such as the present one, where there is no network, they must comply with the provisions of article 14 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios and article 46 of the Reglamento de ASADAS (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 42582-S-MINAE) (…)".
Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,
Considering:
In cases of amparo remedies filed against private subjects, before analyzing the merits regarding the alleged constitutional violation, it must be examined whether, in the specific case, one of the assumptions that make such remedy admissible is present, and, if so, determine whether or not it is admissible. Article 57 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional states that the amparo remedy is admissible against actions or omissions of subjects of private law, when these act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or find themselves, de jure or de facto, in a position of power against which common jurisdictional remedies are clearly insufficient or tardy to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms referred to in article 2, subsection a) of the same Law. In the specific case, one of these conditions is met, since these are subjects of private law who are acting in the exercise of public functions or powers by providing a public service, which is why the remedy is admitted for analysis by this Tribunal.
The appellant states that the protected party is the owner of a lot on the street called “Valle Verde”, in Guápiles. They allege that the respondents have not granted them drinking water service availability, which has been unjustifiably restricted and without technical support. They report that the service was only authorized for 40 houses in the Valle Verde community; however, the Asada requires the authorization of the ICAA to grant additional services. They add that, on different occasions, the respondent institute has offered the service if the neighbors assume certain expenses, but, after making great financial efforts, this has not happened. They conclude that the protected party has endured this discrimination for years without legal grounds or any technical study, and although their lot is 700 meters from an ICAA tank and 1 kilometer from the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur pipeline, they do not receive the service.
Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been thus accredited or because the respondent authority has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:
Said action bears no relation to the Dirección02 sector, where the appellant's property is located. Regarding this latter sector, it is placed on record that no specific technical study aimed at urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregation processes has been received from the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur de Pococí before the UEN Gestión de ASADAS of AyA (…)”. (Report from the respondent authority and documentary evidence).
In the sub lite case, the appellant states that the protected party is the owner of a lot on the street called “Valle Verde”, in Guápiles. They allege that the respondents have not granted them drinking water service availability, which has been unjustifiably restricted and without technical support. They report that the service was only authorized for 40 houses in the Valle Verde community; however, the Asada requires the authorization of the ICAA to grant additional services. They add that, on different occasions, the respondent institute has offered the service if the neighbors assume certain expenses, but, after making great financial efforts, this has not happened. They conclude that the protected party has endured this discrimination for years without legal grounds or any technical study, and although their lot is 700 meters from an ICAA tank and 1 kilometer from the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur pipeline, they do not receive the service.
From the study of the case records, it has been proven that the community of Valle Verde is divided into three sectors: the southern quadrant, which has supply from the Asada; the northern sector, supplied by the ICAA; and the central sector, which lacks an operator to provide drinking water service, and also lacks infrastructure. Due to the lack of infrastructure, for the extension of service in the area, the neighbors must bear the costs of extending the aqueduct branch. By means of memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 of January 21, 2026, the UEN Gestión de Acueductos Rurales of ICAA detailed: “In the records of the UEN Gestión de ASADAS of AyA, there is no record of a request for drinking water availability specifically where the appellant's property is located. Consequently, no specific technical analysis (studies for urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregations) has been carried out that would allow the feasibility of supply to be assessed, in accordance with the provisions of the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del AyA (…) In the attached evidence, document No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2021-00953 dated March 5, 2021, it is stated: “We clarify that, according to the registry information provided, these are 40 properties that would be included in the project.
We do not fail to state that the action for the possible supply will be projected only for the sector of the dwellings indicated in the documentation provided, and that the possibility of extending the project towards sectors north of the community is not considered, specifically along the street towards the sector where the Green Valley School is located.” In this regard, it is essential to specify that the action mentioned corresponds exclusively to a request submitted by the neighborhood committee of Valle Verde, a hamlet (caserío) made up of approximately 40 existing dwellings, located at the southern end of the area. Said action bears no relation to the Dirección02 sector, where the appellant's property is located. Regarding this latter sector, it is placed on record that no specific technical study aimed at urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregation processes has been received from the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur de Pococí before the UEN Gestión de ASADAS of AyA (…)”.
