Amparo: Health Ministry Delay on Industrial Noise ComplaintAmparo por omisión de Ministerio de Salud en denuncia de ruido industrial

Res. Nº 2026013352 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first of April of two thousand twenty-six.

Amparo petition (recurso de amparo) processed under expediente number 26-004879-0007-CO, filed by MIGUEL HERRERA GONZÁLEZ, professional identification no. 2840, on behalf of Nombre01, national identity document (cédula de identidad) CED03, against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA.

Background:

1.- By written submission filed before this Sala Constitucional at 15:08 hours on February 11, 2026, the petitioner files an amparo petition against the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that his represented party is a neighbor adjacent to a property (finca) owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., which is located in a residential zone (zona residencial) but where industrial-type activities are carried out with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that the respondent authority granted a commercial license (licencia comercial) to Terra Equipos S.A. on property registered in the San José district under no. 401148-000, cadastral survey map (plano catastro) SJ-0068073-1972, based on land-use certificate (uso de suelo) no. CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, on the premise that the activity to be carried out was "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES." He notes that the property is located in a residential zone where, under the applicable Zoning Plan (Plan Regulador) of the canton of Mora then in force, industrial activities are expressly prohibited, including warehouses (bodegas), workshops, and any analogous use that generates nuisances to the neighborhood. He describes how, after the commercial license was granted, Terra Equipos S.A. progressively and substantially changed the authorized activity and began carrying out activities of an industrial nature. He explains that the company engages in mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery, and constant heavy truck traffic, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend into the nighttime hours. He alleges that the foregoing prevents his represented party — an elderly person — and his family members from resting, enjoying tranquility, and living with dignity, and that they have experienced a deterioration in their quality of life. He states that for several months the protected party (tutelado) has approached administrative authorities — both the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health — requesting urgent intervention, and has provided substantial technical, expert, and sanitary evidence demonstrating actual harm. Nevertheless, he claims that the respondent municipality has engaged in a prolonged and unjustified failure to act, tolerating the ongoing harm without taking any action to protect the fundamental rights of his client and the residents of the canton in that residential zone. In this regard, he details that on December 4, 2025, his attorney-in-fact (apoderado especial), Miguel A. Herrera González, delivered to the mayor of Mora a document entitled "TECHNICAL AND LEGAL REPORT ON IRREGULARITIES IN THE ISSUANCE OF A COMMERCIAL LICENSE TO TERRA EQUIPOS," in which he described how the company's activities continue until late at night, generating noise exceeding the permitted limits in a residential zone. That report also referenced administrative irregularities in connection with heavy traffic, electrical hazards, visibility into neighboring properties, and invasion of privacy, and requested a municipal technical study on environmental noise and protection of the rights of affected neighbors, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. He notes that through official communication AMM-0900-2025 he was informed that the said report had been added to the preliminary investigation opened on October 31, 2025, under consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. He challenges the Administration for keeping the matter in an indefinite preliminary stage without expressly resolving the principal request or adopting measures to protect his fundamental rights. He requests that the petition be granted, with all applicable legal consequences.

2.- By order issued at 15:51 hours on March 6, 2026, the President of the Sala Constitucional admitted this constitutional proceeding and requested a report from the mayor of Mora regarding the facts alleged by the petitioner.

3.- By written submission incorporated into the digital case file at 14:49 hours on March 13, 2026, Alfonso Jiménez Cascante, in his capacity as mayor of Mora, reports under oath as follows:

"II. REGARDING LAND-USE CERTIFICATE CU-22-373 OF MAY 6, 2022 AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO THE COMPANY TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. FIRST: By resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, the land use requested by the applicant TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA for Dirección01, with cadastral survey map SJ 0068073-1992, for the activity of "SALE AND EXHIBITION OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS," was determined to be conforming. In light of the foregoing, through official communication no. DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by official Phisilla Carvajal Venegas, head of Land Use, the following was reported regarding land-use certificate CU-22-373: "(…) I am writing to greet you and at the same time to respond to the email Informe Recurso Amparo; the situation of a property located in zone; residential zone; property number 401148 owned by TERRA EQUIPOS, where certain activities were authorized, namely RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, which was granted land-use certificate CU-22-373 dated May 6, 2022. As is generally known, the DEPARTMENT has among its responsibilities the authority to grant initial approvals so that commercial licenses may be issued, after the applicant fulfills a series of requirements. Monitoring of commercial licenses falls under the Department of Tax Administration (PATENTES). Property 401148 is located in a residential zone; in order to carry out the activities that were permitted: (image 1, 2, 3, and 4) […]

[…]

[…]

[…]

These images demonstrate that property 401148 is located where indicated in the first image and is therefore situated in a residential zone. Upon determining from the facts described above that the property owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is zoned as 'Residential (Z.Nombre02.),' it follows that certain limits apply to the activities that may or may not be carried out on the property. In that regard, see what the Plan Regulador of Mora establishes in section 4.1, which expressly sets out permitted and prohibited uses: Permitted Uses: 'Single-family and multi-family housing, and all urban uses compatible with housing, such as community public service educational centers, small-scale commerce, and similar uses that do not cause incompatibility. The following uses shall be permitted only fronting main roads or thoroughfares: clinics, hospitals, animal clinics, movie theaters, and sports centers.' Prohibited Uses: 'Industry, including mechanical workshops and body-and-paint shops, gate and door fabrication workshops, warehouses, sawmills, bars and cantinas, wholesale commerce, and any other analogous use to those listed that causes nuisances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use.' Therefore, the land-use certificate CU-22-373 constitutes a land-use approval issued in conformity with the zone and the property. It is important to clarify: In accordance with article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones, the Land-Use Certificate (Certificado de Uso de Suelo) is the specific legal act by which the local government certifies whether or not the use of a parcel conforms to the requirements of the Zoning classification; commercial or construction permits, by contrast, are authorization acts issued by the Department of Tax Administration or Urban Development and Control, which verify compliance with all applicable regulations. Monitoring of commercial licenses falls under the Department of Tax Administration (PATENTES), which verifies compliance with all applicable regulations." Furthermore, it is important to note that the Por tanto of land-use resolution no. CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 states: "Provided that the conditions established for the zone are met, the proposed use on the property with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 for OPERATING PERMIT (SALE AND EXHIBITION OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS) is CONFORMING, provided it does not constitute wholesale commerce or any other analogous prohibited use causing nuisances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, or any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. The activity of warehousing and storage shall not be carried out on this property, as it must be located in the Industrial Zone." Accordingly, from resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 and from report DPOT-26-04 submitted by the technical area, it is clearly, objectively, and verifiably established that property number 401148, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is located within a Residential Zone (Z.Nombre02.), in accordance with the zoning established in the Plan Regulador of the canton of Mora. In this context, Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373, issued on May 6, 2022, constitutes an administrative act by which the Municipal Administration certified the conformity of the requested use — SALE AND EXHIBITION OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS — with the zoning in effect at the time of its issuance, in accordance with article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones; the described activity is classified as small-scale commerce, a permitted use in the zone corresponding to the area where property number 401148 is located, which is in a residential zone, as confirmed by the analysis conducted by the technical area. Furthermore, pursuant to section 4.1 of the Plan Regulador of Mora, the Residential Zone permits only those uses compatible with housing, such as single-family or multi-family residences, small-scale commerce, and other urban services that do not generate incompatibility, neighborhood nuisances, or negative impacts associated with noise, heavy traffic, storage, or handling of hazardous or high-volume materials. Conversely, industrial uses, warehouses, workshops, wholesale commerce, and any analogous activity incompatible with the predominant residential use are expressly prohibited. Within this regulatory framework, the land-use authorization that was granted must be interpreted restrictively — as was indeed stipulated in the Por tanto of said land-use resolution (cited above), which resolved to limit it to those activities that, by their nature, scale, and manner of operation, do not contravene the express prohibitions established for the residential zone, being CONFORMING only provided "it does not constitute wholesale commerce or any other analogous prohibited use causing nuisances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, or any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. The activity of warehousing and storage shall not be carried out on this property, as it must be located in the Industrial Zone." Finally, it is important to clarify that, as the report notes, it clearly delineates the administrative responsibilities involved in a land-use certificate; while this same Local Government, through the Land Use sub-process, issued Land-Use Certificate no. CU-22-723 of May 6, 2022 as conforming for the project intended by Terra Equipos S.A., the fact is that this administrative act is not directly binding at the time of application for and approval of a construction permit (licencia de construcción), since, while land use is a fundamental requirement, the evaluation of the construction permit requires analysis of a series of other factual and technical factors applicable to the submitted proposal; therefore, a conforming land use does not necessarily mean that the construction permit will also be approved, since, as stated, a series of requirements must be met for its corresponding processing and approval. This is evidenced in light of resolution no. 2023019022 issued at nine hours and thirty minutes on August 4, 2023, by the Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, which stated: "(…) the land-use certificate issued at the petitioner's request indicated that it did not replace the construction permit; the land-use certificate and the construction permit are distinct administrative acts; the land-use certificate does not replace the construction permit, its corresponding processing, and/or approval. The land-use certificate establishes the general guidelines on the use that may be made of the property in question, indicating the guidelines and regulations to which the applicant must conform when deciding to undertake any type of development on that property, thereby providing control over the zoning by certifying the viability of such use. The construction permit is an administrative act granted prior to the commencement of works, as a guarantee of compliance with all applicable technical and legal requirements, perfected upon payment of the corresponding fee established by the municipality for such purposes; in all cases where the totality of applicable technical or legal requirements is not met, the requested permit may not be issued. (…)" (Emphasis in original) Now, regarding other permits granted by this local government to Terra Equipos S.A., the Construction Sub-process has reported through official communication no. PUCC-013-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Walter Flores Blanco, head of said sub-process, as follows: "(…) with respect strictly to the administrative actions of this Sub-process regarding the property registered under matrix number [blank], I hereby report the following: After reviewing the records in the Municipal Geographic Information System (SIGRAMU) and the physical files of the Construction Control Sub-process, the following permits granted for the aforementioned property are detailed: 1. Construction Permit PC 269-13 A, granted for 'Maintenance and Repair' works. 2. Construction Permit PC 269-13 C, granted for the construction of a warehouse shed (galerón) of 40 m². It is noted that the granting of these permits responds strictly to compliance with the regulations in effect at the time of their issuance. These administrative acts, during their processing and approval, fully met the technical and legal requirements imposed by the applicable construction and urban planning regulations. It is understood that, at the date of their issuance, the Municipality acted in strict adherence to the principle of legality, technically verifying that the construction development conformed to the parameters authorized for Dirección02." Based on the information provided by official Flores Blanco, all construction permits granted by this Municipality to Terra Equipos S.A. were preceded by a comprehensive technical and legal review process, verifying in each case compliance with applicable regulations, with no omission, dispensation, or relaxation of the required administrative controls. Accordingly, each permit granted constitutes a duly reasoned administrative act issued after verifying actual compliance with the corresponding legal and technical requirements, which demonstrates that the municipal conduct has been carried out diligently, objectively, and in conformity with the legal framework.

III.REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL LICENSE REGISTERED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO TERRA EQUIPOS S.A., CORPORATE REGISTRATION NUMBER CED01

In light of the facts reported by the petitioner in this amparo petition regarding the commercial license granted to TERRA EQUIPOS S.ombre03. on the San José district property number Dirección03, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, for "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES," with the complainant alleging that said commercial activity was substantially modified and the company dedicated itself to other INDUSTRIAL-NATURE ACTIVITIES, the Department of Commercial Licenses of the Municipalidad de Mora, through report no. ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Department of Commercial Licenses, stated the following: "(…) I must indicate that the approval of each commercial license is generated upon submission of the required application form and fulfillment of a series of requirements. Each requirement is requested based on some regulation that establishes it, and they are issued by the corresponding entity or professional. For this reason, this Unit is responsible for verifying compliance but does not question the technical criteria issued by the professional in the exercise of his or her responsibilities. Regarding the commercial license registered to Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, I proceed to detail the following:

On November 5, 2013, Mr. Nombre04, identity document ED04, with judicial and extrajudicial representation of Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, submitted a commercial license application with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • Cadastral plan SJ-260201-95 • Land use of January 17, 2013 • Activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND STORAGE OF SANITARY CABINS • Land use of June 14, 2013 • Activity: PARKING FOR TANKER TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES • Commercial license approved by Resolution no. LICCO-077-2013-AT.

On March 4, 2014, an expansion of the commercial license was requested with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • Cadastral plan SJ-260201-95 • Land use RU-466-13 of July 29, 2013 • Activity to add: REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP • Commercial license approved by Resolution no. LICCO-018-2014-AT.

On May 13, 2022, the represented party requested a commercial license with the following characteristics: • On property #401148-000 • Cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 • Land use CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 • Activity: SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES • Commercial license approved by Resolution no. 071-2022-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.

On June 21, 2024, the represented party requested an expansion of the license with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • Cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995 • Land use CU-24-371 of May 12, 2024 • Activity to add: WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF SANITARY CABINS • Commercial license approved by Resolution no. 421-2024-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.

On August 13, 2024, the represented party requested a new expansion of the commercial license with the following characteristics: • On property #401148-000 • Cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 • Land use CU-24-488 of June 18, 2024 • Activity to add: STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR EXHIBITION AND SALE OF EVENT STRUCTURES, SMALL-SCALE COMMERCE • Commercial license approved by Resolution no. 445-2024-AMPLI-LICCO-AT.

From the foregoing details, it is determined that Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, in the records of the Municipalidad de Mora as of today, holds a commercial license on two property numbers, each with the following authorized activities:

Property #436018-000, cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995 Authorized activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY, PARKING FOR TANKER TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP, STORAGE, WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF SANITARY CABINS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.

Property #401148-000, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 Authorized activity: SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR EXHIBITION AND SALE OF EVENT STRUCTURES, SMALL-SCALE COMMERCE.

From the amparo petition filed by Mr. Nombre01 against the Municipalidad de Mora, it is understood that the complainant's objection concerns the activity carried out on property #401148-000, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992, a location authorized for SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR EXHIBITION AND SALE OF EVENT STRUCTURES, SMALL-SCALE COMMERCE.

Regarding the same document, in section III. Facts Relevant from a Constitutional Standpoint, point 3, Mr. Nombre01 states: After the commercial license was granted, and progressively, Terra Equipos S.A. substantially modified the authorized activity of "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND EXHIBITION OF METALLIC STRUCTURES," dedicating itself to other INDUSTRIAL-NATURE ACTIVITIES, different from the land use that originated the commercial license granted to it, including: mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts and cranes, and constant heavy truck traffic, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend until nine or more at night.

It is important to note that the activity of storage, washing, and disinfection of sanitary cabins (portable toilets) is carried out on property #[blank], cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995, as also indicated in inspection report MM-UI-105-2024 issued by Reiner Reyes Fuentes, Inspector of the Inspections Unit and Municipal Police of the Municipalidad de Mora, in a joint inspection carried out on August 20, 2024, with officials of the Ministry of Health who also documented the visit through official communication MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-365-2024 issued by Maycol Ávalos Rodríguez, Licensed Environmental Management and Occupational Health Engineer of the Ministry of Health. At various points in the complaint, the affected party references the protection of health (sound pollution / noise, foul odors, and conditions incompatible with a healthy life) — public health matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. For this reason, the effective, appropriate, and verifiable measures to cease the health-related harm that the complainant requests must be directed to the entity with jurisdiction over the matter. As of today, in the records of the Municipalidad de Mora, the represented party Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01 remains in compliance with requirements and tax obligations (…)" Thus, from what the commercial licenses department report states, it follows that with respect to the property registered under matrix number [blank], located in a residential zone, Terra Equipos S.A. holds a commercial license authorizing the following activities: • Sale and exhibition of metallic structures, and • Storage and rental for exhibition and sale of event structures, under the small-scale commerce category.

Said license was granted on the basis of Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, which expressly establishes clear restrictions for the zoning applicable to the location of said property, excluding industrial activities, large-scale warehousing, wholesale commerce, or any use that generates nuisances incompatible with the residential zoning. Consequently, the commercial license in force for the property does not cover or authorize industrial activities, operations involving washing of equipment, handling of septic waste, intensive use of heavy machinery, or constant heavy truck traffic. To the contrary, the activities that the petitioner characterizes as "of an industrial nature" — such as washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts, and associated storage operations — are neither carried out on nor authorized for property [blank]; rather, they hold an express and valid commercial license to be carried out exclusively on the property registered under matrix number [blank], which has different urban conditions and authorizations. On that property, Terra Equipos S.A. holds a commercial license for activities that include, among others: • rental and sale of construction equipment and machinery, • parking for tanker trucks for transport of septic sludge, • repair and maintenance workshop, • storage, • washing and disinfection of sanitary cabins, and • administrative offices.

These activities were authorized through administrative acts following verification of compliance with the corresponding technical, sanitary, environmental, and urban planning requirements, and are not linked to or transferred to property 401148-000; this has been verified by this local government, which, in compliance with its monitoring duty, has conducted inspections at Dirección01 to verify that the activities carried out conform to those authorized by the commercial license issued for said property. This is evidenced by official communication MM-PM-083-2026 of March 11, 2026, in which Leonardo Trejos Cespedes, coordinator of the Inspections Unit and Municipal Police, reported on the inspections carried out in fulfillment of the monitoring duty from that unit, at times jointly with the commercial licenses department. According to the said report, on February 15, 2022, a complaint was received from council member (regidor) Álvaro Arguedas Durán regarding alleged irregularities in the use of a commercial license on the indicated property. In response to that complaint, on February 21, 2022, inspector Geovany Rivas Guerrero conducted an on-site inspection, noting that no administrative office or commercial activity was observed. Subsequently, through official communication AMM-0370-2025 of June 24, 2025, signed by acting mayor Emmanuel Ferrer Venegas, a new inspection was requested regarding alleged irregularities related to the commercial license granted for cadastral plan SJ-68073-92 registered to Terra Equipos S.A. In response to that request, the visit conducted by licenciada Karla Matamoros Camacho was considered, whose results were communicated through official communication ATM-LC-292-2025, indicating that "on June 30 of the present year, jointly with colleagues from the Municipal Police, Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes, and myself, we visited the aforementioned property where we were received by Mr. Nombre05, an employee of Terra Equipos. Upon entering the property described above, it was observed that some light cargo vehicles were parked on the premises; the remainder of the property held metallic structures in storage, as can be observed in the photographs shown in this report; the presence of two workers employed by the company was noted. […] […] […] Based on your request and the description of what was observed at the time of the visit, it is confirmed that the activity of 'Sale and Exhibition of Metallic Structures' is being carried out.