On this matter, it is pertinent to cite what was resolved by this Chamber in analogous matters concerning Dirección02 of Guápiles. Thus, for example, in ruling No. 2026003603 of 9:20 a.m. on January 30, 2026, this Chamber stated:
“II.- PURPOSE OF THE REMEDY. The appellant party files an amparo remedy and states that, since 2015, the protected party acquired two lots located on Calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, duly registered and close to a Poder Judicial building, and since then has unsuccessfully sought access to drinking water service. Despite multiple requests and the establishment of the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur along with other neighbors, the AyA has repeatedly denied service availability without sufficient technical support, authorizing it only for 40 dwellings. The denials have been based on arguments that the protected party considers unfounded and discriminatory, despite the existence of installed infrastructure, water availability certified by the ASADA, and a nearby AyA tank. They add that, even when the neighbors assumed significant economic costs at AyA's request, the service is still not provided, keeping them in a prolonged situation of defenselessness and arbitrary treatment (…)
After analyzing the evidentiary elements provided, this Tribunal dismisses the violation of the fundamental rights of the protected party. From the reports issued by the representatives of the respondent authorities - which are considered given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction - and the evidence provided for the resolution of the matter, it has been duly accredited that, firstly, the sector in which the protected party's properties are located (Valle Verde, specifically the area near the Green Valley School) is not part of the coverage area of the aqueduct systems directly administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Región Huetar Caribe. Likewise, it was verified that the nearest institutional aqueduct (HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez system) does not cover the area where the protected party's properties are located and that, in particular, the Numancia tank is located at a lower elevation relative to the Valle Verde sector, so it is not technically viable to extend the service from said infrastructure. Consequently, the mere proximity of the property to that tank or other works does not generate an automatic right to connection, since the provision of the service is subject to technical criteria and the real capacity of the existing systems.
Secondly, it was proven that the area presents relevant environmental restrictions, linked to the protection of strategic supply sources and the vulnerability of the aquifer, which imposes severe limits for the approval of new connections or service availability, particularly when relating to urbanization, subdivision (lotificación), or segregation processes that could compromise the quality and quantity of the water resource. On this point, the technical criteria provided by the respondent authorities showed that, being an environmentally sensitive area, the feasibility assessment cannot disregard the comprehensive analysis of water and hydraulic capacity, as well as the sanitary-environmental component, especially the proper management of wastewater and its eventual treatment.
Thirdly, it was accredited that, regarding the northern sector of Valle Verde where the protected party's properties are located, the AyA records did not show the entry of a formal request for drinking water availability, nor the submission of specific technical studies aimed at urbanizations, subdivisions (lotificaciones), or segregations that would enable a technical-legal feasibility analysis. This is decisive, since the regulation governing the provision of the service imposes general and objective requirements for the Administration or the delegated operator to assess the supply, including the existence of networks, real hydraulic and water capacity, the legal feasibility of the route (easements (servidumbres) or accesses), and compliance with applicable environmental regulations. Thus, as long as such requirements are not accredited through the corresponding study, it is not legally appropriate to demand a positive certificate of availability, or a definitive connection.
Now, the Chamber has determined that denying drinking water service does not constitute a violation of a person's rights when there are technical impediments that justify it:
“II.- Regarding the specific case. Among the evidence provided, a certificate of no water availability dated July 15, 2021, is observed, through which the AyA notified the claimant of the rejection of their request for drinking water availability for the individualization of services for an apartment located on their property. The denial was based on the lack of technical feasibility due to insufficient water and hydraulic capacity in the area's supply system, meaning there is no availability of drinking water service for new development projects.
That being the case, it is accredited that the sub lite case does not involve an arbitrary denial of drinking water service, since it was based on the lack of technical feasibility. In this vein, note that this Constitutional Tribunal is not a controller of the legality of the actions or resolutions of the respondent authority, nor can it replace the active Administration in the management of its powers, so it is not its role to usurp the functions legally conferred upon other units, bodies, or entities, such as the AyA. Nor does this Tribunal act as a mediator before a specific natural or legal person - whether under public or private law - to intercede so that what the appellant party seeks is granted, in this case, the installation of a new meter for the apartment they built for their daughter. Now, if what is happening is that the appellant disagrees with the reasons that justified the denial of the new meter by the AyA, they must raise their grievances and claims through the ordinary legality channel, so that what is legally appropriate can be determined there.” (Ruling No. 2021018977 of 11:50 a.m. on August 24, 2021).
The Chamber sees no reason to change the transcribed criterion. Indeed, the denial is not deemed unreasonable or capricious when it is based on a technical justification, as is, in this case, the deficient hydraulic capacity of the aqueduct.
The discussion of the substantive issue can be raised in the legality jurisdiction.
It is worth noting that when resolving a matter similar to the present one, this Court, in judgment No. 2020-19832 of 09:30 hours on October 16, 2020, ordered:
“(…) from the feasibility tests carried out in the locality, the unavailability of water service was determined due to a lack of storage capacity in the community of Pijije de Bagaces; however, it is alleged that a series of actions are being carried out to increase capacity, in order to achieve the provision of potable water in this community by the respondent ASADA. It should be noted that whether or not the requested service is appropriate is not a matter to be discussed in this jurisdiction, as it is outside the scope of competence of this Chamber. On repeated occasions, this Court has held that it is possible to dismiss petitions submitted for the granting of potable water service when technical impossibilities, non-compliance with infra-constitutional requirements, or technical and/or legal criteria that justify it exist. Likewise, it is not for this Chamber to define whether or not the petitioner meets the legal or technical requirements for the request to be approved, since its verification is a function of the corresponding administrative authorities, and this Chamber cannot enter into the matter, as it involves aspects of ordinary legality outside its competence (…)” (emphasis not in original).
In addition to the above, regarding the Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, it was verified that it provides service to the community of Buenos Aires Sur and to a part of the southern sector of Green Valley, supplying approximately 650 subscribers. It was also accredited that the Green Valley community is divided into three sectors and that the central sector lacks a formal operator. In that context, the ASADA reported that it has not arbitrarily refused to collaborate in finding solutions and that its actions are conditioned by the need for institutional intervention and approval by AyA, as well as by compliance with sanitary and environmental regulations. Specifically, it was proven that the comprehensive technical study carried out in 2020 by the ASADA contemplated a possible expansion towards part of Green Valley and was reviewed and approved by AyA; however, this does not equate, by itself, to an immediate and absolute mandate for connection for any property in the sector, since the expansion requires the concrete delimitation of the project, the verification of networks in the specific area and, where appropriate, the works and easements (servidumbres) necessary for its execution.
In fact, it was also accredited that the proceeding processed in 2021 by the neighbors' committee was planned for a group of 40 properties in the southern sector and expressly did not consider the extension towards the northern sector near the Green Valley School, where the petitioner's properties are located; so that the petitioner's situation is not comparable to that of that group of homes, which was the subject of a specific and delimited technical project.
In this vein, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has been constant in pointing out that, although a fundamental right to potable water exists, its exercise is not unrestricted nor does it impose, under any circumstance, an obligation to provide the service when there is a duly accredited technical, legal, or environmental impossibility or when the applicant has not fulfilled the general requirements required to assess the feasibility of supply. Under that understanding, when the denial or impossibility of provision is based on objective, technical, and environmental criteria, and not on arbitrary or discriminatory action, no violation of fundamental rights is configured (…)”.
Therefore, the Court considers that these considerations are applicable to the case under study, as it concerns the same type of claim. As such, as explained in the cited precedent, at this moment there is a technical impossibility that prevents the granting of the requested service, so it is not possible to accredit illegitimate or arbitrary action by the respondents.
Now, it is also worth highlighting that the verification of compliance with legal or technical requirements to obtain the availability of water service corresponds to the ordinary administrative or jurisdictional authorities, and, in principle, this Chamber cannot enter into the matter, as it involves aspects of ordinary legality outside its competence. Thus, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the reasons put forward by the respondent, they must raise the corresponding arguments before the competent ordinary instances, venues where they may discuss the substance of the matter broadly and assert their claims.