Likewise, the actions taken by the Municipal Police (Policía Municipal) during the same inspection were reported through official memorandum MM-PM-197-2025, in which that unit stated that, "On the 30th of June of the current year, Municipal Police officers Roy Quesada Chavarría and Alejandro Quirós Brenes, together with the commercial licensing officer Lic. Karla Matamoros Camacho, attended the location. It was observed that, at the time of the visit, the activity of 'Sale and Exhibition of Metal Structures' was being carried out. There were some light cargo vehicles and metal structures on the premises, and no other activities different from those were observed within the facility." Subsequently, through official memorandum MM-PM-287-2025 of September 30, 2025, an analysis was conducted in the SIGRAMU system, determining that for Dirección02, corresponding to cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-68073-1992, construction permit proceedings linked to the existing structures on the site are on record. These reports from the various inspections carried out by the competent municipal departments at Dirección01 — conducted to verify that the commercial activity being operated conforms to what is permitted by the business license (patente) granted for those premises — demonstrate that this municipality has been diligent and has in no instance been neglectful of its oversight duties or of its obligation to address the complaints filed by the appellant, given that actions have been undertaken both in the field and at the internal administrative level to verify the facts set forth by him. According to the reports of the executing units, such field actions have resulted in a finding that at the property at Dirección03, the company Terra Equipos S,A. continues to carry out the activity of "Sale and Exhibition of Metal Structures," which is the activity approved under the granted business license, and it therefore cannot be validly maintained that there has been a substantial or irregular modification of the commercial activity authorized for property no. 401148-000. In this regard, taking into account that the activities challenged by the appellant are supported by an independent commercial license granted for a different property under a different legal regime, it follows that the appellant's argument may stem from a material confusion between different properties and different commercial licenses, attributing to property no. 401148-000 activities that do not form part of the license granted for that property, but are instead legally authorized to be carried out on a different property, duly identified as property no. 436018-000. In addition, it is important to reiterate what was already stated by Ms. Nombre06 in official memorandum ATM-LC 111-2026, to the effect that some of the facts complained of by the aggrieved party do not fall within this municipality's oversight jurisdiction, but rather within that of other entities such as the Ministry of Health — a point that will be elaborated further below. The Chamber should also be made aware that, in response to the multiple complaints filed by Mr. Nombre01, the mayor's office (alcaldía municipal) has initiated a preliminary investigation (investigación preliminar) in order to ascertain the true facts of the matter; this is part of the internal administrative oversight actions that have been developed, carried out through official memorandum IPAD-006-2025 of October 1, 2025 — demonstrating that the municipality has in no way been neglectful with respect to the situation reported by the complainant. Similarly, regarding the legal-technical report referenced by the appellant, entitled "Informe Técnico Jurídico sobre las anomalías en el otorgamiento de patente comercial a terra equipos," submitted to this municipality by Attorney Miguel Herrera González on December 4, 2025, the same was acknowledged as received and was referred to the investigating body within proceeding IPAD-006-2025 to be incorporated into that preliminary investigation; this was also communicated to Mr. Herrera Gómez as the representative of Nombre01 through official memorandum AMM-0900-2025 of December 11, 2025. Along the same lines, on February 3, 2026, an administrative complaint was received from Mr. Herrera Gómez as the representative of Nombre01, requesting the initiation of an ordinary administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo ordinario) regarding the same facts; in response, through official memorandum AMM-0127-2026 of February 16, 2026, this office addressed the administrative complaint, reiterating that through official memorandum N.°IPAD‑006‑2025 of October 31, 2025, a preliminary investigation had been initiated into the facts he had reported in connection with the business license granted to the company Terra Equipos S,A. and the land-use matter, and indicating that, prior to proceeding with the opening of a formal procedure, this administration has, in the exercise of its discretion, considered it important to first conduct a preliminary investigation in this case — a position grounded in jurisprudence from this Chamber, specifically its ruling N.° 2011-010890 of 14:30 hours on August 17, 2011, in which it was stated: "(…) In this regard, this Tribunal has held that, in principle, it is impossible to violate the right of defense (derecho de defensa) during a preliminary investigation, since such an investigation, stricto sensu, does not constitute part of an administrative procedure proper, but rather a preparatory stage, the purpose of which is to assess whether there is merit to open one or not. More specifically, it has been stated that the preliminary investigation may be defined as a discretionary fact-finding exercise conducted by the Public Administration itself into the circumstances of the specific case." (Emphasis added). In response to this reply, the appellant filed motions for reconsideration with subsidiary appeals (recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against official memorandum AMM-0127-2026, which was resolved through decision AMR-013-2026 of ten hours fifteen minutes on February 23, two thousand twenty-six, rejecting the motion for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal filed by Mr. Miguel Herrera González on behalf of Nombre01 against official memorandum AMM-0127-2026 of February 16, 2026, for the factual and legal reasons set forth therein. Subsequently, on February 25, 2025, Mr. Miguel Herrera González, on behalf of Nombre01, filed a challenge against ruling AMR-013-2026, which was resolved in ruling AMR-016-2026 of ten hours on March 11, two thousand twenty-six and was served on March 11, 2026; the motion for reconsideration was rejected, and the appeal will be heard on second review by the improper hierarchical authority (jerarca impropio), who, as the competent body, will review the legality of those administrative acts — demonstrating that the administrative complaints submitted by the appellant to this administration have been duly addressed. […] Having said the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that this administration, in response to the complaints filed with the municipality by the appellant herein concerning the facts in question, has requested the various municipal departments to review the administrative actions taken and carry out the appropriate oversight, with the aim of verifying that they conform to the law; as a result, the technical departments have reported that the permits and licenses granted to the company Terra Equipos S,A. have been issued in conformity with the legal order, following verification of effective compliance with the corresponding legal and technical requirements. In this manner, taking into account what has been reported by the technical departments yet attending to the concerns of the complainant, this office, acting responsibly and prior to initiating any administrative procedure as requested by the appellant, has initiated a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not there is merit to open a procedure, given that the competent municipal departments in each area have reported conduct that is thorough, objective, and consistent with the legal order; nonetheless, as a diligent administration, this office has proceeded with the preliminary investigation in response to the concerns expressed by the complainant, in order to ascertain the true facts of the matter, and should the results of the preliminary investigation reveal any irregularity, this administration will take the corresponding measures. In light of the foregoing, no omissive or illegitimate conduct on the part of the Municipalidad de Mora is evident; on the contrary, the regular exercise of its oversight and administrative authorization powers is demonstrated, such powers having been exercised in strict compliance with the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), with no element having been established to date that would undermine this conclusion. Furthermore, this municipality's diligent and thorough discharge of its oversight duties is evidenced by the inspections and investigations carried out in response to the complaints filed by the appellant herein; and since it has been shown that the submissions made by Mr. Nombre01 — including reports, complaints, and appeals — have been duly addressed, it is not true that this municipality has taken no action whatsoever, as the complainant would have it appear.

IV. JURISDICTION OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH IN THE PRESENT CASE

In this case it is important to note that, under the principle of legality, the Ministry of Health is the entity holding the sole and exclusive legal jurisdiction to address complaints in cases where there may be some form of noise pollution (contaminación sónica); in this regard, note that the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido provides as follows: "(…) Article 8°— Entity responsible for measurements. In order to verify compliance with the provisions of this Regulation and those derived therefrom, the Ministry of Health, through its Regional Health Directorates (Áreas Rectoras de Salud), shall conduct inspection visits to noise-emitting sources (fuentes emisoras de ruido) for the purpose of measuring noise within the interior of premises. (…)" (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Ley General de Salud provides: "(…) Regarding Inspections and Other Proceedings ARTICLE 346.— For the purposes of effectively monitoring compliance with the provisions of this law and its regulations, as well as with supplementary resolutions issued by health authorities within their respective jurisdictions, duly identified officials under the Ministry may conduct inspections or visits to carry out sanitary operations, collect samples, or gather background information or evidence, in buildings, dwellings, and industrial and commercial establishments, and in any location where violations of the aforementioned laws, regulations, and resolutions could be perpetrated. Such proceedings shall be conducted during the day, between six and eighteen hours, and private individuals are obligated to facilitate them immediately. The time restriction shall not apply to inspections relating to the control of food, narcotics, hallucinogens, and psychotropic substances capable of producing, through their use, psychological or physical dependence. (…)" (Emphasis added). Said law also provides: "(…) ARTICLE 293.— Every natural or legal person is obligated to exercise the utmost diligence in complying with the legal and regulatory provisions, or with the special orders issued by the competent authority, in order to prevent or control atmospheric and environmental pollution (contaminación ambiental) in areas designated for housing, work, or recreation. (…)" For the foregoing reasons, it is evident that these provisions establish jurisdiction over situations involving environmental and noise pollution such as those alleged by the appellant — who states that the activities of the company Terra Equipos at Dirección04 "generate excessive noise, vibrations, bad odors, and environmental pollution" — as falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health through its Regional Health Directorates; accordingly, it is that entity that bears responsibility for overseeing and ensuring compliance with the laws in order to prevent this type of pollution, and not this municipality, as the appellant seeks to contend, which would be contrary to law.

V. AMPARO APPEAL HEARD BY THIS CHAMBER UNDER FILE NO. 24-035927-0007-CO

In light of the facts reported by the appellant in this writ of amparo (recurso de amparo), it is necessary to refer to the amparo appeal heard by this Chamber under file no. 24-035927-0007, filed by Nombre01, identity card ED03, and Nombre07, identity card ED05, against the MINISTERIO DE SALUD AND THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA. In that appeal, the appellants stated that they reside in the cantón de Mora, in a residential and commercial zone. They indicated that "a few months ago, a large warehouse called 'Terra Equipos Alquiler y Venta de Equipos para la Construcción' was set up on the property adjacent to their home." In that proceeding they reported that the Municipalidad de Mora had "expanded land-use permits without supervision or review, which aggravates the problem they suffer." They added that, with respect to the defendant municipality, they had tried to obtain information without obtaining any positive results. In response to the facts stated by the appellant in that proceeding — who is the same appellant as in the present proceeding — this office, through a ruling of 14:49 hours on January 2, 2025, admitted the case and requested a report from the director of the Regional Health Directorate of Mora; likewise from the mayor and the president of the Municipal Council (Concejo), both of the Municipalidad de Mora; accordingly, this office submitted the corresponding report to this Constitutional Tribunal on January 9, 2025. By virtue of the reports submitted, through ruling Nº 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes on March 14, two thousand twenty-five, this Chamber resolved, with respect to this administration, as follows: "(…) In the first place, with respect to the Municipalidad de Mora, any situation that at this time would merit the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction is prima facie excluded. In this regard, it should be noted that it is not for this Chamber, in this summary amparo proceeding, to review whether the land-use permits and operating licenses granted to the company referenced by the petitioners conform to the provisions of ordinary legislation. Accordingly, if the petitioners are dissatisfied with such acts, they must formulate the relevant arguments before the competent ordinary administrative or judicial bodies, where they may broadly discuss the merits of the matter and assert their claims. (…) Ergo, prima facie, no action or omission by the defendant municipality susceptible of being declared in this venue is established. (…) Por tanto: The appeal is dismissed. Justice Salazar Alvarado appends a separate note (…)" In light of the foregoing, from the resolution issued by the Sala Constitucional in file N.° 24-035927-0007-CO it is clear that it does not fall within this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary proceeding of the amparo appeal, to review or evaluate the substance of administrative acts relating to land-use permits, commercial licenses, or operating permits, when these have been issued by the Administration in the regular exercise of its powers and in conformity with the principle of legality. In the present case, as in the precedent cited, no arbitrary, illegitimate, or omissive conduct attributable to the Municipalidad de Mora is established; rather, what is evident is a diligent administrative conduct attentive to the facts reported by the appellant, seeking to issue duly reasoned administrative acts subject to technical and legal oversight — with respect to which it has already been demonstrated in this venue that this administration has not disregarded the complaints filed by the appellant; on the contrary, it has even initiated a preliminary investigation for the purpose of thoroughly investigating and ruling out any irregularity. Therefore, in light of the reiterated jurisprudence of this Chamber and the objective elements set forth in this report, no violation of fundamental rights warranting the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction is established, rendering the amparo appeal inadmissible as regards the reproaches directed against this local government.

VI. THE SPECIFIC CASE AT HAND

As has already been noted throughout this report, by way of summary it is stated that, in response to the appellant's complaint regarding the land-use permit issued by this municipality in connection with the property bearing registration number 401148 and cadastral survey plan SJ-0068073-1992, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, official memorandum N°DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by Phisilla Venegas Carvajal, land-use officer of the Municipalidad de Mora, indicates that the technical department has the issued land-use permit on record as conforming and legally proper, since, as the technical department states, the permit granted through resolution CU-22-373 was issued in accordance with the zone in which the property is located, which, as stated in the report, is situated in a residential zone, for which the referenced land-use permit was issued in accordance with the uses permitted by the applicable regulations for that zoning classification. Likewise, regarding the commercial license granted to Terra Equipos S,A. for STORAGE AND RENTAL, FOR EXHIBITION AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS — MINOR COMMERCE, to be operated at the property at Dirección03, with cadastral survey plan SJ-0068073-1992, as reported in official memorandum N° ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Commercial Licensing Department of the Municipalidad de Mora, that business license was approved in conformity with the law, given that the company Terra Equipos S,A. fulfilled all of the requirements established by the licensing regulations for each proceeding; accordingly, the approved commercial licenses are today registered as active and issued in conformity with the law and with the applicable zoning classification, in accordance with the approved land-use certificates, and it is likewise reiterated that two licenses have been granted — for independent properties and for different activities — a point that has already been extensively explained in this report. In light of the foregoing, as the competent technical departments have already indicated, the land-use permits, construction permits, and commercial licenses granted by this Municipality for the development of the business activities of the company TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA at the property at Dirección03, cadastral survey plan SJ-0068073-1972, have been issued in strict compliance with the legal order and with the applicable technical and legal requirements, with no element having been established to date that would undermine this conclusion. Nevertheless, and as a reinforced exercise of administrative diligence, this Administration has ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation for the purpose of clarifying any remaining doubt, thereby demonstrating that this office has deployed the various oversight actions that this municipality must carry out and has in fact carried out, to ensure that the business activities approved by this local government for Terra Equipos S,A. conform to the law, and that this mayor's office has accordingly, acting responsibly, undertaken the corresponding administrative acts to address the complaints filed by the appellant with the municipal administration, without being neglectful in respect of the same. On the other hand, it has been shown that, under the principle of legality, the environmental and noise pollution impacts reported by the aggrieved party, in accordance with the regulations cited above, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health in coordination with its Regional Health Directorates, as it is this entity that is competent to oversee this type of environmental and/or noise pollution, to carry out measurements of noise-emitting sources, and to supervise and ensure effective compliance with the law in relation to such situations — and not this municipality. Lastly, it should be noted that, with respect to the facts set forth above, this municipality has already demonstrated compliance with its legal duties before this Chamber under amparo appeal N.° 24-035927-0007-CO, resolved through ruling Nº 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes on March 14, two thousand twenty-five.

For all the foregoing reasons, this office is of the view that it has been confirmed that, within its municipal jurisdiction, the appropriate actions have been taken in response to the concerns expressed by the appellant to this administration, without any omission, in the interest of complying with the principle of legality and the applicable regulations, such that all administrative acts that have given rise to any right on the part of the licensee have been and are being reviewed, with the aim of verifying that everything conforms to the law. Therefore, and as already stated, in the exercise of a diligent and prudent administrative conduct, this Administration has ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation for the sole purpose of clarifying any remaining doubt and definitively ruling out the existence of any possible irregularities, without this being interpreted as a violation of constitutional guarantees; on the contrary, responsible conduct has been demonstrated across all legal areas of jurisdiction of this local government, and it is reiterated that this municipality has not been neglectful of the complaints filed. Furthermore, in accordance with the line established by this Constitutional Chamber as noted above (ruling Nº 2025007768), it does not fall within this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary proceeding of the amparo appeal, to review or evaluate the substance of administrative acts relating to land-use permits, commercial licenses, or operating permits. In addition, it is reiterated that the Honorable Justices should bear in mind that the jurisdiction to oversee and regulate noise pollution falls exclusively with the Ministry of Health, and therefore this local government bears no responsibility whatsoever in this regard. Accordingly, it is requested that this amparo appeal be dismissed for lack of legal basis." 4.- Through a brief incorporated into the digital file at 15:46 hours on March 19, 2026, Mr. Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho filed an active joinder (coadyuvancia activa), in the following terms:

"FIRST: That in accordance with the provisions of Articles 34 and related articles of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, I appear in this proceeding in the capacity of active joinder for the appellant, as I have a direct, personal, and legitimate interest in the outcome of this appeal, since I am the neighbor adjacent to the east of the company whose industrial activity affects us.

SECOND: That my standing derives from my status as a direct adjacent neighbor of the property where the company Terra Equipos S.A. carries out the reported activities, a situation that places me in a position of real, actual, and ongoing harm, in terms substantially identical to those alleged by the appellant.

THIRD: That the activities carried out on said property, which are of an industrial nature in a residential-use zone, give rise in my legal sphere to a direct impact on fundamental rights, particularly as regards:

The right to health and personal integrity • The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment FOURTH: That the harm described is not eventual or hypothetical, but material, verifiable, and persistent over time, arising from the continuous operation of heavy machinery, transit of high-tonnage vehicles, generation of excessive noise, vibrations, and bad odors, under conditions incompatible with the residential use of the zone.

FIFTH: That I fully concur in all respects with the facts, grounds, and claims set forth in the amparo appeal filed, which I adopt in their entirety for all corresponding legal purposes.

SIXTH: That the inaction of the Municipalidad del Cantón de Mora is particularly serious, as it has sought to justify its omission on the supposed existence of a preliminary disciplinary investigation (IPAD-006-2025), initiated as of October 2025, without there being to date any substantive resolution, adoption of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), or effective action aimed at putting an end to the reported harm.

SEVENTH: That the supposed preliminary investigation, far from constituting a valid mechanism of administrative action, has become an instrument of indefinite delay, lacking a definite deadline and bearing no direct relationship to the Administration's obligation to exercise its powers of control, oversight, and effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.

EIGHTH: That the existence of a preliminary investigation does not suspend or substitute the constitutional duty of the Administration to:

Resolve in a prompt, express, and reasoned manner the submissions made • Adopt immediate measures in the presence of existing or imminent harm Prevent the continuation of violations of fundamental rights NINTH: That, in the present case, the municipal omission acquires constitutional significance not only because of the absence of a substantive decision, but because it permits the continuation of a presumably illegal activity with effects on the enjoyment of constitutional guarantees relating to health, the environment, and the quality of life of adjacent neighbors.

TENTH: That the unjustified delay in adopting measures, in the presence of actual and ongoing harm, itself constitutes an independent violation of the fundamental rights protected by Articles 21, 27, 45, and 50 of the Constitución Política.

ELEVENTH: That in this context, the Administration's conduct is contrary to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, environmental prevention, and effective administrative protection, in that it prioritizes an indefinite internal investigation over the immediate protection of fundamental rights." 5.- By ruling of 06:08 hours on March 23, 2026, the reporting magistrate (magistrada instructora) granted a hearing to the Minister of Health regarding the facts alleged by the appellant.

6.- Through a brief incorporated into the digital file at 15:30 hours on March 26, 2026, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, reported under oath as follows:

"As a preliminary matter, it is my duty to state that Decreto Ejecutivo N° 40724-S of September 23, 2017, published in La Gaceta N°215 of November 14, 2017, Supplement 273, entitled 'Reglamento Orgánico del Ministerio de Salud,' in force as of May 14, 2021, establishes as the Mission of the Ministry of Health that it is the institution that leads and guides social actors in developing actions that protect and improve the physical, mental, and social health status of the population, through the exercise of the Stewardship (Rectoría) of the National Health System, with a focus on health promotion and disease prevention, fostering a healthy and balanced human environment, under the principles of equity, efficiency, quality, transparency, and respect for diversity — the primary foundation of its actions being the Constitución Política, Ley N° 5395 of October 30, 1973, 'Ley General de Salud,' Ley N° 5412 of November 8, 1973, 'Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud,' and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 40724-S, cited above, among others. Furthermore, the Ley General de Salud, in its provisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, provides, among other things, that the health of the population is a public-interest asset protected by the State, that it is an essential function of the State to safeguard the health of the population, that it falls to the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, to define national health policy, and to formulate, plan, and coordinate all public and private health-related activities, as well as to execute those activities falling within its jurisdiction under the law, with authority to issue autonomous regulations in these matters. It is important to note that every natural or legal person is subject to the mandates of the said law and other laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to health, which are of public order and, in the event of conflict, prevail over any other provisions of equal formal validity, without prejudice to the powers conferred by law upon the autonomous institutions of the health sector, as well as to the general and particular orders, ordinary and emergency, issued by health authorities in the exercise of their organic jurisdictions; and every person has the right to be duly informed by the competent official of the binding regulations in force in the field of health, subject to the provisions of international conventions and treaties. Having set forth the foregoing, I now address the amparo appeal filed by Miguel Ángel Herrera González on behalf of Nombre01, who alleges that: '…his client Nombre01, identity card CED02, is an adjacent neighbor of a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., which is located in a residential zone but in which industrial-type activities are being carried out in plain view of the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that the defendant authority granted a commercial license in favor of the company Terra Equipos S.A. for the property in the registry district (partido) of San José no. 401148-000, plan SJ-0068073-1972, based on land-use permit no.

CU- 22-373 of May 6, 2022, under the assumption that the activity to be carried out was "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METAL STRUCTURES." The appellant notes that the aforementioned property is located in a residential zone where, pursuant to the current zoning plan (plan regulador) of the canton of Mora, industrial activities are expressly prohibited, including warehouses, workshops, and any analogous use that causes a nuisance to the neighborhood. The appellant recounts that, following the grant of the commercial license (patente comercial) and in progressive fashion, the company Terra Equipos S.Nombre03. substantially modified the authorized activity and began carrying out other activities of an industrial nature. The appellant explains that said company engages in mass storage of goods, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic sludge (lodos sépticos) or fecal matter, operation of heavy machinery, and the constant movement of heavy trucks, generating excessive and continuous noise, vibrations, and foul odors during hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend into the nighttime hours. The appellant alleges that the foregoing prevents the rest, peace, and dignified life of the party the appellant represents — who is an elderly person — as well as that of the family unit, all of whom have experienced a degradation in their quality of life. The appellant states that for several months the protected party (tutelado) has appeared before the administrative authorities — both the Municipality of Mora and the Ministry of Health — to request urgent intervention, for which purpose compelling technical, expert, and health-related evidence was submitted attesting to the actual harm suffered. Nevertheless, the appellant claims that the respondent municipal authority has incurred a prolonged and unjustified omission, tolerating the ongoing harm without taking any action to safeguard the fundamental rights of the party the appellant represents and of the residents of the canton in that residential zone. In this regard, the appellant details that on December 4, 2025, the specially authorized representative (apoderado especial), Miguel A. Herrera González, submitted to the mayor of Mora a document titled "TECHNICAL-LEGAL REPORT ON THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS LICENSE TO TERRA EQUIPOS," through which it was set forth that the company's activities occur into the late hours of the night, generating noise that exceeds the permitted limits for a residential zone. Likewise, said report referenced administrative irregularities detected, as well as those caused by heavy vehicle traffic, electrical hazards, visibility into neighboring properties, and violations of privacy; accordingly, a municipal technical study on ambient noise and protection of the rights of affected neighbors was requested, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. The appellant notes that through official communication AMM-0900-2025 the appellant was informed that said report was added to the preliminary investigation proceeding opened on October 31, 2025 under consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. The appellant questions the fact that the Administration has kept the matter in an indefinite preliminary phase, without expressly resolving the principal request or adopting measures to safeguard fundamental rights…." Having set out the foregoing, I address what was requested by the honorable Constitutional Tribunal, based on report CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026, issued by Dr. Luz Cuadra Morales, Director of the Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud) of Mora, as the response to this action, which states, in the relevant part, as follows:

CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026: "… I. REGARDING THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLANT That they are elderly persons residing in the canton of Mora in a residential and commercial zone. That adjacent to their property a large-scale warehouse designated "Terra Equipos" was established, serving as an industrial facility for mass storage of goods, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing and storage of vehicles that transport septic sludge and fecal matter, generating noise, vibrations, and unpleasant odors — a complaint they have filed before the Health Governing Area and the Municipality.