Finally, the claimant alleges discriminatory treatment, arguing that other properties do have service availability. In this regard, when a violation of Article 33 of the Political Constitution is alleged, it is not sufficient for the petitioner to assert that a different treatment has occurred between two subjects to consider the breach of the constitutional norm proven, since whoever alleges the violation of this right is obliged to provide ab initio sufficient elements that suggest—with a reasonable degree of probability—that a differentiated treatment has been unjustifiably given to equal situations.
Thus, in the sub examine, sufficient elements are not inferred that would denote a possible injury to the principle of equality, since a valid comparison parameter was not established upon which it could be analyzed whether or not discriminatory treatment occurred in the alleged terms. On the contrary, the claimant only alluded to other properties in the area having water service; however, a specific and individualized case was not mentioned.
By virtue of the foregoing, situations meriting the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction are ruled out a priori, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
In the sub examine, the claimant complains that new water availabilities are not approved because the property is in a deficit zone.
In this regard, we consider it essential to include the Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos (Aresep) as a party so that it may be determined whether the service providers in the area have any type of responsibility for the current capacity of the water systems. In another matter, this Court (Judgment No. 2020007754 of 09:45 hours on April 24, 2020) assessed that Aresep, when rendering its report, detailed a series of problems of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in relation to infrastructure investment, losses due to unaccounted-for water, and execution capacity. On that occasion, the Chamber considered: “In this regard, it is not only on record that the problem of water shortage had been reflected since 2017, but Aresep specified that the ICAA had a backlog in infrastructure investment and, in addition, significant losses due to unaccounted-for water. Likewise, the regulatory body also stated that the project execution capacity of the potable water service operators has not been desirable”.
Consequently, we dissent and order the continuation of the processing of the appeal so that a report may be requested from the general regulator of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.
The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper document or objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn within a maximum period of 30 business days, counted from the notification of this judgment. It is warned that all material not collected within that period will be destroyed, based on the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial" (approved by the Corte Plena in Article XXVI of session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012) and in Article LXXXI of the session of the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial No. 43-12 of May 3, 2012.
Por tanto:
The appeal is dismissed. Judges Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal dissent and order the continuation of the processing of the appeal so that a report may be requested from the general regulator of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.
\t Fernando Castillo V.
\t Fernando Cruz C.
\t \t Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
\t \t Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
\t \t Ingrid Hess H.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veinte de marzo de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente nro. 25-039976-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED02, a favor de Nombre02, cédula de identidad CED03, contra la ASOCIACIÓN DE ACUEDUCTO RURAL (ASADA) BUENOS AIRES SUR JIMÉNEZ Y EL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (ICAA).
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,
Considerando:
Tratándose de recursos de amparo dirigidos contra sujetos privados, previo al análisis de fondo acerca de la violación constitucional alegada, debe examinarse si, en la especie, se está o no ante alguno de los supuestos que hacen admisible tal recurso, y, en caso afirmativo, dilucidar si es o no admisible. Indica la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional en el artículo 57 que procede el recurso de amparo contra las acciones u omisiones de sujetos de derecho privado, cuando estos actúen o deban actuar en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas, o se encuentren, de derecho o de hecho, en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resulten claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales a que se refiere el artículo 2, inciso a) de la misma Ley. En el caso concreto, se cumple uno de estos presupuestos, ya que se trata de sujetos de derecho privado que están actuando en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas al prestar un servicio público, motivo por el que el recurso se admite para su análisis por parte de este Tribunal.
La recurrente manifiesta que el tutelado es propietario de un lote en la calle llamada “Valle Verde”, en Guápiles. Alega que los recurridos no le han dado la disponibilidad del servicio de agua potable, el cual se ha restringido de manera injustificada y sin sustento técnico. Refiere que únicamente se autorizó el servicio a 40 casas de la comunidad Valle Verde; empero, la Asada requiere la autorización del ICAA otorgar servicios adicionales. Añade que, en diferentes oportunidades, el instituto recurrido ha ofrecido el servicio si los vecinos asumen determinados gastos, pero, tras realizar grandes esfuerzos económicos, esto no ha sucedido. Concluye que el amparado lleva años soportando esa discriminación sin fundamento jurídico o estudio técnico alguno, y aunque su lote está a 700 metros de un tanque del ICAA y a 1 kilómetro de la tubería de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur, no recibe el servicio.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque la autoridad recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos, según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
Dicha gestión no guarda relación alguna con el sector de Dirección02, donde se localiza la propiedad del recurrente. En relación con este último sector, se deja constancia de que no se ha recibido, por parte de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur de Pococí, ningún estudio técnico específico orientado a urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o procesos de segregación ante la UEN Gestión de ASADAS del AyA (…)”. (Informe de la autoridad recurrida y prueba documental).