II. THE ACTIONS OF THE HEALTH GOVERNING AREA AND THE SPECIFIC CASE

That on March 11, 2024, the Health Governing Area of Mora received a complaint filed by the protected party (amparado), Mr. Nombre01, alleging noise problems, tall structures alongside the perimeter wall (tapia) of his property, and workshop activities not covered by the permits granted to the accused company Terra Equipos. (folios 0048 to 0049) In response to the complaint, on March 18, 2024, we conducted an on-site inspection at the complainant's residence, where we were attended by Ms. Nombre07, who stated that the main problem was the noise generated by the establishment and the risk of collapse of the metal structures stored adjacent to his perimeter wall, which exceeded its height. It should be noted here that during the on-site inspection no noise from a workshop or metal striking was heard. Stacking of metal structures above the perimeter wall was observed, which could fall onto the complainant's property. On that occasion the accused establishment had its gates closed and no one responded to the health authority's call; a reinspection of the establishment was rescheduled for April 8, 2024. (folios 0050 and 0051) On April 8, 2024, at the accused establishment "Terra Eventos," we were attended by Mr. Nombre08, human resources manager. At the site it was verified that the location was being used to store metal structures for sale and display, which was consistent with the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) that had been granted; on that day it was not confirmed that repair work on structures was being performed, nor was any workshop activity confirmed; there was no noise; however, the stacking of structures above the perimeter wall adjoining the complainant's property was confirmed. The "commercial and industrial activity inspection form" was applied, sanitary non-conformities were documented, and technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024 recommended that the corresponding administrative acts be issued. (folios 0065 and 0070) As a result of the findings from the April 8, 2024 inspection, through sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, notified to the accused party on April 22, 2024 together with technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, instructions were issued to comply within 20 business days by installing smoke detectors, posting emergency signage (rotulación), keeping dispensers stocked with liquid soap and disposable towels, maintaining a first-aid kit, and refraining from stacking structures above the perimeter wall to prevent the risk of collapse. (folios 0071 through 0075 and 0077) Everything set out above was brought to the attention of the protected party by email at 3:40 p.m. on April 9, 2024. (folio 0076) Continuing with the handling of the complaint, on May 21, 2024, the company Terra Equipos submitted to the Health Governing Area of Mora a written document titled "Response to Sanitary Order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024," communicating compliance with the directives. Therefore, in follow-up to the submitted document and sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, on May 28, 202 a visit to the establishment was conducted by the Health Governing Area. During said visit, full compliance with items a, b, c, and d was verified, and partial compliance with item e), which pertained to the stacking (estibaje) of structures: on the western side the structures had been moved away from the perimeter wall and the first row did not exceed the height of the wall; however, on the eastern side, improvement remained pending regarding the structures that had been arranged on racks, which continued to exceed the height of the perimeter wall. It should be noted here that during the inspection no noise from the company was perceived, but there was a large quantity of stored structures. As a result of the compliance verification visit, technical report MS-DRRSCS ARSM-IT-237-2024 was issued. (folios 0091 through 0096) Given that there was not full compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024 — specifically with item e), which consisted of not stacking structures above the perimeter wall to prevent the risk of collapse — new sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024 was notified on June 4, 2024, instructing the company, due to the quantity of metal structures stored, to expand its operating permit to include not only the sale and display but also the storage of structures, and to present within 15 business days a proposed stacking and storage plan with implementation timelines, validated by a professional in the relevant field, specifying the maximum stacking heights and setbacks from adjoining boundaries. (folios 0097 through 0099 and 0101) Via email at 10:07 a.m. on May 30, 2024, the complainant was informed of the actions taken (folio 0100), and on June 4, 2024 the complainant reported that noise was continuing and that progress in rearranging the structures was slow (folios 0104–0105). This argument was addressed by email on June 11 (folio 0104), when it was clarified that during the compliance verification inspection it was confirmed that on the side where Mr. Loria's property is located, the stacks had been separated by more than one meter and that those closest to the residence did not exceed the height of the perimeter wall, and that since the spacing of the structures is not regulated, a rearrangement proposal had been requested. Regarding the noise, it was explained that the only way to establish a violation of regulated noise limits is through a sound level measurement (sonometría), which must be scheduled on a date and at a time proposed by the complainant. Not satisfied with this response, on June 20 — also by email — the complainant stated that the stacks remain close to the walls, that the materials on racks are a hazard, raised a new concern about the roof structure being made of heavy iron, and alleged that noise and intake of materials persist; therefore, on June 25, 2024, the complainant was again asked to indicate a date and time for scheduling the noise measurement (medición sónica). (folios 0102 through 0103) It is appropriate to note here that by email of June 25 (folio 0102) the complainant was informed that the company Terra Eventos had, on June 24, 2024, submitted a technical proposal to comply with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, which includes a schedule of activities for addressing the stacking of structures — consisting of moving and rearranging structures — to be implemented from June to September 2024. The technical proposal, prepared by an occupational health professional, was duly reviewed and endorsed by this Health Governing Area Directorate. (folios 0106 through 0130) Additionally, the proposal included the municipal land-use (uso de suelo) amendment for the storage of structures. (folios 0112 through 0115 and 0130) Now, in view of the new problem reported regarding the alleged risk posed by the establishment's roof structure, on July 16 a site visit was conducted, confirming that the roofs were in good condition, had no broken or detached parts, showed no movement in the wind, and had no bent beams or columns; notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to obtain a better professional technical assessment, through technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-295-2024, the Health Governing Area Directorate of Mora was recommended to seek technical support from the Rector Unit of the Central Sur Regional Directorate so that a civil engineer could assess the structure. (folios 0133 through 0138) The actions taken were reported to the complainant by email on July 22, 2024. (folio 0139) On July 24, 2024, due to the quantity of stored structures and pursuant to the provisions of Decreto N° 43432-S, "Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud," the company Terra Eventos submitted documentation for the expansion of the sanitary operating permit and, upon fulfilling the required conditions, certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 was granted. (folio 0165) This was done taking into consideration that the Municipality had already issued the amendment to a conforming land use for the storage of structures.

By email of August 5, 2024, the complainant inquired about the details of the civil engineer's visit, and was advised on August 7 that no definite date had been set; we took the opportunity to inform the complainant that on August 8, 2024, the inspector would be conducting visits in the Colón district, so that, if agreeable, the sound level measurement could be carried out; however, no response was received. (folio 0166) On August 19, 2024, Mr. Loria filed a new complaint, this time concerning problems with the washing of portable latrines (letrinas) at the Terra Eventos establishment, and inquired whether the measurement had been carried out; the response given was that the engineer would proceed the following day, August 20. It was also indicated that, since no response had been received to the email sent to schedule the measurement, it had not been scheduled. (folio 0167) On August 20, a visit was conducted to verify the problems with the washing of latrines and the structural condition of the roofs. With respect to the latrine-washing problem, technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-364-2024 was generated documenting the reported facts. (folios 0170 through 0171) The actions taken and confirmed were brought to the complainant's attention by email on August 21, 2024. (folio 0172) With respect to the assessment of the roofs, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Oscar Arroyo Barahona, through report MS-DRRSCS-URS-IT-0435-2024 dated August 22, 2024, detected no imminent danger to the stability of the structure; this was communicated to the protected party by email on August 28, 2024. (folios 0174 through 0178) Regarding the follow-up and verification of the technical proposal submitted by the accused company to comply with the rearrangement of structures, on September 19, 2024, during an inspection visit and per technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-434-2024, it was confirmed that the majority of the points indicated in the technical proposal had been complied with, with only the placement of signage and the records of the weekly reviews remaining outstanding. (folios 0181 through 0185) The actions taken were again communicated to the complainant on September 20, 2024, by email. (folio 0186) That same day it was agreed to schedule a noise measurement for September 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. (folios 0187 through 0188), on which day — due to the absence of noise from the accused company — it was impossible to carry out the sound level measurement. A new attempt at noise measurement was made on October 7, 2024; however, there was no noise either. (folios 0189 through 0190) On December 3, it was communicated to the complainant that the measurement could be carried out on December 5 and 9, 2024, in the morning and afternoon, respectively. (folio 0191) On December 5 the measurement could not be carried out due to the absence of noise. (folios 0194 and 0195.) It should be noted that on December 9 the measurement could not be carried out because Mr. Loria misunderstood the email sent — as he himself acknowledged — and had to attend a medical appointment. (folio 0193) On December 19 at 10:00 a.m., Mr. Loria sent an email reporting noise at the establishment (folio 0196), and although no noise measurement had been scheduled, Health Governing Area staff set aside office duties to proceed with the corresponding measurement, the result of which — per technical report MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-001-2025 — was 48.4 dB(A) for ambient noise with the generating source active, which did not exceed the 65 dB(A) prescribed for residential zones under the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S. (folios 0199 through 0206) The sound level measurement result was sent to Mr. Loria by email on January 7, 2025. (folio 0211) On January 8, 2025, a return visit to the Terra Eventos establishment confirmed full compliance with the outstanding points of sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024. (folios 0214 through 0218) Mr. Loria was informed of the compliance by email dated January 9, 2025. (folio 0219) On February 17, 2025, an email was received in which Mr. Loria indicated that on February 13, 2025, considerable noise was heard coming from the Terra Eventos establishment; on February 18 he was asked to confirm whether the disturbing noise was still occurring between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. every day, so that a noise measurement could be coordinated — since the equipment had to be requested from another health governing area because ours was being calibrated — to which no response was received. (folio 0230) On March 10, 2025, we received a document from Atty. Valeria Bolaños González, attorney for Mr. Nombre01 at that time, alleging noise pollution (contaminación sónica) due to industrial activity carried out at the Terra Eventos establishment. (folios 0231–0234) For that reason, on March 19, 2025, we went to the residence of those affected with the aim of conducting a noise measurement; however, the measurement could not be carried out because there was no noise. (folio 0251) Again, on March 26, 2025, and May 15, 2025, emails were sent attempting to coordinate a noise measurement with the affected party as required by the noise measurement procedure; however, no response was provided. (folios 0252–0253) Mr. Loria did not respond by email until June 5, 2025, indicating that the noise was continuing and asking whether we had notified any document to Terra Eventos expressing concerns and inquiring about which activities the company was permitted to carry out at the location. (folio 0254) A reply was sent by email on June 9, 2025, explaining that notification to the company was not appropriate given that the measurement carried out in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted decibel levels and that the alleged noise problems had not been verified. It was also indicated that we could go and carry out the noise measurement on June 16, 2025, to which there was likewise no response. (folio 0255) On July 1, 2025, Mr. Loria sent an email stating that a truck with septic sludge had parked at Terra Eventos, which he considered harmful to his health; he was informed on July 2, 2025 that the following day we would carry out a visit both to conduct the noise measurement and to verify the situation regarding the septic-sludge truck. (folio 0256) On July 3, 2025, a return visit was made to the location; from outside the premises no noise was perceived, so it was not possible to proceed with the noise measurement; upon entering the establishment, it was verified that the only thing operating at the location was a forklift (montacargas) rearranging structures; a full walkthrough of the storage yard was conducted and no mechanical work of any kind was being performed, there were no trucks with septic sludge on the premises, there was no unpleasant odor of any kind, and no discharge of wastewater or sludge on the ground was observed. (folios 0258–0261) By email sent on July 8, 2025, Mr. Loria was informed of the observations made during the July 3, 2025 inspection. (folio 0262) On August 6, 2025, we received a document in which Mr. Nombre01 raised a series of questions about the Terra Eventos establishment, including the noise pollution problems (folios 0263–0279); this document was answered through official communication CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, informing the party that multiple attempts at noise measurement had been made — specifically at point 2, sub-item b) — but that it had not been possible to carry them out, either because there was no noise or because the party had not responded to coordinate. Additionally, several points relating to invasion of private property, loss of privacy, fire hazard, unpleasant odors, and structural stacking were addressed. (folios 0280–0282) On October 23, 2025, we received a document titled "Administrative Petition for Enforcement of Unfulfilled Sanitary Order" (folios 0283–0299), by which Atty. Miguel Herrera González, representative of Mr. Nombre01, identified various irregularities regarding the operation of the establishment, including the noise problems. Each of the points raised in the document was addressed through document CARTA MS-DRRCS-ARSM-645-2025, including the aspect of noise pollution (section D). Said response document was sent by email on October 30, 2025. (folios 0300 through 0304) On January 6, 2026, by email, Mr. Loria again reported disturbing noise coming from the Terra Eventos establishment as well as the presence of a septic-sludge tank (folio 0325), so an inspection was scheduled for January 13, 2026. That day, the noise measurement could not be carried out because there was no noise; moreover, no persons were observed carrying out machinery washing or activities that generated noise; there were no trucks with septic sludge on the premises, no water was observed on the ground, and no unpleasant odors were perceived. (folios 0330–0334) The complainant was informed of this by email. (folio 0336) In light of all the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that this Health Authority has not been remiss in the discharge of its duties and has devoted itself to addressing each of the concerns raised during the course of handling the complaint, providing responses to every request made by the administrative party. …" (emphasis in the original) It is imperative to clarify that the Ministry of Health does not grant operating licenses or commercial business licenses for commercial establishments; what the Ministry grants are sanitary operating permits or sanitary authorizations, the substance of which is defined precisely by the physical and sanitary conditions of the premises that permit their operation — all in accordance with the provisions of Articles 222, 298, 323, 324, and 328 of Ley No. 5395 of October 30, 1973, "Ley General de Salud" — and it is the obligation of every natural or legal person carrying out a commercial, industrial, or service activity to hold a sanitary operating permit. In the specific case of the commercial establishment "Terra Eventos," it does hold a sanitary operating permit. As can be seen, the reported situation has been addressed as required; the authorities of this Ministry have not been able to identify that the activities carried out at the commercial establishment produce noise pollution or any other form of environmental contamination; the corresponding administrative acts have been issued and those ordered have been attended to, all of which has been communicated to the complainant; the Ministry can only commit to continuing to address each situation raised by the appellant herein and to conduct, where necessary, the corresponding verifications (noise measurements) to allow a determination of whether the alleged noise is actually being produced, something that has not been confirmed despite the noise measurements already carried out." 7.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,

Considering:

I.- Subject matter of the writ. The appellant states that the party the appellant represents is a neighbor adjoining a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.Nombre03., located in a residential zone in the canton of Mora, where industrial activities are being carried out with the knowledge of the respondent municipality. The appellant indicates that said authority granted a commercial license (licencia comercial) under the assumption that the activity corresponded to the rental and sale of construction equipment and display of metal structures, even though the property is in a zone where the zoning plan expressly prohibits industrial activities. Likewise, the appellant reports that, following the grant of the license, the company substantially modified its line of business (giro), carrying out activities such as mass storage of materials, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, handling of trucks that transport septic waste, operation of heavy machinery, and the constant movement of heavy vehicles, generating excessive noise, vibrations, and foul odors during hours incompatible with residential use. In addition, the appellant argues that these activities directly affect the peace, rest, and quality of life of the protected party — who is an elderly person — as well as those of the family unit, due to the intensity and continuity of the disturbances. The appellant states that, despite having appeared before the Municipality of Mora and the Ministry of Health and having submitted technical and health-related evidence, no effective measures have been adopted to remedy the situation. In that regard, the appellant indicates that on December 4, 2025, a technical-legal report was submitted to the mayor in which irregularities in the granting of the commercial license, impacts from noise, heavy vehicle traffic, hazards, and violations of privacy were reported, and technical studies and protection of the rights of affected neighbors were requested. The appellant states that, while it was indicated that said report was incorporated into an administrative proceeding, the matter remains in an indefinite preliminary phase, without a resolution or the adoption of concrete measures. Finally, the appellant argues that the prolonged omission of the respondent authority has allowed the continuation of activities incompatible with land use, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the appellant's client and of the residents of the area, and therefore requests that the writ be granted with the legal consequences.

II.- Preliminary matter. Prior to analyzing the merits — regarding the alleged violation of the right to prompt and effective proceedings — it must be clarified that, following judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Constitutional Chamber (Sala) has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa) — with certain exceptions — those matters in which the question is whether the public administration has complied with the deadlines established by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (Articles 261 and 325), or by sector-specific laws governing special administrative procedures, both for issuing a final administrative act (acto final) closing an administrative proceeding — initiated ex officio or at a party's request — and for ruling on available administrative remedies. Precisely, this case presents an exceptional circumstance, since it concerns a complaint regarding noise pollution, which has allegedly not been resolved within a reasonable time by the respondent ministry. With that point clarified, the Court proceeds to resolve the specific situation raised in this constitutional writ of amparo (amparo).

III.- On third-party intervention. Third-party intervention (coadyuvancia) is a form of adhesive intervention (intervención adhesiva) that occurs when a person acts in a proceeding by aligning with the claims of one of the principal parties. In light of the foregoing, any person holding a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding is entitled to act as an intervening party (coadyuvante), even though, not being the appellant or the respondent, that person will not be directly affected by the ruling. Third-party intervention is therefore the procedural avenue by which a person is permitted to lend support to the party whose interests coincide with their own so as to facilitate the success of that party's claim; such a person is neither an independent party nor a co-litigant (litisconsorte), but merely an adherent without independent standing to bring a claim in the same proceeding. On this point, Article 34 of the Law of this Jurisdiction provides as follows:

"Article 34. The writ shall be directed against the public official or the head of the body that appears as the alleged author of the harm. If either of them acted in compliance with orders or instructions issued by a superior, or with that superior's authorization or approval, the writ shall be deemed filed against both, without prejudice to what is decided in the judgment. If the identity of the official is unknown, the writ shall be deemed filed against the agency head (jerarca).

A third party who derives subjective rights from the rule or act giving rise to the amparo proceeding shall also be deemed a party.

Furthermore, any person having a legitimate interest in the outcome of the writ may appear and participate in it as an intervening party on behalf of the appellant or the respondent." (Emphasis by underlining not in the original.)

In this manner, the effect of the ruling cannot reach the intervening party directly and immediately, nor can the res judicata (cosa juzgada) quality of the judgment affect that party — although in amparo matters the party may benefit from the effect of the ruling, given the erga omnes character of the jurisprudence and precedents of the constitutional jurisdiction (Article 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In this case, the Constitutional Chamber proceeds to admit the third-party intervention filed by Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho, pursuant to Article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, given that the intervening party claims to hold a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding in the capacity of a neighboring property owner adjoining the premises where the reported activities are taking place, alleging harm under circumstances substantially coinciding with those set out by the appellant.

IV.- Proven facts.