En el sub lite, la recurrente manifiesta que el tutelado es propietario de un lote en la calle llamada “Valle Verde”, en Guápiles. Alega que los recurridos no le han dado la disponibilidad del servicio de agua potable, el cual se ha restringido de manera injustificada y sin sustento técnico. Refiere que únicamente se autorizó el servicio a 40 casas de la comunidad Valle Verde; empero, la Asada requiere la autorización del ICAA otorgar servicios adicionales. Añade que, en diferentes oportunidades, el instituto recurrido ha ofrecido el servicio si los vecinos asumen determinados gastos, pero, tras realizar grandes esfuerzos económicos, esto no ha sucedido. Concluye que el amparado lleva años soportando esa discriminación sin fundamento jurídico o estudio técnico alguno, y aunque su lote está a 700 metros de un tanque del ICAA y a 1 kilómetro de la tubería de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur, no recibe el servicio.
Del estudio de los autos se tiene por demostrado, que la comunidad de Valle Verde se encuentra dividida en tres sectores: el cuadrante sur, que cuenta con abastecimiento de la Asada; el sector norte, abastecido por el ICAA; y el sector central, que no cuenta con un operador que brinde el servicio de agua potable, y tampoco con infraestructura. Por la falta de infraestructura, para la extensión del servicio en la zona los vecinos deben asumir los costos de la extensión de ramal del acueducto. Por medio del memorando nro. GSD-UEN-GAR-2026-00237 de 21 de enero de 2026, la UEN Gestión de Acueductos Rurales del ICAA detalló: “En los registros de la UEN Gestión de ASADAS del AyA no consta el ingreso de una solicitud de disponibilidad de agua potable específicamente donde se ubica el inmueble del recurrente. En consecuencia, no se ha realizado análisis técnico específico (estudios para urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o segregaciones) que permita valorar la factibilidad de abastecimiento, conforme a lo dispuesto en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del AyA (…) En la prueba adjunta, documento No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2021-00953 con fecha 5 de marzo del 2021 se indica “Hacemos la aclaración de que de acuerdo con la información registral suministrada se trata de 40 propiedades las que estarían siendo incluidas en el proyecto.
No omitimos manifestar que la gestión para el posible abastecimiento será proyectada solamente para el sector de las viviendas indicadas en la documentación aportada y que no se considera la posibilidad de extensión del proyecto hacia sectores hacia el norte de la comunidad, específicamente sobre la calle hacia el sector donde se ubica el Colegio Green Valley.” Al respecto, es fundamental precisar que la gestión señalada corresponde exclusivamente a una solicitud presentada por el comité de vecinos de Valle Verde, caserío conformado por aproximadamente 40 viviendas existentes, ubicado en el extremo sur de la zona. Dicha gestión no guarda relación alguna con el sector de Dirección02, donde se localiza la propiedad del recurrente. En relación con este último sector, se deja constancia de que no se ha recibido, por parte de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur de Pococí, ningún estudio técnico específico orientado a urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o procesos de segregación ante la UEN Gestión de ASADAS del AyA (…)”.
Sobre el particular, interesa traer a colación lo resuelto por esta Sala en asuntos análogos, concernientes a Dirección02 de Guápiles. Así, verbigracia, en la sentencia nro. 2026003603 de las 9:20 horas de 30 de enero de 2026, esta Cámara indicó:
“II.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. La parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo y expone que, desde el año 2015, el amparado adquirió dos lotes ubicados en Calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, debidamente inscritos y cercanos a un edificio del Poder Judicial, y desde entonces ha gestionado sin éxito el acceso al servicio de agua potable. Pese a múltiples solicitudes y a la constitución de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur junto con otros vecinos, el AyA ha negado reiteradamente la disponibilidad del servicio sin respaldo técnico suficiente, autorizándolo únicamente para 40 viviendas. Las negativas se han sustentado en argumentos que el amparado considera infundados y discriminatorios, pese a existir infraestructura instalada, disponibilidad de agua acreditada por la ASADA y un tanque del AyA cercano. Añade que, aun cuando los vecinos asumieron costos económicos significativos a solicitud del AyA, el servicio sigue sin brindarse, manteniéndolo en una situación prolongada de indefensión y trato arbitrario (…)
Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados, este Tribunal descarta la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de la parte amparada. De los informes rendidos por los representantes de las autoridades recurridas -que se tienen dados bajo juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción- y la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto ha sido debidamente acreditado que, en primer término, el sector en el que se ubican las propiedades del amparado (Valle Verde, específicamente el área cercana al Colegio Green Valley) no forma parte del área de cobertura de los sistemas de acueducto administrados directamente por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Región Huetar Caribe. Asimismo, se comprobó que el acueducto institucional más cercano (sistema HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez) no alcanza a cubrir la zona donde se encuentran las fincas del amparado y que, en particular, el tanque Numancia se ubica a una elevación inferior respecto del sector Valle Verde, por lo que no resulta técnicamente viable extender el servicio desde dicha infraestructura. En consecuencia, la sola cercanía del inmueble a ese tanque o a otras obras no genera un derecho automático a la conexión, pues la prestación del servicio está sujeta a criterios técnicos y a la capacidad real de los sistemas existentes.
En segundo término, se tuvo por demostrado que el área presenta restricciones ambientales relevantes, vinculadas a la protección de fuentes estratégicas de abastecimiento y a la vulnerabilidad del acuífero, lo cual impone límites severos para la aprobación de nuevas conexiones o disponibilidades de servicio, particularmente cuando se trate de procesos de urbanización, lotificación o segregación que puedan comprometer la calidad y la cantidad del recurso hídrico. En este punto, los criterios técnicos aportados por las autoridades accionadas evidenciaron que, tratándose de una zona ambientalmente sensible, la evaluación de factibilidad no puede prescindir del análisis integral de la capacidad hídrica e hidráulica, así como del componente sanitario-ambiental, en especial del manejo adecuado de aguas residuales y su eventual tratamiento.
En tercer lugar, se acreditó que, respecto del sector norte de Valle Verde donde se ubican las propiedades del amparado, no constaba en los registros del AyA el ingreso de una solicitud formal de disponibilidad de agua potable, ni la presentación de estudios técnicos específicos orientados a urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o segregaciones que habilitaran un análisis técnico-jurídico de factibilidad. Ello resulta determinante, puesto que el ordenamiento que regula la prestación del servicio impone requisitos generales y objetivos para que la Administración o el operador por delegación valoren el abastecimiento, entre ellos, la existencia de redes, la capacidad hidráulica e hídrica real, la viabilidad legal del trazado (servidumbres o accesos) y el cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental aplicable. Así, mientras tales requisitos no se acrediten mediante el estudio correspondiente, no es jurídicamente procedente exigir una constancia positiva de disponibilidad, ni una conexión definitiva.
Ahora bien, la Sala ha determinado que no constituye una lesión a los derechos de una persona que se niegue el servicio de agua potable cuando existen impedimentos técnicos que lo justifiquen:
“II.-Sobre el caso concreto. Entre la prueba aportada, se aprecia una certificación de no disponibilidad de agua del 15 de julio de 2021, mediante la que el AyA le notificó al accionante el rechazo de su solicitud de disponibilidad de agua potable para la individualización de servicios para un apartamento ubicado en el inmueble de su propiedad. La denegatoria se sustentó en la falta de factibilidad técnica debido a la insuficiencia de capacidad hídrica e hidráulica en el sistema de abastecimiento de la zona, por lo que no se tiene disponibilidad del servicio de agua potable para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo.