The following facts are considered duly established as relevant to the decision of this matter, either because they have been duly proven on the record or because the respondent party (parte recurrida) failed to address them as required by the initial order (auto inicial):

• 1)On March 11, 2024, the petitioner (amparado) filed a complaint (denuncia) with the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora regarding noise problems, large structures placed next to the boundary wall (tapia) of his property, and workshop activities that, in his view, fell outside the scope of the permits granted to the respondent company Terra Equipos (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 2)On March 18, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted an on-site inspection (inspección ocular) at the petitioner's residence; they were attended by Nombre07, did not perceive any noise coming from a workshop or the sound of metal striking, observed metal structures stacked above the boundary wall with a potential risk of falling onto the neighboring property, and found that the respondent establishment was closed; accordingly, a new inspection of the commercial premises was rescheduled for April 8, 2024 (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 3)On April 8, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted an inspection of the respondent establishment, during which they verified that metal structures were being stored for sale and display in accordance with the health operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento), found no workshop activity or structural repair work, did not perceive any noise, and did confirm the stacking (estibaje) of structures above the boundary wall shared with the complainant's property (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 4)On April 9, 2024, the petitioner was informed by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora in connection with his complaint (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 5)On April 22, 2024, the respondent company was notified of sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, which required it to install smoke detectors, post emergency signage, maintain liquid soap dispensers and disposable paper towels, have a first-aid kit available, and refrain from stacking structures above the boundary wall so as to prevent the risk of falls (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 6)On May 21, 2024, Terra Equipos submitted a written response to sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, reporting compliance with the requirements set forth therein (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 7)On May 28, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verified compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, confirmed full compliance with several requirements, noted partial compliance with respect to the stacking of structures above the boundary wall, did not perceive any noise coming from the company, and did observe a large quantity of stored metal structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 8)On May 30, 2024, the petitioner was informed by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora and of the follow-up conducted on the sanitary order issued against the respondent company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 9)On June 4, 2024, the respondent company was notified of sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, which instructed it to expand its operating permit to include the storage of structures and to submit, within fifteen business days, a technical storage and stacking proposal validated by a qualified professional, specifying maximum heights and setback distances from neighboring properties (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 10)On June 4, 2024, the petitioner reported the continuation of noise and the slow progress in the rearrangement of structures inside the respondent establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 11)On June 11, 2024, the petitioner was informed that, during the verification inspection, it had been established that the stacks on the side adjacent to his property were set back more than one meter and that those closest to the residence did not exceed the height of the boundary wall; he was also advised that any potential noise infraction could only be determined by means of a sound level measurement (sonometría) scheduled at a date and time proposed by him (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 12)On June 20 and 25, 2024, the petitioner reiterated his concerns about the proximity of structures to the boundary wall, the risk posed by materials placed on racks, his concern about the roof structure, noise, and the intake of materials; the Área Rectora de Salud again asked him to provide a date and time for scheduling the sound level measurement (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 13)On June 24 and 25, 2024, the respondent company submitted a technical proposal to comply with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, with a schedule running from June to September 2024 for the movement and rearrangement of structures; this proposal was reviewed and endorsed by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora, along with the municipal land-use (uso de suelo) expansion for the storage of structures, and this circumstance was communicated to the petitioner (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 14)On July 16, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted a new inspection of the establishment and found that the roofs were in good structural condition, with no broken, detached, or unstable parts; accordingly, they recommended requesting specialized technical support for a complementary structural assessment by a civil engineer (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 15)On July 22 and 24, 2024, the petitioner was informed of the actions taken regarding the roof structure; additionally, Terra Eventos submitted documentation to expand its health operating permit, and certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 was issued after the municipal land-use expansion for the storage of structures was verified (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 16)On August 5, 7, 19, and 20, 2024, the petitioner inquired about the civil engineer's visit, reported issues related to the cleaning of latrines, and again raised the need for a sound level measurement; the Área Rectora de Salud notified him of the scheduled date for the inspection, conducted a visit to verify the reported facts, prepared the corresponding technical report, and subsequently informed him of the actions taken (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 17)On August 22 and 28, 2024, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Óscar Arroyo Barahona concluded that the establishment's structure presented no imminent danger to its stability, and this finding was communicated to the petitioner by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 18)On September 19, 20, and 23, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora monitored compliance with the technical structural rearrangement proposal, confirmed compliance with most of its points, left pending only the posting of signage and the weekly inspection logs, informed the petitioner thereof, and scheduled a sound level measurement for September 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.; this proceeding could not be carried out due to the absence of noise coming from the respondent company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 19)On October 7, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora made a new attempt at a sound level measurement, which also could not be completed due to the absence of noise generated by the respondent company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 20)On December 3, 5, 9, and 19, 2024, the petitioner was informed of new opportunities to conduct a sound level measurement: one could not be carried out due to the absence of noise; another was not conducted because the complainant himself misread the email sent to him and had to attend a medical appointment; finally, in response to an email from Mr. Loría reporting noise, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud left their regular office duties to conduct the measurement, obtaining a result of 48.4 dB(A), corresponding to ambient noise plus an active noise source—a level that did not exceed the maximum of 65 dB(A) permitted for residential zones under the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N.° 39428-S (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 21)On January 7, 8, and 9, 2025, the petitioner received the results of the sound level measurement conducted in December 2024; additionally, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora confirmed that the respondent company had complied with the outstanding provisions of sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, and this was also communicated to him by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 22)On February 17 and 18, 2025, the petitioner again reported the existence of noise coming from the respondent company, and the Área Rectora de Salud asked him to confirm available time slots to coordinate a sound level measurement, advising him that the equipment would need to be borrowed from another regional health authority since theirs was under calibration; no subsequent response from the complainant appears on the record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 23)On March 10 and 19, 2025, the petitioner, through his then-attorney, again reported noise pollution (contaminación sónica) and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora attended the affected parties' residence to conduct a measurement; this proceeding could not be completed due to the absence of noise (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 24)On March 26, May 15, and June 5 and 9, 2025, the Área Rectora de Salud sought to coordinate new sound level measurements with the affected party, received no response to several of those attempts, and when Mr. Loría again reported persistent noise, he was advised that notifying the company of a noise pollution violation was not appropriate, since the measurement conducted in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted limits and the reported problems had not been substantiated; he was also offered a new measurement on June 16, 2025, with no response on record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 25)On July 1, 2, 3, and 8, 2025, the petitioner reported the presence of a truck carrying septic sludge at the Terra Eventos establishment; the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection for the following day, conducted a site visit, and found that no noise was perceptible from the outside, that a sound level measurement could not be performed due to the absence of sound, that inside the establishment only a forklift was operating to rearrange structures, that no mechanical work was being performed, that there were no trucks carrying septic sludge, no discharges of wastewater or sludge, and no unpleasant odors; these findings were subsequently communicated to the petitioner by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 26)On August 6, 2025, the petitioner submitted a written communication raising various concerns about Terra Eventos, including noise pollution, encroachment on private property, loss of privacy, fire risk, unpleasant odors, and the stacking of structures; this communication was answered through official letter CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, which clarified that multiple sound level measurement attempts had been made without it being possible to complete them, either due to the absence of noise or lack of coordination with the affected party (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 27)On October 23 and 30, 2025, the representative of Nombre01 submitted an administrative petition requesting enforcement of a sanitary order which he considered to have gone uncomplied with, and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora provided written responses to each of the points raised, including the one related to noise pollution (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 28)On January 6 and 13, 2026, the petitioner again reported disturbing noise and the presence of a septic sludge tank at Terra Eventos; accordingly, the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection and, upon conducting it, was unable to perform a sound level measurement due to the absence of noise, observed no persons washing machinery or engaging in noise-generating activities, found no trucks carrying septic sludge, detected no water on the ground, and perceived no unpleasant odors; these results were subsequently communicated to the complainant by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 29)As of March 26, 2026, the Terra Eventos commercial establishment held a health operating permit issued by the Ministerio de Salud, including the corresponding expansion for the storage of structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

III. Unproven Fact. The following fact of relevance to this ruling is not considered duly established

Sole finding: That there exists a final administrative act or definitive ruling by the Ministerio de Salud declaring the existence of noise pollution at the respondent establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

IV.Analysis on the Merits. First, it should be noted that this Court has held that noise pollution caused by sound has an impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. On this subject, in ruling No. 2025-009098 issued at 9:50 a.m. on March 25, 2025, the following was stated:

"IV. On the Specific Case. From the combined reading of Article 24 and Article 28 of our Constitution, the principle of freedom governing individuals has as one of its limits the prohibition against causing harm to others; accordingly, this principle encompasses the protection of individuals' sphere of privacy and, as a consequence, of the tranquility inherent to that sphere. Noise disturbs that tranquility, especially when it affects one's place of residence. Furthermore, in light of other constitutional provisions such as Article 50, which enshrines the right to a healthy environment, and Article 21, from which the right to health has been derived, it falls to the State to guarantee an environment free from noise pollution. For these reasons, with respect to activities such as karaoke establishments, live music venues, and similar enterprises, the case law of this Court has consistently emphasized the need to respect the rights of neighboring residents." As is apparent from the precedent partially quoted above, the Sala Constitucional has held that noise pollution constitutes a form of environmental harm that directly affects the health and tranquility of individuals, such that, when the permitted threshold is exceeded, the State is obligated to take effective and verifiable action to prevent, correct, and, where appropriate, put a stop to the source of the pollution.

In the present matter, it is not found that the respondent health authority has committed a substantive violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights with respect to noise pollution, since the sequence of actions taken demonstrates that, from the time the complaint was filed on March 11, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud activated on-site verification mechanisms, conducting initial inspections, issuing sanitary orders, and carrying out follow-up visits to assess the conditions at the respondent establishment. In that vein, inspections were conducted in March, April, and May 2024, during which, while other sanitary issues were identified—such as the storage of structures and safety conditions—no noise was perceived at the time of the visits, which required the rescheduling of proceedings and the continuation of administrative monitoring.

Regarding the sound level measurements specifically, it is evident that the authority attempted to conduct them on multiple occasions during 2024—including in September, October, and December—without success, either because no noise was being generated at the time of the inspection or due to coordination difficulties with the complainant himself. This is a decisive factor, insofar as a technical measurement depends on the actual presence of the reported phenomenon. Moreover, when a measurement was finally completed in December 2024, while activity was ongoing at the site, the result obtained was 48.4 dB(A), a value below the permitted limit for residential zones, which precludes any finding of a violation of applicable regulations.

Furthermore, during 2025 the health authority continued to address the petitioner's concerns, seeking new measurements in February, March, and subsequent months; on several occasions these could not be completed due to the absence of noise at the time of the visit or due to coordination difficulties; new inspections were also conducted in July of that year, during which again no sound levels were detected that would have allowed for a valid measurement. Therefore, rather than evidencing a passive course of conduct, what emerges is a repeated, progressive, and technically oriented effort to verify the complaint, in which the absence of conclusive results stems from the factual impossibility of capturing the phenomenon at the time of measurement and not from any administrative omission.

Consequently, given that no technical measurement has established an exceedance of permitted noise levels, and given the absence of any inactivity on the part of the health authority in verifying the complaint, it is not possible to find that the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated on the substantive level of noise pollution.

What is, however, a violation of his fundamental rights is the fact that, despite having filed his complaint—which includes, among other matters, the noise issue—on March 11, 2024, no final administrative act expressly, clearly, and definitively resolving that complaint had been issued as of the date this petition was filed. Although the health authority has carried out various verification and follow-up actions, these have remained at a strictly material and preparatory level without resulting in a conclusive decision determining whether or not an infraction exists and, if so, ordering the appropriate measures. Accordingly, the absence of a final ruling means that the obligation to resolve citizens' administrative petitions promptly and expressly has not been satisfied; it is not sufficient to conduct verification proceedings if those proceedings do not culminate in an act that defines the legal situation submitted to the Administration's consideration. Therefore, the prolonged indefinite status of the complaint—without a ruling that brings the matter to a close—constitutes a violation of the right to prompt and effective administrative resolution (justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida) enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitution.

In consequence, the appropriate course of action is to grant the petition with respect to this aspect of the appeal.

V.Regarding the allegations directed against the Municipalidad de Mora, it should be noted at the outset that the issue concerning the alleged noise pollution was already addressed in the preceding section, in which it was determined that the verification, measurement, and control of noise levels falls within the purview of the Ministerio de Salud, in its capacity as the technically competent authority in this field. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to assign to the Municipality responsibility for an alleged impact resulting from sound levels, when that entity lacks the authority to conduct measurements or to adopt the corresponding sanitary measures; therefore, no constitutionally significant omission can be attributed to it in that regard.

Furthermore, with respect to the other allegations raised by the petitioner—relating to the granting of the commercial license (licencia comercial), conformity with land use, the possible modification of the authorized activity, and the adequacy of the Municipality's oversight activities—these fall within a discussion that is proper to the realm of ordinary legality (legalidad ordinaria). Indeed, such claims require determining whether the local government's administrative actions comply with applicable urban planning regulations, the current zoning plan (plan regulador), and the specific conditions under which the commercial license was granted, which calls for a technical and evidentiary analysis that exceeds the scope of amparo proceedings.

In that regard, it is not for this constitutional court to act as a reviewing body for the legality of administrative acts issued by the Municipality, nor to substitute for the active Administration in its assessment of technical matters related to land use, the granting of licenses, or the exercise of oversight powers, particularly when the legal system provides ordinary channels that are suitable for challenging such actions. Therefore, since there is no evidence of arbitrary or omissive conduct with a direct bearing on fundamental rights—but rather a disagreement with the administrative actions taken—the claims raised on this point are inadmissible in amparo proceedings.

VI.Note by Justice Castillo Víquez, on the right to prompt and effective administrative justice. I have supported this Court's position that when a party alleges a violation of the right to prompt and effective administrative justice, the appropriate forum for resolving such legal disputes is the Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, it has been established that this right is amenable to judicial protection through the amparo petition (recurso de amparo) provided for in Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in conjunction with Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in cases where the petitioner considers that the Administration's material actions, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting his or her fundamental rights. In my view, the newly enacted legislation does not mean that this Court must modify its jurisprudential line; pursuant to Article 7 of its own Law, it falls exclusively to this Court to define its own jurisdiction. Therefore, except for those constitutional disputes that have been recognized by this Chamber as exceptional cases that may properly be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo process, in all other cases, and for the reasons set forth by this Court (ruling No. 2008-02545 issued at 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), jurisdiction lies with the judges of the administrative contentious jurisdiction, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Constitutional Law (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding statutory provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.

VII.Note by Justice Salazar Alvarado. In environmental matters, it is also my position that when the Public Administration has already intervened, the appropriate forum for the consideration and resolution of the matter is the administrative contentious jurisdiction. However, I do examine the merits of the case when other fundamental rights of the persons affected by the source of pollution are at stake, including the right to health, quality of life, and the right to enjoy a healthy and pollution-free environment (Article 50 of the Constitution), as occurs in the present case, in which the petitioner filed a complaint regarding the irregular operation of an establishment involving environmental and noise pollution, implicating the right to a healthy environment and the right to health, which the petitioner alleges has not been definitively resolved, in violation of the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and a dignified quality of life.

VIII.Documentation Submitted to the Case File. The parties are hereby advised that, if any paper documents as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device have been submitted, these must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this ruling. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena at Session No. 27-11 on August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 on January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The petition is granted, solely on the ground of a violation of the right to prompt and effective administrative justice. Accordingly, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, or whoever holds that position, is hereby ordered to take whatever steps fall within her sphere of authority to ensure that, within a maximum period of TWO MONTHS counted from the notification of this ruling, the complaint filed by the petitioner on March 11, 2024 is definitively resolved. The respondent party is hereby warned that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on any person who receives an order—whether to comply with it personally or to cause it to be complied with—issued in an amparo proceeding and fails to comply or cause compliance with such order, provided that the offense is not subject to a more severe penalty. The State is ordered to pay court costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts underlying this declaration, to be assessed in enforcement proceedings before the administrative contentious jurisdiction. With respect to the Municipalidad de Mora, the petition is denied. Justice Castillo Víquez files a separate note. Justice Salazar Alvarado files a separate note. Notify the parties.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- Nº 2026013352 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first of April of two thousand twenty-six.

Amparo petition (recurso de amparo) proceeding in docket number 26-004879-0007-CO, filed by **MIGUEL HERRERA GONZÁLEZ**, professional registration number 2840, on behalf of **Nombre01**, national identification number CED03, against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA**.

**Background:** **1.-** By written submission filed before this Chamber at 15:08 hours on February 11, 2026, the petitioning party filed an amparo petition against the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that his client is a neighboring resident of a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., located in a residential zone, on which industrial-type activities are carried out in full view of and with the acquiescence of the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that the respondent authority granted a commercial license (licencia comercial) to Terra Equipos S.A. for the registered parcel (finca) in the San José property registry numbered 401148-000, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, based on land-use certificate (uso de suelo) number CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, on the stated premise that the activity to be carried out was "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES." He adds that the aforementioned property is located in a residential zone where, under the currently applicable zoning plan (plan regulador) for the canton of Mora, industrial activities are expressly prohibited, including warehouses, workshops, and any analogous use that generates nuisance to the neighborhood. He relates that after the commercial license was granted, Terra Equipos S.A. progressively and substantially changed the authorized activity and began carrying out industrial-type activities. He explains that said company engages in bulk storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery, and constant transit of heavy trucks, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend late into the night. He alleges that this situation prevents his client — an elderly adult — and his family from resting, enjoying peace and quiet, and living with dignity, and that they have experienced a degradation in their quality of life. He states that for several months the protected party has approached administrative authorities, both the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministerio de Salud, requesting urgent intervention, and has provided conclusive technical, expert, and health-related evidence demonstrating the actual harm. However, he claims that the respondent municipality has incurred a prolonged and unjustified failure to act, tolerating the continued harm without taking any action to safeguard the fundamental rights of his client and the residents of the canton in that residential zone. In this regard, he details that on December 4, 2025, his authorized representative, Miguel A. Herrera González, addressed a document to the mayor of Mora entitled "LEGAL-TECHNICAL REPORT ON IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF A COMMERCIAL OPERATING LICENSE TO TERRA EQUIPOS," in which he set forth that the company's activities continue until late at night, generating noise that exceeds the limits permitted in a residential zone. Furthermore, that report referred to administrative irregularities detected in connection with heavy vehicle traffic, electrical hazards, visibility into neighboring properties, and violations of privacy, and requested a municipal technical study on environmental noise and protection of the rights of affected neighbors, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. He notes that through official communication AMM-0900-2025, he was informed that the report had been added to the preliminary investigation proceeding opened on October 31, 2025, under consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. He contends that the Administration has kept the matter in an indefinite preliminary phase without expressly resolving the main request or adopting measures to protect his fundamental rights. He requests that the petition be granted, with all attendant legal consequences.

**2.-** By order issued at 15:51 hours on March 6, 2026, the President of the Chamber admitted this constitutional proceeding and requested a report from the mayor of Mora regarding the facts alleged by the petitioning party.

**3.-** By written submission filed in the digital docket at 14:49 hours on March 13, 2026, Alfonso Jiménez Cascante, in his capacity as mayor of Mora, reported under oath as follows:

*"II. REGARDING LAND-USE CERTIFICATE CU-22-373 OF MAY 6, 2022, AND BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. FIRST: By resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, the land use requested by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA for Dirección01, with cadastral plan SJ 0068073-1992, for the activity of "SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS," was determined to be conforming. By virtue of the foregoing, through official communication No. DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by official Phisilla Carvajal Venegas, head of the Land Use Unit, the following information was provided regarding land-use certificate CU-22-373: "(…) I write to greet you and at the same time to respond to the email regarding the Amparo Report; the situation of a property located in a zone; residential zone; parcel number 401148, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS, for which certain activities had been authorized, such as RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, and which was granted land-use certificate cu-22-373, dated May 6, 2022. As is generally known, this DEPARTMENT has within its competencies the authority to issue initial authorizations so that commercial licenses may be approved, after the applicant fulfills a series of requirements. The oversight of commercial licenses is the responsibility of the Tax Administration Department (PATENTES). Parcel 401148 is located in a residential zone for the purpose of carrying out the activities that were permitted: (images 1, 2, 3, and 4)* *[…]* *[…]* *[…]* *[…]* *These images make clear that parcel 401148 is located where indicated in the first image, and therefore falls within a residential zone. By determining, based on the facts described above, that the parcel owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is zoned as "Residential (Z.Nombre02.)," the property is subject to certain limitations regarding what activities may and may not be conducted thereon; accordingly, please refer to the provisions of the Plan Regulador de Mora under section 4.1, which explicitly sets out the permitted and non-permitted uses: Permitted Uses: "Single-family and multi-family housing, and all urban uses compatible with housing, such as community public-service centers, minor commerce, and other similar uses that do not cause incompatibility. The following uses shall be permitted only fronting main roads or thoroughfares: clinics, hospitals, veterinary clinics, movie theaters, and sports centers." Non-Permitted Uses: "Industry, including mechanical repair shops and body-and-paint shops, gate and door fabrication shops, warehouses, sawmills, bars and taverns, wholesale commerce, and any other analogous use that causes nuisance to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use." Therefore, the land-use certificate granted, CU-22-373, is a land-use resolution issued in conformity with the zone and the parcel. It is important to clarify: In accordance with Article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and Article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones, the Land-Use Certificate is the specific legal act by which the local administration certifies whether or not the use of a parcel conforms to zoning requirements; whereas commercial or building licenses constitute an authorization act issued by the Tax Administration Department or Urban Development and Control, which verifies compliance with all pertinent and applicable regulations. The oversight of commercial licenses is the responsibility of the Tax Administration Department (PATENTES), which verifies compliance with all pertinent and applicable regulations."* *Furthermore, it is important to note that the Por tanto of land-use resolution No. CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 states: "Provided that the conditions established for the zone are met, the proposed use on the property with plan SJ-0068073-1992 for OPERATING PERMIT (SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS) is CONFORMING, provided that it does not involve wholesale commerce or any other analogous use listed as non-permitted that causes nuisance to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. That no warehouse or storage activity be generated, as such activity must be located in the Industrial Zone."* *In this manner, from resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 and from Report DPOT-26-04 submitted by the technical area, it is clear, objective, and verifiable that parcel number 401148, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is located within a Residential Zone (Z.Nombre02.), in accordance with the zoning established in the Plan Regulador del cantón de Mora. In this context, Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373, issued on May 6, 2022, constitutes an administrative act whereby the Municipal Administration certified the conformity of the use requested for SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS with the zoning in effect at the time of its issuance, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and Article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones; the described activity is classified as minor commerce, a permitted use under the zoning applicable to the area where parcel number 401148 is located, which is in a residential zone that permits the described use according to the analysis conducted by the technical area. Furthermore, in accordance with section 4.1 of the Plan Regulador de Mora, the Residential Zone permits only those uses compatible with housing, such as single-family or multi-family dwellings, minor commerce, and other urban services that do not generate incompatibility, nuisance to the neighborhood, or negative impacts associated with noise, heavy traffic, storage, or handling of hazardous or high-volume materials. Conversely, industrial uses, warehouses, workshops, wholesale commerce, and any analogous activity incompatible with the predominant residential use are expressly prohibited. Within this regulatory framework, the land-use authorization granted must be interpreted restrictively, as was likewise set forth in the Por tanto of said land-use resolution (cited above), which resolved to limit it to those activities that, by their nature, scale, and manner of operation, do not contravene the express prohibitions established for the residential zone, being CONFORMING provided that "it does not involve wholesale commerce or any other analogous use listed as non-permitted that causes nuisance to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. That no warehouse or storage activity be generated, as such activity must be located in the Industrial Zone."* *Finally, it is important to clarify that, as noted in the report, the report clearly delineates the administrative competencies associated with a land-use certificate, since, while it is true that this Local Government, through the Land-Use Sub-process, issued land-use certificate No. CU-22-723 of May 6, 2022, as conforming for the project sought by Terra Equipos S.A., the fact remains that said administrative act is not directly binding at the time of the application for and approval of a Building License, in that, while the land-use certificate is a fundamental requirement, a series of additional factual and technical factors applicable to the proposal must be analyzed at the time of evaluating the building license; consequently, a conforming land-use certificate does not necessarily mean that the Building License will also be approved, since, as mentioned, a full series of requirements must be met for its processing and approval. This is evidenced by resolution No. 2023019022 of nine hours and thirty minutes on the fourth of August of two thousand twenty-three, issued by the Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, which stated: "(…) it is established that the land-use certificate issued at the petitioner's request indicated that it did not replace the building license; the land-use certificate and the building license are distinct administrative acts, such that the land-use certificate does not replace the building license, its corresponding processing and/or approval; the land-use certificate establishes the general guidelines regarding the use that may be made of the parcel in question, indicating the guidelines or regulations to which the applicant must conform when deciding to carry out any type of development on said property, thereby establishing control over the zoning by certifying the possibility of its use. The building license constitutes an administrative act, which is granted prior to the commencement of works, as a guarantee of compliance with all technical and legal requirements, perfected upon payment of the corresponding fee established by the municipality for such purposes; in all cases where the totality of applicable technical or legal requirements is not met, the requested license may not be issued. (…)" (Emphasis in the original.)* *Now, with respect to other permits granted by this local government to Terra Equipos S.A., the Constructive Sub-process has reported through official communication No. PUCC-013-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Walter Flores Blanco, head of said sub-process, as follows: "(…) strictly as regards the administrative actions of this Sub-process with respect to the above-mentioned registered parcel, I wish to report the following: Following review of the records in the Sistema de Información Gráfica Municipal (SIGRAMU) and the physical files of the Constructive Control Sub-process, the following licenses granted for the aforementioned parcel are detailed: 1. Building License PC 269-13 A, granted for works of "Maintenance and Repair." 2. Building License PC 269-13 C, granted for the construction of a warehouse shed of 40 m². It is noted that the granting of these licenses strictly responds to the applicable regulatory requirements in force at the time of their issuance. Said administrative acts, at the time of their management and approval, fully complied with the technical and legal requirements imposed by the applicable construction and urban planning regulations. It is understood that, at the date of their issuance, the Municipality acted in strict adherence to the principle of legality, technically verifying that the construction project conformed to the parameters authorized for Dirección02."* *In accordance with the information provided by official Flores Blanco, all building licenses granted by this Municipality to Terra Equipos S.A. were preceded by a comprehensive technical and legal review process, verifying in each case compliance with the applicable regulations, with no omission, waiver, or relaxation of the required administrative controls. In that regard, each permit granted constitutes a duly motivated administrative act issued after effective compliance with the corresponding legal and technical requirements was verified, which demonstrates that the municipal action has been conducted diligently, objectively, and in conformity with the legal system.* *III. REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL LICENSE REGISTERED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO TERRA EQUIPOS S.A., CORPORATE REGISTRATION NUMBER CED01* *In light of the facts alleged by the petitioner in the present appeal in connection with the commercial license granted to TERRA EQUIPOS S.A. for the property in the San José registry number Dirección03, plan SJ-0068073-1972, for "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES," wherein the complainant asserts that said commercial activity was substantially modified so as to carry out other INDUSTRIAL-TYPE ACTIVITIES, the commercial licenses department of the Municipalidad de Mora, through report No. ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Commercial Licenses Department, has indicated as follows: "(…) I must indicate that the approval of each commercial license is generated from the submission of a duly completed application form and the fulfillment of a series of requirements. Each requirement is requested on the basis of a regulation that so establishes it, and they are issued by the corresponding entity or professional. For this reason, this Unit is responsible for verifying compliance but does not question the technical opinion issued by the professional in the exercise of their competencies. With respect to the commercial license registered to Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, I proceed to detail: On November 5, 2013, Mr. Nombre04, with national identification number CED04, with judicial and extrajudicial representation of Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, submitted a commercial license application with the following characteristics:* - *For parcel #436018-000* - *With cadastral plan SJ-260201-95* - *Land-use certificate of January 17, 2013* - *Activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND STORAGE OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS* - *Land-use certificate of June 14, 2013* - *Activity: PARKING FOR CISTERN TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.* - *Commercial license approved through Resolution No. LICCO-077-2013-AT.* *On March 4, 2014, an expansion of the commercial license was requested with the following characteristics:* - *For parcel #436018-000* - *With cadastral plan SJ-260201-95* - *Land-use certificate RU-466-13 of July 29, 2013* - *Activity to be added: REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP.* - *Commercial license approved through Resolution No. LICCO-018-2014-AT.* *On May 13, 2022, the represented company requested a commercial license with the following characteristics:* - *For parcel #401148-000* - *With cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992* - *Land-use certificate CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022* - *Activity: SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES* - *Commercial license approved through Resolution No. 071-2022-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.* *On June 21, 2024, the represented company requested an expansion of the license with the following characteristics:* - *For parcel #436018-000* - *With cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995* - *Land-use certificate CU-24-371 of May 12, 2024* - *Activity to be added: WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS* - *Commercial license approved through Resolution No. 421-2024-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.* *On August 13, 2024, the represented company requested a new expansion of the commercial license with the following characteristics:* - *For parcel #401148-000* - *With cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992* - *Land-use certificate CU-24-488 of June 18, 2024* - *Activity to be added: STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR COMMERCE* - *Commercial license approved through Resolution No. 445-2024-AMPLI-LICCO-AT.* *From the detail set out above, it is determined that Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01, as recorded in the Municipalidad de Mora's records as of today, maintains a commercial license on two parcel numbers, each with the following registered activities:* *Parcel #436018-000, with cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995* *Authorized activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY, PARKING FOR CISTERN TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP, STORAGE, WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.* *Parcel #401148-000, with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992* *Authorized activity: SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR COMMERCE.* *From the amparo petition filed by Mr. Nombre01 against the Municipalidad de Mora, it is understood that the complainant's grievance concerns the activity taking place at parcel #401148-000, with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992, a location authorized for SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR COMMERCE. In the same document, under Section III. Facts Relevant from a Constitutional Perspective, point 3, Mr. Nombre01 states: After the commercial license was granted, and progressively, Terra Equipos S.A. substantially modified the authorized activity of "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES," devoting itself to other INDUSTRIAL-TYPE ACTIVITIES, different from the land use that gave rise to the commercial license granted to it, including: bulk storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts and cranes, and constant transit of heavy trucks, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend until nine o'clock or later at night.* *In response, it is important to note that the activity of storage, washing, and disinfection of portable sanitary cabins (portable toilets) is carried out at parcel #, with cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995, as also stated in inspection report MM-UI-105-2024 issued by Reiner Reyes Fuentes, Inspector of the Inspections and Municipal Police Unit of the Municipalidad de Mora, in a joint inspection conducted on August 20, 2024, with representatives of the Ministerio de Salud, who also documented their visit through official communication MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-365-2024 issued by Maycol Ávalos Rodríguez, Licensed Environmental Management and Occupational Health Engineering professional of the Ministerio de Salud. In various parts of the complaint, the affected party refers to the protection of health (noise pollution, foul odors, and conditions incompatible with healthy living) — public health matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministerio de Salud. For this reason, the effective, suitable, and verifiable measures to stop the health-related harm that the complainant requests must be directed to the competent entity. As of today, in the records of the Municipalidad de Mora, the represented party Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate registration number CED01 remains in compliance with requirements and its tax obligations (…)"* That being the case, based on what is stated in the commercial licenses department's report, with respect to the registered parcel located in a residential zone, Terra Equipos S.A. maintains a commercial license authorized for the following activities: - Sale and display of metallic structures, and - Storage and rental for display and sale of structures for events, under the category of minor commerce, as already noted.

Said license was granted on the basis of Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, which expressly establishes clear restrictions for the zoning applicable to the location of said property, excluding industrial-type activities, large-scale warehousing, wholesale commerce, or any use that generates nuisances incompatible with residential zoning. Consequently, the commercial license currently in effect for the parcel does not cover or authorize industrial activities, nor operations involving equipment washing, handling of septic waste, intensive use of heavy machinery, or constant transit of heavy trucks.

On the contrary, the activities that the appellant characterizes as "industrial in nature," such as the washing of equipment and portable toilets, the washing and storage of trucks transporting septic solids or excrement, the operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts, and the storage associated with those operations, are neither carried out nor authorized for the registered property (finca), but rather hold an express and currently valid commercial license (licencia comercial) to be conducted exclusively on the registered property (finca matrícula), which has different urban-planning conditions and authorizations. On that property, the company Terra Equipos S.A. holds a commercial license for activities that include, among others: • rental and sale of construction equipment and machinery, • parking for tanker trucks used to transport septic sludge, • repair and maintenance workshop, • storage, • washing and disinfection of portable sanitation units, and • administrative offices. These activities were authorized through administrative acts following verification of compliance with the applicable technical, sanitary, environmental, and urban-planning requirements, and they are neither linked to nor transferred to property 401148-000. This has been verified by this local government, which, in fulfillment of its oversight duty, has conducted inspections at Dirección01 to confirm that the activity being carried out conforms to that authorized under the commercial license granted for that property. See how, through official letter MM-PM-083-2026 of March 11, 2026, Leonardo Trejos Cespedes, coordinator of the Inspections and Municipal Police Unit, reported on the inspections that unit—sometimes jointly with the commercial licenses department—has carried out in fulfillment of its oversight duty. According to the referenced report, on February 15, 2022, a complaint was received from councilmember (regidor) Álvaro Arguedas Durán regarding alleged irregularities in the use of a business license (patente comercial) on the indicated property. In response to that complaint, on February 21, 2022, inspector Geovany Rivas Guerrero conducted an on-site inspection and reported that no administrative office or commercial activity of any kind was observed. Subsequently, through official letter AMM-0370-2025 of June 24, 2025, signed by acting municipal mayor (alcalde municipal a.i.) Emmanuel Ferrer Venegas, a new inspection was requested regarding alleged irregularities related to the commercial license granted for cadastral plan (plano catastrado) SJ-68073-92 in the name of Terra Equipos S.A. In response to that request, the visit conducted by Ms. Karla Matamoros Camacho was taken into account, and its findings were communicated through official letter ATM-LC-292-2025, which stated that "on June 30 of this year, my colleagues from the Municipal Police, Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes, and I jointly went to the above-described property, where we were attended by Mr. Nombre05, an employee of the represented company Terra Equipos. Upon entering the real property described above, it was observed that the location had some light cargo vehicles parked there; the rest of the property contained storage of metal structures, as can be seen in the photographs shown in this report; the presence of two persons (laborers) employed by the company was noted. […] […] […] In accordance with your request and in description of what was observed at the time of the visit, it is confirmed that the activity of 'Sale and Exhibition of Metal Structures' is actively being conducted." Likewise, the actions taken by the Municipal Police during the same inspection were reported through official letter MM-PM-197-2025, through which that unit reported that "On June 30 of this year, Municipal Police colleagues Roy Quesada Chavarría and Alejandro Quirós Brenes, accompanied by the commercial licenses officer, Lic. Karla Matamoros Camacho, were present at the location. It was observed that, at the time of the visit, the activity of 'Sale and Exhibition of Metal Structures' was actively being conducted. On the premises there were some light cargo vehicles and metal structures; no other distinct activities were observed inside the facilities." Subsequently, through official letter MM-PM-287-2025 of September 30, 2025, an analysis was conducted in the SIGRAMU system, determining that at Dirección02, corresponding to cadastral plan SJ-68073-1992, there are construction permit proceedings linked to what exists on the site. These reports from the various inspections conducted by the competent municipal departments at Dirección01 to verify that the commercial activity being carried out conforms to what is permitted under the business license (patente) granted for that location demonstrate that this municipality has been diligent and in no way neglectful of its oversight and complaint-response duties, since actions have been taken both in the field and at the internal administrative level to verify the facts set forth by the appellant. According to the reports from the executing units, those field actions have resulted in a finding that at the property at Dirección03, the company Terra Equipos S.A. is actively conducting the activity of "Sale and Exhibition of Metal Structures," which is the activity approved under the license granted; therefore, no valid argument can be sustained that there exists a substantial or irregular modification of the commercial activity authorized for property 401148-000. In this regard, taking into account that the activities questioned by the appellant herein hold administrative backing in an independent commercial license, granted for a different property, under a different legal regime, it follows that the appellant's argument may stem from a material confusion between different properties and different commercial licenses, attributing to property 401148-000 activities that do not form part of the license granted for that property, but that are legally authorized to be conducted on a different property, duly identified as property 436018-000. In addition to this, it is important to reiterate what was already noted by Ms. Nombre06 in official letter ATM-LC 111-2026, to the effect that some of the facts complained of by the complainant do not fall within the oversight jurisdiction of this municipality, but rather fall under other entities such as the Ministry of Health—a position that will be elaborated upon further below. Likewise, it should be brought to the attention of this Chamber that, in response to the multiple complaints filed by Mr. Nombre01, the office of the municipal mayor has initiated a preliminary investigation in order to verify the true facts of the matter; this forms part of the internal administrative oversight actions that have been carried out, as reflected in official letter IPAD-006-2025 of October 1, 2025, making clear that this office has in no way been negligent in the face of the situation reported by the citizen. Likewise, regarding the legal-technical report referenced by the appellant, titled "Informe Técnico Jurídico sobre las anomalías en el otorgamiento de patente comercial a terra equipos," submitted to this municipality by Attorney Miguel Herrera González on December 4, 2025, the report was received and forwarded to the investigating body of IPAD-006-2025 for inclusion in that preliminary investigation proceeding; furthermore, this was made known to Mr. Herrera Gómez, as representative of Mr. Nombre01, through official letter AMM-0900-2025 of December 11, 2025. Along the same lines, on February 3, 2026, an administrative claim was received from Mr. Herrera Gómez, as representative of Mr. Nombre01, requesting the initiation of an ordinary administrative proceeding regarding the same facts. In response, through official letter AMM-0127-2026 of February 16, 2026, this office addressed the administrative claim by reiterating that, through official letter No. IPAD‑006‑2025 of October 31, 2025, the preliminary investigation proceeding regarding the facts he reported in connection with the business license granted to the company Terra Equipos S.A. and the land use was initiated, stating that, before proceeding with such opening, this administration had, as a matter of discretion, considered it important to conduct a preliminary investigation in the case at issue, relying on jurisprudence of this Chamber, specifically its ruling No. número 2011-010890 of 14:30 hrs. of August 17, 2011, in which it was stated: "(…) In this regard, this Tribunal has held that in principle it is impossible to violate the right of defense during a preliminary investigation, since such investigation, strictly speaking (stricto sensu), does not form part of an administrative proceeding as such, but rather constitutes a preparatory stage, the purpose of which is to determine whether there is merit to open one or not. More specifically, it has been stated that a preliminary investigation may be defined as an optional verification exercise carried out by the Public Administration itself into the circumstances of the specific case." (Underlining is the respondent's own). In response to this, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal (recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against official letter AMM-0127-2026, which was resolved through resolution AMR-013-2026 of ten hours fifteen minutes of February 23, two thousand twenty-six, rejecting the motion for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal filed by Mr. Miguel Herrera González on behalf of Nombre01 against official letter AMM-0127-2026 of February 16, 2026, for the factual and legal reasons set forth therein. Subsequently, on February 25, 2025, Mr. Miguel Herrera González, on behalf of Nombre01, filed an appeal against resolution AMR-013-2026, which was resolved in resolution AMR-016-2026 of ten hours on March 11, two thousand twenty-six, and was notified on March 11, 2026; the motion for reconsideration was rejected, and the appeal will be heard by the improper hierarchical superior (jerarca impropio), who, as the competent body, will review the legality of those administrative actions; it is nonetheless evident that the administrative claims filed by the appellant before this administration have been duly addressed. […] Having stated the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that this administration, in response to the complaints submitted to the municipality by the appellant herein regarding the facts in question, has requested the various municipal departments to review the administrative actions taken and to carry out the required oversight, in order to verify that those actions conform to the law, as a result of which the technical departments have reported that the permits and licenses granted to the company Terra Equipos S.A. have been issued in conformity with the legal framework, following verification of effective compliance with the applicable legal and technical requirements. In this manner, taking into account what has been reported by the technical departments, but also attending to the citizen's concerns, this office, acting responsibly, and prior to initiating any administrative proceeding as requested by the appellant, has launched a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is merit to open such a proceeding, given that the competent municipal departments in each area have reported conduct that is thorough, objective, and in conformity with the legal framework; nonetheless, as a diligent administration, this office has proceeded with the preliminary investigation in response to the concerns expressed by the citizen, in order to determine the true facts of the matter, and, should the results of the preliminary investigation reveal any irregularity, this administration will take the appropriate measures. Accordingly, no omission or illegitimate action on the part of the Municipalidad de Mora is apparent; on the contrary, what is evident is the regular exercise of its control and administrative authorization powers, which have been carried out in strict adherence to the principle of legality, with no element having been established to date that would undermine this. Furthermore, what is evident is the diligent and thorough fulfillment of the oversight duty by this municipality through the conduct of the respective inspections and investigations in response to the complaints filed by the appellant herein, and since it has been demonstrated that the submissions presented by Mr. Nombre01—including reports, claims, and appeals—have been duly attended to, it is not accurate for the complainant to claim that this municipality has taken no action whatsoever.

IV. JURISDICTION OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH IN THE PRESENT CASE

In this case, it is important to note that, under the principle of legality, the Ministry of Health is the entity that holds the sole and exclusive legal jurisdiction to handle complaints in cases where some form of noise pollution (contaminación sónica) may exist. In this regard, see how the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido provides as follows: "(…) Article 8°—Entity responsible for measurements. In order to verify compliance with the provisions of these Regulations, as well as those derived therefrom, the Ministry of Health, through the Regional Health Governing Areas (Áreas Rectoras de Salud), shall conduct inspection visits to noise-emitting sources to measure noise levels within properties. (…)" (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Ley General de Salud establishes: "(…) On inspections and other proceedings ARTICLE 346.- For purposes of carrying out the effective control of compliance with the provisions of this act and its regulations, supplementary resolutions issued by health authorities within their jurisdiction, duly identified employees of the Ministry may conduct inspections or visits to carry out sanitary operations, collect samples, or gather background information or evidence, in buildings, dwellings, and industrial and commercial establishments, and in any location where violations of the aforementioned laws, regulations, and resolutions might be committed. Such proceedings must be conducted during the day, between six and eighteen hours, and private parties are obligated to facilitate them immediately. The time restriction shall not apply to inspections relating to the control of food, narcotics, hallucinogens, and psychotropic substances capable of producing, through their use, psychological or physical dependency. (…)" (Emphasis added). That same law further provides: "(…) ARTICLE 293.- Every natural or legal person is obligated to exercise maximum diligence in compliance with legal and regulatory provisions or with special orders issued by the competent authority, in order to prevent or control atmospheric and environmental pollution in places designated for housing, work, or recreation. (…)" Therefore, as is apparent from those provisions, which establish jurisdiction over situations of environmental and noise pollution such as those alleged by the appellant when he states that the activities of the company Terra Equipos at Dirección04 "generate excessive noise, vibrations, foul odors, and environmental contamination," the sole and exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Ministry of Health through the Regional Health Governing Areas; accordingly, it is that entity that is responsible for overseeing and controlling compliance with the law in order to prevent this type of pollution—and not, as the appellant seeks to argue, this municipality, which would be contrary to law.

V. WRIT OF AMPARO ADJUDICATED BY THIS CHAMBER UNDER FILE NUMBER 24-035927-0007-CO

In view of the facts alleged by the appellant in the present writ of amparo (recurso de amparo), it is necessary to refer to the writ of amparo processed by this Chamber under file number 24-035927-0007, filed by Nombre01, national identity card ED03 and Nombre07, national identity card ED05, against the MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA. In that writ of amparo, the appellants stated that they reside in the canton of Mora, in a residential and commercial zone. They indicated that "some months ago, a large-scale warehouse called 'Terra Equipos Alquiler y Venta de Equipos para la Construcción' was established on the property adjacent to their home." In the course of that proceeding, they reported that the Municipalidad de Mora had "expanded the land-use permits (permisos de usos de suelo) without oversight or review, which worsens the problem they are experiencing." They further stated that, with respect to the respondent municipality, they had tried to seek information without positive results. In response to the facts set forth by the appellant in that proceeding—the same appellant as in the present proceeding—this office, through a resolution of 14:49 hours on January 2, 2025, admitted the proceeding and requested a report from the director of the Regional Health Governing Area of Mora; likewise from the mayor and the president of the Municipal Council (Concejo), both of the Municipalidad de Mora, for which reason this office submitted the corresponding report before this Constitutional Tribunal on January 9, 2025. In light of the reports submitted, through resolution No. 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes on March 14, two thousand twenty-five, this office resolved, with respect to this administration, as follows: "(…) In the first place, with respect to the Municipalidad de Mora, any situation that at this time would merit the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction is prima facie ruled out. In this regard, it should be noted that it is not the role of this Chamber, in this summary amparo proceeding, to review whether the land uses and operating permits granted to the company referred to by the appellant conform or do not conform to the provisions of ordinary legislation. Accordingly, if the appellants are dissatisfied with such acts, they must raise the pertinent arguments before the competent ordinary administrative or judicial bodies, before which they may broadly discuss the merits of the matter and assert their claims. (…) Ergo, prima facie, any action or omission by the respondent municipality susceptible of being declared unlawful in this forum is ruled out. (…) Therefore: The writ is declared without merit. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado files a separate opinion (…)" Accordingly, from the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber in file No. 24-035927-0007-CO, it is clear that it is not the role of this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary forum of the writ of amparo, to review or assess the merits of administrative acts relating to land uses, commercial licenses, or operating permits, when these have been issued by the Administration in the regular exercise of its powers and in accordance with the principle of legality. In the present case, as in the precedent cited, no arbitrary, illegitimate, or omissive action attributable to the Municipalidad de Mora is established; rather, what is evident is a diligent administrative action that is attentive to the facts reported by the appellant, seeking the issuance of duly motivated administrative acts subject to technical and legal oversight, with respect to which it has already been demonstrated in this forum that this administration has not ignored the complaints filed by the appellant; on the contrary, it has even launched a preliminary inquiry for the purpose of thoroughly investigating and ruling out any irregularity. Therefore, in light of the reiterated jurisprudence of this Chamber and the objective elements set forth in this report, no violation of any fundamental rights is established that would merit the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction, making the writ of amparo inadmissible with respect to the complaints directed against this local government.

VI. THE SPECIFIC CASE

As has already been mentioned throughout this report, by way of summary it is stated that, in response to the complaints filed by the appellant with the municipality regarding the land-use permit (uso de suelo) issued by this municipality in connection with the property bearing registration number 401148 with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, from official letter No. DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by Phisilla Venegas Carvajal, land-use officer of the Municipalidad de Mora, it is apparent that the technical department considers the land-use permit that was issued to be in conformity with and compliant with the law, since, as the technical department indicates, the use granted through resolution CU-22-373 was issued in conformity with the zone in which the property is located, which, according to the report, is located in a residential zone, for which purpose the referenced land-use permit was issued in accordance with the uses permitted by the regulations for that zoning classification. Likewise, regarding the commercial license granted to Terra Equipos S.A. for STORAGE AND RENTAL, FOR EXHIBITION AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS—MINOR COMMERCE, to be operated on property Dirección03, with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992, as reported in official letter No. ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Commercial Licenses Department of the Municipalidad de Mora, that license was approved in conformity with the law, since the company Terra Equipos S.A. fulfilled all of the requirements established by the licensing regulations for each proceeding, for which reason the approved commercial licenses are today registered as active and issued in conformity with the law and with the zoning classification according to the approved land-use certificates; it is further reiterated that two licenses have been granted, for independent properties and for different activities, which has already been amply explained in this report. Accordingly, as the competent technical departments have already indicated, the land-use permits, construction permits, and commercial licenses granted by this Municipality for the development of the commercial activities of the company TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA on property Dirección03, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, have been issued in strict adherence to the legal framework and in compliance with the applicable technical and legal requirements, without any element having been established to date that would undermine that conclusion. Nevertheless, and in a heightened exercise of administrative diligence, this Administration has directed the opening of a preliminary investigation in order to clarify any doubt that may remain, thereby demonstrating that this office has carried out the various oversight actions that this municipality is required to execute—and that it has in fact executed—to ensure that the commercial activities approved by this local government for Terra Equipos S.A. conform to the law; in this regard, the office of the mayor, acting responsibly, has taken the respective administrative actions to respond to the complaints that the appellant herein has filed before the municipal administration, without being negligent in the face of those complaints. On the other hand, it has been established that, under the principle of legality, the noise and environmental pollution impacts reported by the complainant fall, pursuant to the regulations cited above, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health in coordination with its Regional Health Governing Areas, as it is this entity that is competent to oversee this type of environmental and/or noise pollution, to take measurements of noise-emitting sources, and to supervise and ensure effective compliance with the law in relation to these situations—and not this municipality. Finally, it should be borne in mind that, with respect to the facts set forth, this municipality has already demonstrated before this Chamber that it has fulfilled its legal duties in connection therewith, under writ of amparo No. 24-035927-0007-CO, resolved through resolution No. 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes on March 14, two thousand twenty-five. For all of the foregoing reasons, this office considers it confirmed that, within the scope of municipal powers, the appropriate actions have been taken in response to the concerns expressed by the appellant before this administration, without any omission, in order to comply with the principle of legality and applicable regulations, so that to date all administrative acts that have given rise to rights for the license holder (patentado) have been and are being reviewed, with the aim of confirming that everything conforms to the law. Accordingly, and as already noted, in a demonstration of diligent and prudent administrative action, this Administration has directed the opening of a preliminary investigation with the sole purpose of clarifying any doubt that may remain and definitively ruling out the existence of any potential irregularities, though without this being interpreted as a violation of constitutional guarantees; on the contrary, responsible conduct within all legal competencies of this local government has been demonstrated, and it is reiterated that this municipality has not been negligent in the face of the complaints filed. Furthermore, in accordance with the position of this Constitutional Chamber noted above (resolution No. 2025007768), it is not the role of this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary forum of the writ of amparo, to review or assess the merits of administrative acts relating to land uses, commercial licenses, or operating permits. In addition to this, it is reiterated that the distinguished magistrates must take into account that the jurisdiction to oversee and regulate noise pollution lies exclusively with the Ministry of Health, so that this local government bears no responsibility whatsoever in that regard. In that sense, it is requested that the present writ of amparo be declared without merit for lack of legal basis." 4.- Through a filing incorporated into the digital record at 15:46 hours on March 19, 2026, Mr. Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho submitted an active intervention (coadyuvancia activa) in the following terms:

"FIRST: That, pursuant to Articles 34 and concordant provisions of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, I appear in the present proceeding in the capacity of active intervener (coadyuvante activo) on behalf of the appellant, having a direct, personal, and legitimate interest in the outcome of this writ, as I am an adjacent neighbor (colindante) on the eastern side with the company whose industrial activity affects us.

SECOND: That my standing to intervene derives from my status as a direct adjacent neighbor (vecino colindante directo) of the property where the company Terra Equipos S.A.

carries out the reported activities, a situation that places me in a position of real, current, and ongoing harm, in terms substantially identical to those alleged by the appealing party.

THIRD: That the activities conducted on said property — industrial in nature within a residential-use zone — directly affect fundamental rights within my legal sphere, particularly with respect to:

The right to health and personal integrity • The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment FOURTH: That the harm described is neither eventual nor hypothetical, but material, verifiable, and persistent over time, arising from the continuous operation of heavy machinery, the transit of high-tonnage vehicles, and the generation of excessive noise, vibrations, and foul odors, under conditions incompatible with the residential use of the area.

FIFTH: That I fully adopt, in all their aspects, the facts, legal grounds, and claims set forth in the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) filed, which I make my own for all corresponding legal purposes.

SIXTH: That the inaction of the Municipalidad del Cantón de Mora is particularly serious; the municipality has sought to justify its omission by invoking the alleged existence of a preliminary disciplinary investigation (IPAD-006-2025), initiated in October 2025, without, as of this date, any substantive resolution, adoption of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), or effective action directed at halting the reported harm.

SEVENTH: That the purported preliminary investigation, far from constituting a valid mechanism of administrative action, has become an instrument of indefinite delay, lacking a fixed deadline and bearing no direct relation to the Administration's obligation to exercise its powers of control, oversight, and effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.

EIGHTH: That the existence of a preliminary investigation neither suspends nor replaces the Administration's constitutional duty to:

Resolve, in a prompt, express, and reasoned manner, the petitions submitted • Adopt immediate measures in the face of existing or imminent harm Prevent the continuation of violations of fundamental rights NINTH: That in the present case, the municipal omission acquires constitutional significance not only because of the absence of a substantive decision, but because it permits the continuation of a presumably unlawful activity with effects on the enjoyment of constitutional guarantees concerning health, the environment, and the quality of life of neighboring residents.

TENTH: That the unjustified delay in adopting measures, in the presence of ongoing and current harm, constitutes in itself an independent violation of the fundamental rights protected by Articles 21, 27, 45, and 50 of the Constitución Política.

ELEVENTH: That in this context, the Administration's conduct is contrary to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, environmental prevention, and effective administrative protection, as it has privileged an indefinite internal inquiry over the immediate protection of fundamental rights." 5.- By resolution issued at 06:08 hours on March 23, 2026, the reporting magistrate (magistrada instructora) granted an audience to the Minister of Health concerning the facts alleged by the appealing party.

6.- By written submission incorporated into the digital case file at 15:30 hours on March 26, 2026, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, provided the following sworn statement:

"As a preliminary matter, it is my duty to state that Executive Decree N° 40724-S of September 23, 2017, published in La Gaceta N°215 of November 14, 2017, Supplement 273, entitled Reglamento Orgánico del Ministerio de Salud, in force as of May 14, 2021, establishes as the mission of the Ministry of Health that it is the institution that directs and guides social actors in the development of actions that protect and improve the physical, mental, and social health of the population, through the exercise of oversight of the national health system (Rectoría del Sistema Nacional de Salud), with a focus on health promotion and disease prevention, fostering a healthy and balanced human environment, under the principles of equity, efficiency, quality, transparency, and respect for diversity, with the Constitución Política as the primary foundation of its actions, along with Ley N° 5395 of October 30, 1973, Ley General de Salud; Ley N° 5412 of November 8, 1973, Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud; and Executive Decree N° 40724-S, previously cited, among others. Furthermore, the Ley General de Salud, in Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, provides, among other things, that the health of the population is a public-interest asset protected by the State; that it is an essential function of the State to safeguard the health of the population; that it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, to define the national health policy and to formulate, plan, and coordinate all public and private activities related to health, as well as to carry out those activities that fall within its legal competence, with authority to issue autonomous regulations on these matters. It is important to note that every natural or legal person is subject to the mandates of the aforementioned law and other laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to health, which are of public order and, in the event of conflict, prevail over any other provisions of equal formal validity, without prejudice to the powers conferred by law on the autonomous institutions of the health sector, as well as to the general and particular orders, both ordinary and emergency, that health authorities issue in the exercise of their organic competences, and every person has the right to be duly informed by the competent official about the mandatory health regulations in force, except as otherwise provided in international conventions and treaties. Having set out the foregoing, I address the writ of amparo filed by Miguel Ángel Herrera González on behalf of Nombre01, who alleges that: "…his principal Nombre01, identity card CED02, is a resident living adjacent to a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., located in a residential zone but in which industrial-type activities are carried out in plain sight of the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that the respondent authority granted a business license (patente comercial) to Terra Equipos S.A. for the property registered in the San José registry as lot number 401148-000, survey map SJ-0068073-1972, pursuant to land use (uso de suelo) certificate number CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, on the purported basis that the activity to be conducted was 'RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES.' He notes that the aforementioned property is located in a residential zone where, under the currently applicable cantonal zoning plan (plan regulador) of Mora, industrial activities such as warehouses, workshops, and any analogous use generating disturbances to the neighborhood are expressly prohibited. He recounts that, following the issuance of the business license and progressively over time, Terra Equipos S.Nombre03. substantially modified the authorized activity and began carrying out activities of an industrial nature. He explains that said company engages in the mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic sludge (lodos sépticos) or excrement, operation of heavy machinery, and constant transit of heavy trucks, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend into the late-night hours. He alleges that the foregoing prevents the rest, tranquility, and dignified life of his principal, who is an elderly person, and of his family unit, all of whom have experienced a degradation in their quality of life. He states that for several months the protected party has appeared before administrative authorities — both the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health — seeking urgent intervention, for which purpose he submitted compelling technical, expert, and health-related evidence establishing the actual harm. Nevertheless, he claims that the respondent municipality has engaged in a prolonged and unjustified omission, tolerating the continuation of the harm over time without taking any action to safeguard the fundamental rights of his client and of the inhabitants of that residential zone within the canton. In this regard, he details that on December 4, 2025, his special representative, Miguel A. Herrera González, directed to the Mayor of Mora a document entitled 'TECHNICAL-LEGAL REPORT ON IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF A COMMERCIAL LICENSE TO TERRA EQUIPOS,' in which he set out that the activities of the aforementioned company take place until late at night, generating noise that exceeds the permissible limits for a residential zone. That report also referred to administrative irregularities detected and caused by heavy-vehicle traffic, electrical hazards, visibility into adjoining properties, and violations of privacy, and requested a municipal technical study on environmental noise and the protection of the rights of affected residents, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. He mentions that by official communication AMM-0900-2025 he was informed that the cited report had been added to the preliminary investigation proceeding opened on October 31, 2025, bearing consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. He challenges the fact that the Administration has kept the matter in an indefinite preliminary phase, without expressly resolving the main petition or adopting measures to protect his fundamental rights…". Having set out the foregoing, I respond to what the honorable Constitutional Tribunal has requested, relying on report CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026, issued by Dr. Luz Cuadra Morales, Director of the Área Rectora de Salud Mora (Health Governing Area of Mora), as a response to this action, which provides, insofar as relevant, the following:

CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026: "… I. REGARDING THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLANT That the complainants are elderly persons who reside in the Cantón de Mora in a residential and commercial zone. That adjacent to their property a large warehouse called 'Terra Equipos' was established, serving industrial purposes for the mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing and storage of vehicles transporting septic sludge and excrement, generating noise, vibrations, and disturbing odors, a complaint that they have raised before the Área Rectora de Salud Mora and the Municipalidad de Mora.

II. THE ACTIONS OF THE ÁREA RECTORA DE SALUD MORA AND THE SPECIFIC CASE

That on March 11, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud Mora received a complaint filed by the protected party, Mr. Nombre01, alleging problems with noise, high structures next to the wall of his property, and workshop activities not covered by the permits granted to the reported company, Terra Equipos. (folio 0048 to 0049) In response to the complaint, on March 18, 2024, we conducted an on-site inspection visit at the complainant's residence, where we were received by Ms. Nombre07, who stated that the main problem was the noise generated by the establishment and the risk of collapse of metallic structures stored adjacent to his wall that exceeded its height. It should be noted here that during the on-site inspection no noise from a workshop or from metal-striking sounds was heard. Stacking of metallic structures above the height of the wall, which could fall onto the complainant's property, was observed. On that occasion the reported establishment had its gates closed and no one answered the health authority's call; a follow-up inspection at the establishment was rescheduled for April 8, 2024. (folio 0050 and 0051) On April 8, 2024, at the reported establishment 'Terra Eventos,' we were received by Mr. Nombre08, the human capital manager. It was verified on site that metallic structures were being stored for sale and display, which was consistent with the operating health permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) that had been granted; on that same day no repair work on structures was observed, no workshop activity was confirmed, and there was no noise; however, the stacking of structures above the wall bordering the complainant's property was confirmed. The 'commercial and industrial activities inspection form' was applied, and health-related non-conformities were documented; through technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, it was recommended that the corresponding administrative acts be directed. (folios 0065 and 0070) As a result of the findings of the April 8, 2024 inspection, through sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, notified to the reported party on April 22, 2024, together with technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, the following were ordered to be completed within 20 business days: installation of smoke detectors, placement of emergency signage, maintenance of dispensers with liquid soap and disposable towels, availability of a first-aid kit, and prohibition on stacking structures above the wall to prevent the risk of collapse. (folios 0071 to 0075 and 0077) Everything described up to this point was brought to the attention of the protected party by email at 15:40 hours on April 9, 2024. (folio 0076) Continuing with the follow-up on the complaint, on May 21, 2024, the company Terra Equipos submitted to the Área Rectora de Salud Mora a written communication entitled 'Response to Sanitary Order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024,' reporting compliance with the orders. Accordingly, in follow-up to the submitted communication and sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, a visit to the establishment was conducted on May 28, 202[4] by the Área Rectora de Salud Mora. During that visit, full compliance was confirmed for points a., b., c., and d., and partial compliance for point e), which concerned the stacking of structures: on the western side the structures had been moved away from the wall and the first row did not exceed its height; however, on the eastern side a better arrangement remained pending for the structures placed on racks, which continued to exceed the height of the wall. It should be noted here that during the inspection no noise from the company was perceived, but a large amount of stored structures was observed. As a result of the compliance-verification visit, technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-237-2024 was issued. (folios 0091 to 0096) Since full compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024 had not been achieved — specifically point e), which required that structures not be stacked above the wall to prevent the risk of collapse — new sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024 was notified on June 4, 2024, instructing the company, given the quantity of metallic structures stored, to expand the operating health permit to include not only the sale and display but also the storage of structures, and within 15 business days to submit a stacking and storage arrangement proposal (estibaje) with implementation deadlines, validated by a qualified professional in the field, specifying the maximum stacking heights and setbacks from adjoining boundaries. (folios 0097 to 0099 and 0101) By email at 10:07 hours on May 30, 2024, the complainant was informed of the actions taken (folio 0100); on June 4, 2024, he stated that noise was continuing and that progress in rearranging the structures was slow (folio 0104–0105). This argument was addressed by email on June 11 (folio 0104), clarifying that during the verification inspection it had been confirmed that on the side adjacent to Mr. Loria's property the stacks were separated by more than one meter and that the ones closest to the residence did not exceed the height of the wall, and that, since no standard governs the separation of structures, the rearrangement proposal had been requested. Regarding noise, he was informed that the only way to establish a violation of the regulated noise limits is by means of a sound level measurement (sonometría) that must be scheduled on the date and at the time proposed by him. Not satisfied with this response, on June 20 — also by email — he stated that the stacks remain close to the walls, that the materials on racks pose a danger, raised new concerns about the roof structure made of heavy iron, and alleged continued noise and material intake; accordingly, on June 25, 2024, he was again asked to indicate a date and time for scheduling the sound level measurement. (folios 0102 to 0103) It is appropriate to note here that by email dated June 25 (folio 0102) the complainant was informed that on June 24, 2024, the company Terra Eventos had submitted a technical proposal for complying with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, which includes a schedule of activities for addressing the stacking arrangement of structures — consisting of moving and rearranging structures — to be implemented from June to September 2024. The technical proposal, prepared by a qualified occupational health professional, was duly reviewed and endorsed by this Área Rectora de Salud Mora Directorate. (folios 0106 to 0130) Furthermore, attached to said proposal was the municipal land use expansion for the storage of structures. (folios 0112 to 0115 and 0130) Now, in view of the new concern raised regarding the alleged risk posed by the roofs of the establishment, on July 16 a site visit was conducted, and it was confirmed that the roofs were in good condition, had no broken or loose parts or parts that moved in the wind, and had no bent beams or columns; nonetheless, in order to obtain a better professional technical opinion, technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-295-2024 recommended that the Área Rectora de Salud Mora Directorate request technical support from the Oversight Unit of the Dirección Regional Central Sur so that a civil engineer could assess the structure. (folios 0133 to 0138) The actions taken were reported to the complainant by email on July 22, 2024. (folio 0139) On July 24, 2024, due to the quantity of stored structures and in accordance with the provisions of Decreto N° 43432-S, Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud, the company Terra Eventos submitted documentation for the expansion of its operating health permit, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed requirements, certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 was issued. (folio 0165) This was done taking into account that the Municipalidad de Mora had already issued the expansion of a land use classification consistent with the storage of structures.