Así las cosas, se acredita que el sub lite no versa sobre una denegatoria arbitraria del servicio de agua potable, pues esta se fundamentó en la falta de factibilidad técnica. En esta línea, adviértase que este Tribunal Constitucional no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la autoridad recurrida y tampoco puede reemplazar a la Administración activa en la gestión de sus competencias, de modo que no le corresponde usurpar las atribuciones que le han sido legalmente conferidas a otras dependencias, órganos o entes, como el AyA. Tampoco este Tribunal funge como mediador ante una determinada persona física o jurídica -ya sea de derecho público o privado-, para interceder a fin de que se le conceda lo que la parte recurrente pretende, en este caso, que se le instale un nuevo medidor para el apartamento que construyó para su hija. Ahora bien, si lo que ocurre es que el recurrente está inconforme con las razones que justificaron la denegatoria del nuevo medidor por parte del AyA, deberá plantear sus agravios y pretensiones ante la vía ordinaria de legalidad, para que allí se determine lo que en derecho corresponde”. (Sentencia nro. 2021018977 de las 11:50 horas de 24 de agosto de 2021).
La Sala no observa motivos para cambiar el criterio transcrito. En efecto, no se estima que la denegatoria sea irrazonable ni antojadiza cuando se basa en una justificación técnica como es, en este caso, la deficiente capacidad hidráulica del acueducto. La discusión del tema de fondo puede ser planteada en la vía de legalidad.
Valga acotar que al resolver un asunto similar al presente, este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 2020-19832 de las 09:30 horas de 16 de octubre de 2020, dispuso:
“(…) de las pruebas de factibilidad realizadas en la localidad, se determinó la indisponibilidad del servicio de agua por falta de capacidad de almacenamiento en la comunidad de Pijije de Bagaces; sin embargo, alega que se están realizando una serie de acciones tendientes a aumentar la capacidad, para lograr la dotación de agua potable en esta comunidad por parte de la ASADA recurrida. Cabe destacar, que la procedencia o no del servicio solicitado no es un asunto que deba discutirse en esta jurisdicción, ya que es ajeno al ámbito de competencia de esta Sala. En reiteradas ocasiones, este Tribunal ha sostenido que resulta posible desestimar las gestiones presentadas para el otorgamiento del servicio de agua potable, cuando se presenten imposibilidades técnicas, incumplimiento de requisitos infraconstitucionales o existan criterios técnicos y/o legales que así lo justifiquen. Asimismo, no le corresponde a esta Sala definir si el recurrente cumple o no los requisitos legales o técnicos para que la solicitud sea aprobada, ya que su verificación es una función de las autoridades administrativas correspondientes, sin que esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, por tratarse de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia (…)” (el énfasis no pertenece al original).
Aunado a lo anterior, en lo relativo a la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, se comprobó que esta presta el servicio a la comunidad de Buenos Aires Sur y a una parte del sector sur de Green Valley, abasteciendo aproximadamente 650 abonados. También se acreditó que la comunidad de Green Valley se encuentra dividida en tres sectores y que el sector central carece de un ente operador formal. En ese contexto, la ASADA informó que no se ha negado de manera arbitraria a colaborar para encontrar soluciones y que su actuación se encuentra condicionada por la necesidad de intervención y aprobación institucional del AyA, así como por el cumplimiento de la normativa sanitaria y ambiental. De manera particular, se probó que el estudio técnico integral realizado en 2020 por la ASADA contempló una eventual ampliación hacia parte de Green Valley y fue conocido y aprobado por el AyA; sin embargo, ello no equivale, por sí mismo, a un mandato inmediato y absoluto de conexión para cualquier inmueble del sector, pues la ampliación requiere la delimitación concreta del proyecto, la verificación de redes en el área específica y, en su caso, las obras y servidumbres necesarias para su ejecución.
De hecho, también se acreditó que la gestión tramitada en 2021 por el comité de vecinos se proyectó para un conjunto de 40 propiedades del sector sur y que expresamente no consideró la extensión hacia el sector norte cercano al Colegio Green Valley, donde se ubican las fincas del amparado; de modo que la situación del recurrente no es equiparable a la de ese grupo de viviendas, que fue objeto de un proyecto técnico específico y delimitado.