By email dated August 5, 2024, the complainant inquired about details of the civil engineer's visit; on August 7 he was informed that no date had yet been set. We took the opportunity to inform him that on August 8, 2024, the inspector would be conducting visits in the Colón district so that, if he wished, the sound level measurement could be carried out; however, no response was received. (folio 0166) On August 19, 2024, Mr. Loria filed a new complaint, this time concerning problems with the washing of portable toilets at the Terra Eventos establishment, and inquired whether the measurement had been conducted; he was informed that the following day, August 20, the engineer would carry it out. He was also told that since no response had been received to the email sent to schedule the measurement, it had not been programmed. (folio 0167) On August 20, a site visit was conducted to verify the problems with the washing of portable toilets and the structural condition of the roofs. With respect to the portable-toilet washing problem, technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-364-2024 was generated documenting the reported facts. (folios 0170 to 0171) The actions taken and confirmed were communicated to the complainant by email on August 21, 2024. (folio 0172) With respect to the structural assessment of the roofs, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Oscar Arroyo Barahona, through report MS-DRRSCS-URS-IT-0435-2024 dated August 22, 2024, found no imminent danger to the structural stability, a finding communicated to the protected party by email on August 28, 2024. (folios 0174 to 0178) Regarding the follow-up and verification of the technical proposal submitted by the reported company for completing the rearrangement of the structures, on September 19, 2024, during an inspection visit and per technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-434-2024, it was confirmed that the majority of the points set out in the technical proposal had been complied with, with only the placement of signage and the completion of weekly inspection records still pending. (folios 0181 to 0185) The actions taken were again reported to the complainant on September 20, 2024, by email. (folio 0186) On that same day it was agreed to schedule a sound level measurement for September 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (folios 0187 to 0188), a date on which, due to the absence of noise from the reported company, it was impossible to carry out the sound level measurement test. A new sound level measurement attempt was made on October 7, 2024; however, there was likewise no noise. (folio 0189 to 0190) On December 3, the complainant was informed that measurements could be conducted on the morning and afternoon of December 5 and 9, 2024, respectively. (folio 0191) On December 5, the measurement could not be carried out due to the absence of noise. (folio 0194 and 0195) It should be noted that on December 9 the measurement could not be conducted because Mr. Loría misunderstood the email sent, as he himself acknowledged, and had to attend a medical appointment. (folio 0193) On December 19, at 10:00 a.m., Mr. Loría sent an email reporting noise at the establishment (folio 0196), and although no sound level measurement had been scheduled, Área Rectora de Salud Mora staff set aside their office duties to proceed with the corresponding measurement. The result, per technical report MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-001-2025, was 48.4 dB (A) for the ambient noise level with the generating source active, which did not exceed the 65 dB (A) threshold established for residential zones under the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S. (folios 0199 to 0206) The sound level measurement result was sent to Mr. Loria by email on January 7, 2025. (folio 0211) On January 8, 2025, a return visit was made to the Terra Eventos establishment, and it was confirmed that compliance with the remaining points of sanitary order No. CS-ARS-MP-114-2024 had been achieved. (folios 0214 to 0218) Mr. Loría was informed of the compliance by email dated January 9, 2025. (folio 0219) On February 17, 2025, an email was received in which Mr. Loría stated that on February 13, 2025, much noise had been heard from the Terra Eventos company; in response, on February 18 he was asked to confirm whether the disturbing noise was continuing from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. every day, so that a sound level measurement could be coordinated — as we needed to request the equipment from another health governing area because ours was being calibrated — but no response was received. (folio 0230) On March 10, 2025, we received a document from Lic. Valeria Bolaños González, at that time the attorney of Mr. Nombre01, alleging problems due to sound pollution (contaminación sónica) caused by industrial activity carried out at the Terra Eventos company (folios 0231–0234); as a result, on March 19, 2025, we attended at the residence of the affected parties for the purpose of conducting a sound level measurement; however, the measurement could not be carried out because there was no noise. (folio 0251) Again, on March 26, 2025, and May 15, 2025, attempts were made by email to coordinate a sound level measurement with the affected party, as established by the noise measurement procedure; however, no response was provided. (folio 0252–0253) Mr. Loría did not communicate by email until June 5, 2025, stating that the noise was continuing and asking whether we had notified any document to Terra Eventos expressing the complaints, and inquiring about what activities the company was permitted to carry out at the site. (folio 0254) He was informed by email on June 9, 2025, that notification to the company was not warranted, since the sound level measurement conducted in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted decibel levels and the reported noise problems had not been substantiated. He was also informed that we could attend to conduct the sound level measurement on June 16, 2025, to which no response was likewise received. (folio 0255) On July 1, 2025, Mr. Loría sent an email stating that a truck carrying septic sludge had been parked at Terra Eventos, which he considered harmful to his health; he was informed on July 2, 2025, that the following day we would conduct a visit both to carry out the sound level measurement and to verify the matter regarding the septic sludge truck. (folio 0256) On July 3, 2025, a return visit was made to the premises. No noise was perceived from outside the facility, so no sound measurement (sonometría) could be conducted. Upon entering the business, it was verified that the only equipment operating on the premises was a forklift arranging structures; a full walkthrough of the storage yard was conducted and no mechanical work of any kind was being carried out; there were no trucks carrying septic sludge on the premises, no bothersome odors, and no discharge of wastewater or sludge onto the ground. (folios 0258–0261). By email sent on July 8, 2025, Mr. Loría was informed of the findings made during the July 3, 2025 inspection. (folio 0262). On August 6, 2025, a note was received in which Mr. Nombre01 raised a series of questions regarding the company Terra Eventos, including noise pollution (contaminación sónica) problems (folios 0263–0279); this document was answered by means of official letter No. CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, informing him that multiple attempts at sound measurement had been made—specifically at point 2, subsection b)—however, it had not been possible to carry them out, either because there was no noise or because he had not come forward to coordinate. In addition, several points were clarified regarding trespassing onto private property, loss of privacy, fire hazard, bothersome odors, and the stacking (estibaje) of structures (0280–0282). On October 23, 2025, a document titled "administrative petition for enforcement of an unfulfilled sanitary order" was received (folios 0283–0299), in which Lic. Miguel Herrera González, representative of Mr. Nombre01, pointed out various irregularities concerning the operation of the business, including noise problems. Each of the points raised in the document was addressed by means of document CARTA MS-DRRCS-ARSM-645-2025, including the matter of noise pollution (subsection D). Said response document was sent by email on October 30, 2025. (folio 0300 to 0304). On January 6, 2026, by email, Mr. Loría again reported bothersome noises coming from the company Terra Eventos, as well as the presence of a septic sludge tank (folio 0325); an inspection was therefore scheduled for January 13, 2026. On that day, no sound measurement could be conducted because there was no noise; moreover, no persons were observed washing machinery or engaging in activities generating noise; there were no trucks with septic sludge on the premises; no water was observed at ground level; and no bothersome odors were perceived. (folios 0330–0334). The complainant was informed of this by email (folio 0336). In light of all the foregoing, it is demonstrated that this Health Authority has not been remiss in the fulfillment of its duties and has devoted itself to attending to each of the grievances raised throughout the complaint process, and has responded to all petitions submitted by the party concerned. …". (emphasis in the original) It is imperative to clarify that the Ministry of Health does not grant operating permits or commercial licenses (patentes comerciales) for commercial establishments; what the Ministry grants are sanitary operating permits (permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento) or sanitary authorizations. It must be understood that what defines these permits and/or authorizations are precisely the physical and sanitary conditions of the premises that allow it to operate, all in accordance with the provisions of Articles 222, 298, 323, 324, and 328 of Law No. 5395 of October 30, 1973, "Ley General de Salud." It is the obligation of every natural or legal person engaged in a commercial, industrial, or service activity to hold a sanitary operating permit; in the specific case of the commercial establishment "Terra Eventos," such a permit is in place. As can be seen, the reported situation has been properly attended to; the authorities of this Ministry have been unable to identify that the activities carried out at the commercial establishment produce noise pollution or any other form of environmental pollution; the corresponding administrative acts have been issued and the orders given have been complied with, all of which has been communicated to the complainant. The Ministry can only commit to continuing to address each situation raised by the appellant, and to conducting, where necessary, the corresponding verifications (noise measurements) that would make it possible to determine whether the noise being reported is actually occurring—something that has not been confirmed despite having conducted the corresponding noise measurements." **7.-** The prescribed legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.

Opinion drafted by Justice (Magistrada) **Garro Vargas**; and, **Considering:** **I.- Subject matter of the appeal.** The petitioner (recurrente) states that his represented party is a neighbor adjacent to a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.Nombre03., located in a residential zone of the canton of Mora, where industrial-type activities are being carried out with the knowledge of the respondent municipality. He states that said authority granted a commercial license (licencia comercial) under the assumption that the activity corresponded to the rental and sale of construction equipment and the display of metallic structures, despite the fact that the property is located in a zone where the regulatory plan (plan regulador) expressly prohibits industrial activities. He also states that, after the license was granted, the company substantially changed its line of business, now engaging in activities such as large-scale storage of materials, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, handling of trucks transporting septic waste, operation of heavy machinery, and constant transit of cargo vehicles, generating excessive noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use. Furthermore, he argues that these activities directly affect the peace, rest, and quality of life of the protected party (tutelado), who is an elderly person, as well as of his immediate family, due to the intensity and continuity of the disturbances. He states that, despite having appeared before the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health, submitting technical and sanitary evidence, no effective measures have been taken to remedy the situation. In that regard, he states that on December 4, 2025, a technical-legal report was submitted to the mayor setting out irregularities in the granting of the commercial license, the impacts of noise, heavy traffic, risks, and the infringement of privacy, and requesting that technical studies be conducted and that the rights of the residents be protected. He states that, while it was indicated that said report was incorporated into an administrative proceeding, this proceeding remains in an indefinite preliminary phase, with no resolution or adoption of concrete measures. Finally, he argues that the prolonged omission on the part of the respondent authority has permitted the continuation of activities incompatible with land use (uso de suelo), thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the other residents of the area, and therefore requests that the appeal be declared well-founded with the legal consequences provided by law.

**II.- Preliminary matter.** Prior to analyzing the merits of the matter—regarding the alleged violation of the right to prompt and complete proceedings—it must be clarified that, pursuant to ruling No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Sala has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa)—with certain exceptions—those matters in which it is disputed whether the public administration has or has not complied with the time limits established by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (Articles 261 and 325) or by sectoral laws governing special administrative proceedings, both for issuing a final act concluding an administrative proceeding—whether initiated ex officio or at the request of a party—and for ruling on the applicable administrative appeals. Precisely in this case, an exception applies, as the matter involves a complaint for noise pollution which, allegedly, has not been resolved within a reasonable period of time by the respondent ministry. Having clarified this point, the Court proceeds to resolve the specific situation raised in this writ of amparo (amparo).

**III.- On intervention.** Intervention (coadyuvancia) is a form of adhesive participation that occurs when a person acts in a proceeding by aligning themselves with the claims of one of the main parties. Accordingly, any person holding a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding is entitled to appear as an intervenor (coadyuvante), even though, not being the petitioner or the respondent, they will not be directly affected by the ruling in the judgment. Intervention is, therefore, the procedural vehicle allowing such a person to lend their support to the party whose interest coincides with theirs in order to facilitate the success of that party's claim; the intervenor is neither an independent party nor a joint litigant, but merely an adherent without procedural standing to bring an independent claim in the same proceeding. On this point, Article 34 of the Law of this Jurisdiction provides as follows:

*"Article 34. The appeal shall be directed against the public servant or the head of the body that appears as the alleged author of the harm. If one or the other acted in compliance with orders or instructions issued by a superior, or with the superior's authorization or approval, the amparo shall be deemed filed against both, without prejudice to what is decided in the judgment. If the identity of the public servant is unknown, the appeal shall be deemed filed against the hierarchical superior.* *A third party who derives subjective rights from the rule or the act giving rise to the amparo proceeding shall also be considered a party.* *Furthermore, any person having a legitimate interest in the outcome of the appeal may appear and intervene therein as an intervenor on behalf of either the claimant or the respondent."* (Underline emphasis not in original.)

In this way, the effectiveness of the ruling cannot reach the intervenor in a direct and immediate manner, nor can the res judicata (cosa juzgada) effect of the judgment affect the intervenor—although in amparo matters the intervenor may benefit from the effect of the ruling, given the erga omnes character of the jurisprudence and precedents of the constitutional jurisdiction (Article 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In this case, the Sala proceeds to admit the intervention submitted by Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho, pursuant to the terms of Article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, given that he declares that he holds a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding in his capacity as a neighbor adjacent to the property where the reported activities are taking place, and alleges harm under conditions substantially coinciding with those set forth by the petitioner.

**IV.- Proven facts.** Of relevance to the resolution of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly established, either because they have been substantiated as such or because the respondent party failed to address them as required in the initial writ (auto inicial):

• 1)On March 11, 2024, the protected party (amparado) filed a complaint with the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora regarding noise problems, tall structures placed next to the perimeter wall (tapia) of his property, and workshop activities that, in his view, were not covered by the permits granted to the reported company Terra Equipos (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 2)On March 18, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted an ocular inspection at the petitioner's residence, where they were attended to by Nombre07; they did not perceive any noise coming from a workshop or the striking of metals; they observed metal structures stacked above the perimeter wall with a potential risk of falling onto the adjacent property; and they confirmed that the reported establishment was closed, for which reason the inspection at the commercial premises was rescheduled for April 8, 2024 (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 3)On April 8, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted an inspection at the reported establishment, in which they verified the storage of metal structures for sale and display in accordance with the sanitary operating permit; no workshop activity or structural repair work was found; no noise was perceived; and the stacking of structures above the perimeter wall adjoining the complainant's property was confirmed (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 4)On April 9, 2024, the complainant (promovente) was informed by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora in connection with his complaint (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 5)On April 22, 2024, the reported company was notified of sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, by which it was ordered to install smoke detectors, place emergency signage, maintain dispensers with liquid soap and disposable paper towels, keep a first-aid kit on hand, and refrain from stacking structures above the perimeter wall in order to prevent the risk of falls (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 6)On May 21, 2024, the company Terra Equipos submitted a written response to sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, reporting compliance with the measures ordered (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 7)On May 28, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verified compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024; they confirmed full compliance with several items; they found partial compliance regarding the stacking of structures above the perimeter wall; they did not perceive any noise coming from the company; and they did observe a large storage of metal structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 8)On May 30, 2024, the protected party was informed by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora and of the follow-up given to the sanitary order issued against the reported company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 9)On June 4, 2024, the reported company was notified of sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, by which it was instructed to expand the operating permit to include the storage of structures and to submit, within fifteen business days, a technical storage and stacking proposal validated by a competent professional, specifying maximum heights and setbacks from boundary lines (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 10)On June 4, 2024, the petitioner reported the continuation of noise and the slow progress in the rearrangement of structures within the reported establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 11)On June 11, 2024, the claimant (accionante) was informed that, during the verification inspection, it had been confirmed that the stacks on the side adjoining his property were set back more than one meter and that those closest to the dwelling did not exceed the height of the perimeter wall; he was also advised that any potential noise infraction could only be determined by means of a sound level measurement (sonometría) scheduled on a date and at a time he himself proposed (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital file).
• 12)On June 20 and 25, 2024, the complainant (promovente) reiterated his concerns about the proximity of structures to the boundary wall, the risk posed by materials stored on racks, concerns about the roof structure, noise, and the entry of material; the Área Rectora de Salud again asked him to indicate a date and time to schedule the sonic measurement (medición sónica) (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 13)On June 24 and 25, 2024, the accused company submitted a technical proposal to comply with health order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, with a schedule running from June to September 2024 for the movement and repositioning of structures, a proposal that was reviewed and endorsed by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora, together with the municipal land-use expansion permit for the storage of structures, a circumstance that was communicated to the protected party (tutelado) (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 14)On July 16, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora again inspected the establishment and found that the roofs were in good condition, with no broken, detached, or unstable parts, for which reason it was recommended to request specialized technical support for a supplementary structural assessment by a civil engineer (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 15)On July 22 and 24, 2024, the protected party (amparado) was informed of the actions taken regarding the roof structure, and furthermore, the company Terra Eventos submitted documentation to expand its operating health permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento), with certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 being issued upon verification of the municipal land-use expansion for the storage of structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 16)On August 5, 7, 19, and 20, 2024, the appellant (recurrente) inquired about the civil engineer's visit, reported problems related to the washing of latrines (letrinas), and again raised the need for a sonic measurement, while the Área Rectora de Salud informed him of the scheduled date for the inspection, conducted a visit to verify the reported facts, and generated the corresponding technical report, subsequently notifying him of the actions taken (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 17)On August 22 and 28, 2024, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Óscar Arroyo Barahona concluded that the establishment's structure did not present an imminent danger to its stability, and this finding was communicated to the complainant by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 18)On September 19, 20, and 23, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verified the implementation of the technical proposal for the repositioning of structures, confirmed that most of its points had been met, leaving only the installation of signage and weekly inspection records pending, informed the petitioner (accionante) thereof, and scheduled a sonic measurement for September 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., a proceeding that could not be carried out due to the absence of noise coming from the accused company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 19)On October 7, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora made a new attempt at a sonic measurement, which also could not be completed due to the absence of noise generated by the accused company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 20)On December 3, 5, 9, and 19, 2024, the protected party was informed of new opportunities to conduct a sonic measurement; one of them could not be carried out due to the absence of noise; another did not take place because the complainant himself misread the email sent to him and had to attend a medical appointment; and finally, upon receiving an email from Mr. Loría reporting noise, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud set aside their office duties to carry out the measurement, obtaining a result of 48.4 dB(A), corresponding to ambient noise plus an active generating source, a level that did not exceed the maximum of 65 dB(A) permitted for residential zones under the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N.° 39428-S (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 21)On January 7, 8, and 9, 2025, the appellant received the results of the noise level measurement (sonometría) conducted in December 2024 and, furthermore, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora confirmed that the accused company had fulfilled the outstanding points of health order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, a circumstance that was also communicated to him by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 22)On February 17 and 18, 2025, the protected party once again reported the existence of noise coming from the accused company, and the Área Rectora de Salud asked him to confirm available times to coordinate a sonic measurement, advising him that the equipment would need to be requested from another health authority area because its own was being calibrated, with no subsequent response from the complainant on record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 23)On March 10 and 19, 2025, the complainant, through his then-attorney, again reported sound pollution (contaminación sónica), and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora went to the affected parties' home to conduct a measurement, a proceeding that could not be completed due to the absence of noise (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 24)On March 26, May 15, and June 5 and 9, 2025, the Área Rectora de Salud sought to coordinate new sonic measurements with the affected party (afectado), received no response to several of those attempts, and when Mr. Loría again reported persistent noise, he was informed that it was not appropriate to notify the company of sound pollution because the measurement conducted in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted limits and the reported problems had not been verified; an offer was also made to conduct a new measurement on June 16, 2025, with no response on record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 25)On July 1, 2, 3, and 8, 2025, the protected party reported the presence of a truck carrying septic sludge (lodos sépticos) at the Terra Eventos company; the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection for the following day, conducted a visit to the site, and confirmed that no noise was perceptible from outside, that a sonic measurement could not be carried out due to the absence of sound, that inside the establishment only a forklift (montacargas) was operating to reposition structures, that no mechanical work was being performed, that there were no trucks carrying septic sludge, no discharges of wastewater or sludge, and no unpleasant odors; subsequently, these findings were reported to the appellant by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 26)On August 6, 2025, the appellant submitted a written filing raising various complaints about the Terra Eventos company, including those related to sound pollution, trespass on private property, loss of privacy, fire hazard, unpleasant odors, and the stacking of structures, a matter that was answered through official communication CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, which clarified that multiple sonic measurement attempts had been made without it being possible to complete them, either due to the absence of noise or due to a lack of coordination with the affected party (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 27)On October 23 and 30, 2025, the representative of Mr. Nombre01 submitted an administrative petition for the enforcement of a health order that he considered had not been complied with, and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora responded in writing to each of the points raised, including the one related to sound pollution (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 28)On January 6 and 13, 2026, the protected party again reported disturbing noise and the presence of a septic sludge tank at the Terra Eventos company, for which reason the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection and, upon conducting it, was unable to carry out a sonic measurement due to the absence of noise, observed no persons washing machinery or carrying out activities that generated noise, found no trucks carrying septic sludge, detected no water on the ground, and perceived no unpleasant odors; these results were subsequently communicated to the complainant (denunciante) by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 29)As of March 26, 2026, the commercial establishment Terra Eventos held an operating health permit issued by the Ministry of Health, including the corresponding expansion for the storage of structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

III.- Unproven Fact. The following fact of relevance to this decision is not considered duly established:

Sole: That a final administrative act or definitive ruling on the part of the Ministry of Health exists declaring the existence of sound pollution at the accused establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

IV.- Analysis on the Merits. First, it should be noted that this Tribunal has held that sound pollution produced by noise has an impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. On this subject, in judgment n.°2025-009098 of 09:50 a.m. on March 25, 2025, the following was stated:

"IV.- On the Specific Case. From the relationship between Article 24 and Article 28 of our Political Constitution, the principle of freedom governing individuals has as one of its limits the prohibition against harming third parties, and for that reason the protection of their sphere of privacy and, consequently, of the tranquility inherent to that sphere. Noise disturbs tranquility, especially when it concerns the place where one resides. Furthermore, in light of other constitutional provisions such as Article 50, which enshrines the right to a healthy environment, and Article 21, from which the right to health has been derived, the State is called upon to guarantee an environment free from sound pollution. For those reasons, with respect to the activities of karaoke establishments, live music venues, and similar establishments, the case law of this Tribunal has been clear in emphasizing the need to respect the rights of neighboring residents." It may be observed from the precedent partially cited above that the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that sound pollution constitutes a form of environmental aggression that directly affects the health and tranquility of individuals, such that, when the permitted threshold is exceeded, the State is obligated to deploy effective and verifiable action to prevent, correct, and, where appropriate, put an end to the source of pollution.

In the present matter, it is not apparent that the respondent health authority has caused a substantive injury to the fundamental rights of the protected party with respect to sound pollution, since the sequence of actions taken shows that, from the complaint filed on March 11, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud activated on-site verification mechanisms, conducting initial inspections, issuing health orders, and carrying out follow-up visits to assess the conditions of the accused establishment. Along those lines, inspections were conducted in March, April, and May of 2024, during which, although other sanitary situations were identified—such as the storage of structures and safety conditions—no noise was perceived at the times of verification, which required rescheduling proceedings and maintaining administrative follow-up.

Now, with regard to the sound measurements themselves, it appears that the authority attempted to carry them out on multiple occasions during 2024—including in September, October, and December—without these being able to be completed, either because no noise was being generated at the time of the inspection or due to coordination circumstances involving the complainant himself, which is decisive, inasmuch as the technical measurement depends on the effective presence of the reported phenomenon.

Furthermore, when a measurement was finally carried out in December 2024, in the presence of activity at the site, the result obtained was 48.4 dB(A), a value that falls below the permitted limit for a residential zone, making it impossible to establish the existence of a violation of the applicable regulations.

On the other hand, throughout 2025 the health authority (autoridad sanitaria) continued to respond to the complaints of the protected party (tutelado), seeking to carry out new measurements in February, March, and subsequent months, without being able to complete them on several occasions due to the absence of noise at the time of the visit or due to lack of coordination; additional inspections were even conducted in July of that year, in which once again no sound levels were detected that would allow for a valid measurement to be taken. In this way, far from evidencing passive conduct, what is established is a repeated, progressive course of action technically oriented toward verifying the complaint (denuncia), in which the absence of conclusive results is attributable to the factual impossibility of capturing the phenomenon at the moments of measurement, and not to an administrative omission.

Accordingly, given that no technical measurement has established an exceedance of the permitted noise levels, and given that no inaction on the part of the health authority in verifying the complaint has been shown, it is not possible to find that a violation of the fundamental rights of the protected party has been established with respect to the material dimension of noise pollution (contaminación sónica).

However, what does constitute a violation of the protected party's fundamental rights is that, despite the fact that since 11 March 2024 the protected party has reported, among other things, the noise problem, no final administrative act (acto final) resolving that matter expressly, clearly, and definitively had been issued as of the date the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) was filed. Indeed, although the health authority has carried out various verification and follow-up actions, these have remained strictly at the material and preparatory level, without resulting in a conclusive decision determining whether or not a violation exists and, if so, ordering the corresponding measures. To that extent, the absence of a final ruling prevents the obligation to promptly and expressly resolve the petitions submitted by members of the public (administrados) from being deemed satisfied, since it is not sufficient to carry out verification proceedings if those proceedings do not culminate in an act that defines the legal situation brought before the Administration. Therefore, the prolongation of the matter in an indefinite state, without a resolution that brings it to a close, constitutes a violation of the right to a prompt administrative resolution enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitución Política.