En este orden de ideas, la jurisprudencia de esta Sala ha sido constante en señalar que, si bien existe un derecho fundamental al agua potable, su ejercicio no es irrestricto ni impone, en cualquier circunstancia, una obligación de dotar el servicio cuando exista imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o ambiental debidamente acreditada o cuando el solicitante no haya cumplido los requisitos generales exigibles para valorar la factibilidad de abastecimiento. Bajo ese entendido, cuando la denegatoria o la imposibilidad de prestación se sustenta en criterios objetivos, técnicos y ambientales, y no en una actuación arbitraria o discriminatoria, no se configura violación de derechos fundamentales (…)”.
Así las cosas, el Tribunal estima que estas consideraciones son aplicables al caso en estudio, pues se trata del mismo tipo de reclamo. En ese tanto, como se explicó en el antecedente de cita, en este momento existe una imposibilidad técnica que no permite el otorgamiento del servicio requerido, de manera que es posible acreditar una actuación ilegítima o arbitraria por parte de los recurridos.
Ahora, cabe también resaltar que la verificación del cumplimiento de requisitos legales o técnicos para obtener la disponibilidad del servicio de agua corresponde a las autoridades administrativas o jurisdiccionales comunes, sin que, en principio, esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, pues se trata de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia. De este modo, si la parte accionante se encuentra inconforme con las razones esgrimidas por la parte accionada, deberá plantear los alegatos que correspondan ante las instancias comunes competentes, sedes en las que podrá discutir de forma amplia el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones.
Finalmente, la parte accionante acusa un trato discriminatorio, por cuanto aduce que otras propiedades sí cuentan con la disponibilidad del servicio. Al respecto, cuando se acusa vulneración al numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, no basta con que la parte recurrente afirme que se ha producido un trato distinto entre dos sujetos para tener por demostrado el quebranto a la norma constitucional, toda vez que quien alega la violación a este derecho está obligado a aportar ab initio elementos suficientes que sugieran -con un grado de probabilidad razonable- que de modo injustificado se ha dado un trato diferenciado a situaciones iguales.
Así las cosas, en el sub examine no se infieren elementos suficientes que permitan denotar una posible lesión al principio de igualdad, puesto que no se estableció un parámetro de comparación válido sobre el cual pueda analizarse si se produjo o no un tratamiento discriminatorio en los términos acusados. Por el contrario, la accionante únicamente hizo alusión a que otras propiedades en la zona cuentan con servicio de agua; empero, no se mencionó un caso específico e individualizado.
En virtud de lo expuesto, a priori se descartan situaciones que ameriten la intervención de esta jurisdicción constitucional, por lo que se declara sin lugar el recurso.
En el sub examine, la parte accionante reclama que no se aprueban nuevas disponibilidades de agua por estar la propiedad en una zona deficitaria.
Al respecto, consideramos imprescindible tener como parte a la Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos (Aresep) a los efectos de que se determine si los prestatarios del servicio en la zona tienen algún tipo de responsabilidad en la capacidad actual de los sistemas hídricos. En otros asunto, este Tribunal (sentencia nro. 2020007754 de las 9:45 horas de 24 de abril de 2020) valoró que Aresep, al rendir su informe, puntualizó una serie de problemas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en relación con la inversión en infraestructura, pérdidas por agua no contabilizada y capacidad de ejecución. En esa oportunidad, la Sala consideró: “Al respecto, no solo consta que la problemática de desabastecimiento de agua se venía reflejando desde el 2017, sino que la ARESEP puntualizó que el ICAA tenía un rezago en la inversión en infraestructura y, además, significativas pérdidas por concepto de agua no contabilizada. Asimismo, el ente regulador también afirmó que la capacidad de ejecución de los proyectos por parte de los operadores del servicio de agua potable no ha sido la deseable”.
En consecuencia, salvamos el voto y ordenamos continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.
Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel u objetos o pruebas contenidos en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Se advierte que será destruido todo material que no sea recogido dentro de ese lapso, con base en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial" (aprobado por la Corte Plena en el artículo XXVI de la sesión nro. 27-11 de 22 de agosto de 2011 y publicado en el Boletín Judicial nro. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012) y en el artículo LXXXI de la sesión del Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial nro. 43-12 de 3 de mayo de 2012.
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Los magistrados Cruz Castro y Rueda Leal salvan el voto y ordenan continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.
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.