Consequently, it is appropriate to grant the writ with respect to this aspect of the appeal.

V.- Regarding the complaints directed against the Municipalidad de Mora, it must be noted, first, that the issue relating to the alleged noise pollution was already addressed in the preceding recital, in which it was determined that the verification, measurement, and control of noise levels falls within the purview of the Ministerio de Salud, in its capacity as the technically competent authority in the matter. To that extent, it is not appropriate to transfer to the Municipalidad the responsibility for an alleged harm arising from sound levels, when that entity does not hold the authority to measure them or to adopt the corresponding health measures, and therefore cannot be attributed, in that domain, with an omission of constitutional significance.

On the other hand, regarding the remaining allegations raised by the appealing party—relating to the granting of the business license (licencia comercial), the conformity of the land use (uso de suelo), the possible modification of the authorized activity, and the adequacy of the municipal oversight functions—it is noted that these fall within a discussion proper to the realm of ordinary legality. Indeed, such challenges require determining whether the administrative actions of the local government conform to the applicable urban planning regulations, the current regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the specific conditions under which the commercial operating license (patente comercial) was granted, an inquiry that demands a technical and evidentiary analysis exceeding the scope of the amparo proceeding.

In that regard, it is not the role of this constitutional jurisdiction to act as a reviewing instance for the legality of administrative acts issued by the Municipalidad, nor to substitute for the active Administration in the assessment of technical matters related to land use, the granting of licenses, or the exercise of oversight powers, especially when the legal system provides adequate ordinary channels for challenging such acts. Therefore, as no arbitrary or omissive conduct with a direct bearing on fundamental rights has been shown, but rather a disagreement with the administrative actions taken, the claims raised in this respect are inadmissible in the amparo proceeding.

**VI.- Note by Justice Castillo Víquez, regarding prompt and complete administrative justice.** I have supported this Court's position that when a party before the court (justiciable) alleges a violation of the right to prompt and complete justice (justicia pronta y cumplida) in the administrative sphere, the legal dispute should be heard by the contentious-administrative courts (Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo) and not by this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, it has been established that this right is susceptible to judicial protection by means of the writ of amparo established by Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in conjunction with Article 27 of the Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, in those cases in which the petitioner considers that the material actions of the Administration, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting his or her fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not imply that this Court must modify its line of jurisprudence; pursuant to section 7 of its governing law, the Court is the exclusive arbiter of its own jurisdiction. Therefore, with the exception of those constitutional-legal disputes that this same Chamber has recognized as exceptional cases—which may indeed be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo proceeding—in all other cases, and for the reasons stated by this Court (sentencia N° 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on 22 February 2008), jurisdiction lies with the judges of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal provisions, on the basis of a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.

**VII.- Note by Justice Salazar Alvarado.** In environmental matters, it is also my view that, when the Public Administration has already intervened, the cognizance and resolution of the matter belongs to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I do proceed to consider the merits when other rights of those affected by the source of pollution (foco de contaminación) are at stake, including the right to health, the right to quality of life, and the right to enjoy a clean environment free from pollution (Article 50 of the Constitución Política), as is the case here, in which the appealing party filed a complaint regarding the irregular operation of an establishment causing environmental and noise pollution, implicating the right to a healthy environment and the right to health—rights which, the appealing party alleges, have not been definitively resolved, in violation of the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and a dignified quality of life.

**VIII.- Documentation submitted to the case file.** The parties are hereby notified that any paper documents submitted, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computational, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena at Session No. 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as pursuant to the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at Session No. 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The writ is granted, solely on the ground of the violation of the right to prompt and complete administrative justice. Accordingly, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, or whoever holds that office, is ordered to take all necessary steps within her sphere of competence so that, within a maximum period of **TWO MONTHS** counted from the notification of this judgment, the complaint filed by the petitioner (amparado) on 11 March 2024 is definitively resolved. The respondent party is hereby warned that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, will be imposed upon anyone who receives an order issued in an amparo proceeding that they are required to comply with or enforce, and who fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely punishable under another provision. The State is condemned to pay the costs and any damages and losses caused by the facts underlying this ruling, which shall be assessed in the enforcement proceedings of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. As to the Municipalidad de Mora, the writ is denied. Justice Castillo Víquez files a separate note. Justice Salazar Alvarado records a note. Notify the parties.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo.

Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- Telephones: Telf01 / ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección05, Dirección06, 100 meters south of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).

--- Res. Nº 2026013352 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first of April of two thousand twenty-six.

Writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) processed under case file number 26-004879-0007-CO, filed by **MIGUEL HERRERA GONZÁLEZ**, professional license (carnet profesional) no. 2840, on behalf of **Nombre01**, national identification number CED03, against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA**.

**Background:** **1.-** By written submission presented before this Court at 15:08 hours on February 11, 2026, the petitioner filed a writ of amparo against the Municipalidad de Mora. The petitioner states that the protected party is a neighboring resident adjacent to a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., which is located in a residential zone but where industrial-type activities are being carried out in plain sight of and with the acquiescence of the Municipalidad de Mora. The petitioner states that the respondent authority granted a business license (licencia comercial) to the company Terra Equipos S.A. on the property registered in the San José registry district under lot number 401148-000, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, on the basis of land-use certificate (uso de suelo) no. CU-22-373 dated May 6, 2022, on the premise that the activity to be conducted was "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METAL STRUCTURES." The petitioner notes that the aforementioned property is situated in a residential zone in which, pursuant to the applicable zoning plan (plan regulador) for the canton of Mora, industrial activities are expressly prohibited, including: warehouses, workshops, and any analogous use that generates disturbances to the neighborhood. The petitioner recounts that, subsequent to the granting of the business license and progressively, the company Terra Equipos S.A. substantially modified the authorized activity and began conducting other activities of an industrial nature. The petitioner explains that said company engages in the mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or fecal matter, operation of heavy machinery, and constant transit of heavy trucks, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend into late night hours. The petitioner alleges that the foregoing prevents the rest, tranquility, and dignified life of the protected party, who is an elderly person, as well as of the protected party's household, all of whom have experienced a degradation of their quality of life. The petitioner states that for several months the protected party has approached administrative authorities — both the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health — in order to request urgent intervention, for which purpose conclusive technical, expert, and sanitary evidence was submitted demonstrating the actual harm sustained. Nevertheless, the petitioner claims that the respondent municipality has engaged in a prolonged and unjustified omission, tolerating the ongoing harm without taking any action to safeguard the fundamental rights of the protected party and of the residents of the canton in that residential zone. In this regard, the petitioner details that on December 4, 2025, the petitioner's special representative, Miguel A. Herrera González, directed to the mayor of Mora a document entitled "TECHNICAL AND LEGAL REPORT ON THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF A BUSINESS PERMIT (PATENTE COMERCIAL) TO TERRA EQUIPOS," through which the petitioner set forth that the activities of the aforementioned company continue until late at night, generating noise that exceeds the permitted limits in a residential zone. That report likewise referenced administrative irregularities detected and caused by heavy traffic, electrical hazards, sightlines into adjacent properties, and violations of privacy, for which reason a municipal technical study on environmental noise was requested, along with protection of the rights of affected neighbors, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. The petitioner mentions that through official communication AMM-0900-2025, it was indicated that the aforementioned report had been added to the preliminary investigation proceeding opened on October 31, 2025, under consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. The petitioner challenges the fact that the Administration has kept the matter at an indefinite preliminary stage without expressly resolving the main request or adopting measures to safeguard the protected party's fundamental rights. The petitioner requests that the writ of amparo be declared meritorious, with the legal consequences that this entails.

**2.-** By resolution issued at 15:51 hours on March 6, 2026, the Presidency of the Court admitted this constitutional proceeding and requested a report from the mayor of Mora regarding the facts alleged by the petitioner.

**3.-** By means of a written submission entered into the digital case file (expediente digital) at 14:49 hours on March 13, 2026, Alfonso Jiménez Cascante, in his capacity as mayor (alcalde) of Mora, declared under oath the following:

"II. REGARDING LAND-USE CERTIFICATE CU-22-373 OF MAY 6, 2022, AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO THE COMPANY TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. FIRST: By means of Resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, the land use (uso de suelo) requested by the applicant TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA for Dirección01, with cadastral plan (plano catastro) SJ 0068073-1992, for the activity of 'SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS,' was determined to be in conformity. By virtue of the foregoing, through official memorandum N°DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by official Phisilla Carvajal Venegas, head of Land Use, the following was reported regarding land-use certificate CU-22-373: '(…) This communication is intended to greet you and, at the same time, to respond to the email regarding the Constitutional Appeal Report; the situation of a property located in a zone—Residential Zone—property number 401148, of which TERRA EQUIPOS is the owner, where certain activities were authorized, such as RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT and SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, and land-use certificate cu-22-373 of May 6, 2022 has been granted. As is generally known, the Department has within its competencies the authority to issue first-instance authorizations for the approval of commercial licenses, after the requesting applicant has complied with a series of requirements. The oversight (fiscalización) of commercial licenses falls under the Tax Administration Department (PATENTES). Property 401148 is located in a residential zone, and in order to carry out the activities that were permitted: (images 1, 2, 3 and 4) […]

[…]

[…]

[…]

These images make it clear that property 401148 is located where indicated in the first image and is therefore situated in a residential zone. The determination from the facts described above that the property owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is zoned as "Residential (Z.R.)" means that it is subject to certain limits with respect to the activities that may and may not be carried out on the property; in this regard, please see what the Mora Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador de Mora) establishes in section 4.1, which exhaustively specifies permitted and non-permitted uses: Permitted Uses: "Single-family and multi-family housing, and all urban uses compatible with housing, such as community public-service educational centers, minor retail commerce, and other similar uses that do not create incompatibility. The following uses shall be permitted only along main routes or roadways: clinics, hospitals, animal clinics, movie theaters, and sports centers." Non-Permitted Uses: "Industry, including mechanical repair shops and body and paint shops, fence and gate fabrication workshops, warehouses (bodegas), sawmills, bars and taverns, wholesale commerce, and any other analogous use to those listed that causes disturbances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use." Therefore, the land-use certificate CU-22-373 that was granted constitutes a land-use determination made in conformity with the zone and the property. It is important to clarify: In accordance with Article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and Article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones, the Land-Use Certificate corresponds to the specific legal act by which the local Administration certifies whether or not the land use of a parcel conforms to zoning (zonificación) requirements; commercial or construction licenses, by contrast, constitute acts of authorization issued by the Tax Administration Department or the Urban Development and Control Department, which will verify compliance with all pertinent and applicable regulations. The oversight of commercial licenses falls under the Tax Administration Department (PATENTES), which will verify compliance with all pertinent and applicable regulations.' Likewise, it is important to note that the Por tanto of land-use resolution N°CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 states: 'Provided that the conditions established for the zone are met, the proposed use on the property with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 for OPERATING PERMIT (SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS) is IN CONFORMITY, as long as it does not involve wholesale commerce, or any other analogous use classified as non-permitted that causes disturbances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. That no warehouse or storage activity shall be carried on, as that must be located in the Industrial Zone.' In this manner, from Resolution CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 and Report DPOT-26-04 submitted by the technical department, it is clearly, objectively, and verifiably established that property number 401148, owned by TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, is located within a Residential Zone (Z.Nombre02.), in accordance with the zoning established in the Mora canton Regulatory Plan. In this context, Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373, issued on May 6, 2022, constitutes an administrative act (acto administrativo) by which the Municipal Administration certified the conformity of the requested use for SALE AND DISPLAY OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS with the zoning in effect at the time of its issuance, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana and Article 102 of the Reglamento de Construcciones, the described activity being classified as minor retail commerce, which is a permitted use under the zoning applicable to the area where property number 401148 is located—a residential zone—which permits the described use according to the analysis conducted by the technical department. Furthermore, in accordance with section 4.1 of the Mora Regulatory Plan, the Residential Zone permits only those uses compatible with housing, such as single-family or multi-family housing, minor retail commerce, and other urban services that do not generate incompatibility, neighborhood disturbances, or negative impacts associated with noise, heavy traffic, storage, or handling of hazardous or large-volume materials. By contrast, industrial uses, warehouses, workshops, wholesale commerce, and any analogous activity incompatible with the predominantly residential use are expressly prohibited. Under this regulatory framework, the land-use authorization granted must be interpreted restrictively, and this was indeed established in the Por tanto of the said land-use resolution (cited above), in which the use was resolved as limited to those activities that, by their nature, scale, and manner of operation, do not contravene the express prohibitions established for the residential zone, being IN CONFORMITY as long as "it does not involve wholesale commerce, or any other analogous use classified as non-permitted that causes disturbances to the neighborhood, such as smoke, odors, noise, heavy traffic, use and transport of toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and any other nuisance that conflicts with the predominant use. That no warehouse or storage activity shall be carried on, as that must be located in the Industrial Zone." Finally, it is important to clarify that, as the report indicates, it clearly delimits the administrative competencies of a land-use determination, since, although it is true that this same Local Government, through the Land Use sub-process, issued Land-Use Certificate N° CU-22-723 of May 6, 2022 as in conformity for the project intended by the company Terra Equipos S.A., the fact of the matter is that said administrative act is not directly binding at the time of the application and approval of a Construction License (Licencia de Construcción), insofar as, while land use is a fundamental requirement, at the time the construction license is evaluated, a series of other factual and technical factors applicable to the submitted proposal must also be analyzed; accordingly, a conforming land-use determination does not mean that the Construction License will necessarily be approved or denied, since, as mentioned, a series of requirements must be met for its respective processing and approval. The foregoing is evidenced by Resolution N° 2023019022 of nine hours thirty minutes on August 4, 2023, issued by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia), which stated: '(…) it is established that in the land-use certificate issued at the applicant's request, it was indicated that it did not replace the construction license; the land-use certificate and the construction license are distinct administrative acts, so the land-use certificate does not replace the construction license, its respective processing, and/or approval; the land-use [certificate] establishes the general guidelines regarding the use that may be given to the property in question, indicating the guidelines or regulations to which the applicant must conform at the time of deciding to carry out any type of development on said property, thereby generating control over zoning by certifying the possibility of such use. The construction license constitutes an administrative act that is granted prior to the commencement of works, as a guarantee of compliance with all technical and legal requirements, and is perfected with the payment of the corresponding fee established by the municipality for such purposes; in all cases where the totality of applicable technical or legal requirements is not met, the requested license may not be issued. (…)' (Emphasis added) Now then, regarding other permits granted by this local government to the company Terra Equipos S.A., the Construction Sub-process has reported through official memorandum N°PUCC-013-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Walter Flores Blanco, head of said sub-process, the following: '(…) with respect strictly to the administrative actions of this Sub-process regarding the property with registration number [blank], I hereby report the following: After reviewing the records of the SIGRAMU and the physical files of the Construction Control Sub-process, the following licenses granted for the aforementioned property are detailed: 1. Construction License PC 269-13 A, granted for works of "Maintenance and Repair." 2. Construction License PC 269-13 C, granted for the construction of a large shed (galerón) of 40 m². It is noted that the granting of these licenses responds strictly to the regulatory requirements in effect at the time of their issuance. Said administrative acts, during their processing and approval, fully complied with the technical and legal requirements demanded by the applicable construction and urban regulations. It is understood that, at the date of their issuance, the Municipality acted in strict adherence to the principle of legality, technically verifying that the construction development conformed to the parameters authorized for Dirección02.' In accordance with the information reported by official Flores Blanco, all construction licenses granted by this Municipality to the company Terra Equipos S.A. were preceded by a comprehensive technical and legal review process, with compliance with the applicable regulations verified in each case, without any omission, waiver, or relaxation of the required administrative controls. In this regard, each permit granted constitutes a properly reasoned administrative act issued after confirming effective compliance with the corresponding legal and technical requirements, which demonstrates that the municipal administration has acted diligently, objectively, and in accordance with the legal order.

III.REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL LICENSE REGISTERED BY THIS MUNICIPALITY TO TERRA EQUIPOS S.A., CORPORATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (CÉDULA JURÍDICA) CED01

By virtue of the facts reported by the petitioner in this appeal in connection with the commercial license (licencia comercial) granted in favor of the company TERRA EQUIPOS S.ombre03.. on the property from the San José land registry, number Dirección03, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, for "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES"—with the complainant alleging that said commercial activity was substantially modified, with the company devoting itself to conducting OTHER ACTIVITIES OF AN INDUSTRIAL NATURE—the Commercial Licenses Department of the Municipality of Mora, through Report N° ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Commercial Licenses Department, stated the following: '(…) I must indicate that the approval of each commercial license is generated from the submission of the proper application form and compliance with a series of requirements. Each requirement is requested based on a regulation that so establishes it, and they are issued by the corresponding entity or professional. For this reason, this Unit is responsible for ratifying their compliance, but does not question the technical judgment issued by the professional in the exercise of their competencies. Regarding the commercial license registered to Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate identification number CED01, I proceed to detail:

On November 5, 2013, Mr. Nombre04, with national ID number ED04, with judicial and extrajudicial representation of Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate identification number CED01, filed an application for a commercial license with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • With cadastral plan SJ-260201-95 • Land-use certificate of January 17, 2013 • Activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND STORAGE OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS • Land-use certificate of June 14, 2013 • Activity: PARKING FOR TANKER TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES. • Commercial license approved by means of Resolution N° LICCO-077-2013-AT.

On March 4, 2014, an extension to the commercial license was requested with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • With cadastral plan SJ-260201-95 • Land-use certificate RU-466-13 of July 29, 2013 • Activity to be added: REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP. • Commercial license approved by means of Resolution N° LICCO-018-2014-AT.

On May 13, 2022, the represented company requested a commercial license with the following characteristics: • On property #401148-000 • With cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 • Land-use certificate CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022 • Activity: SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES • Commercial license approved by means of Resolution N° 071-2022-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.

On June 21, 2024, the represented company requested an extension to the license with the following characteristics: • On property #436018-000 • With cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995 • Land-use certificate CU-24-371 of May 12, 2024 • Activity to be added: WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS • Commercial license approved by means of Resolution N° 421-2024-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT.

On August 13, 2024, the represented company requested a new extension to the commercial license with the following characteristics: • On property #401148-000 • With cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 • Land-use certificate CU-24-488 of June 18, 2024 • Activity to be added: STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR RETAIL COMMERCE • Commercial license approved by means of Resolution N° 445-2024-AMPLI-LICCO-AT.

From the foregoing details, it is determined that Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate identification number CED01, in the records of the Municipality of Mora as of today, maintains a commercial license on two property numbers, each with the following authorized activities:

Property #436018-000, with cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995 Authorized activity: RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY, PARKING FOR TANKER TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORT OF SEPTIC SLUDGE, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP, STORAGE, WASHING AND DISINFECTION OF PORTABLE SANITARY CABINS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.

Property #401148-000, with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992 Authorized activity: SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR RETAIL COMMERCE From the constitutional appeal (recurso de amparo) filed by Mr. Nombre01 against the Municipality of Mora, it is understood that the complainant's grievance concerns the activity carried on at property #401148-000, with cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1992, the location authorized for SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES, STORAGE AND RENTAL FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS, MINOR RETAIL COMMERCE. Regarding the same document, in section III. Relevant Facts from a Constitutional Perspective, point 3, Mr. Nombre01 states: Following the granting of the commercial license, and progressively, the company Terra Equipos S.A. substantially modified the authorized activity of "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METALLIC STRUCTURES," devoting itself to conducting OTHER ACTIVITIES OF AN INDUSTRIAL NATURE, different from the land use that originated the commercial license granted to it, among them: mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metallic structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts (montacargas) and cranes, and constant heavy truck traffic, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors, at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend until nine or more at night. To this it is important to note that the activity of storage, washing, and disinfection of portable sanitary cabins (portable toilets) is carried out on property #[blank], with cadastral plan SJ-260201-1995, as is also indicated in inspection report MM-UI-105-2024 issued by Reiner Reyes Fuentes, Inspector of the Inspections Unit and Municipal Police of the Municipality of Mora in a joint inspection conducted on August 20, 2024, with representatives of the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), who also documented their visit through official memorandum MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-365-2024 issued by Maycol Ávalos Rodríguez, Bachelor in Environmental Management and Occupational Health Engineering of the Ministry of Health. In various points of the complaint, the affected party makes reference to the protection of health (sound contamination/noise, foul odors, and conditions incompatible with a healthy life)—public health matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. For this reason, the effective, appropriate, and verifiable measures to cease the health impact that the complainant requests must be directed to the competent entity. Today, in the records of the Municipality of Mora, the represented company Terra Equipos S.A. with corporate identification number CED01 remains in compliance with requirements and its tax obligations. (…)' Thus, from what is stated in the commercial licenses department report, it can be drawn that, with respect to the property with registration number [blank], located in a residential zone, the company Terra Equipos S.A. maintains a commercial license authorized for the exercise of the following activities: • Sale and display of metallic structures, and • Storage and rental for display and sale of structures for events—as already mentioned, under the category of minor retail commerce.

Said license was granted based on Land-Use Certificate CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, which expressly establishes clear restrictions for the zoning applicable to the location of said property, excluding activities of an industrial nature, large-scale warehousing, wholesale commerce, or any use that generates disturbances incompatible with the residential zoning. Consequently, the current commercial license for the property [blank] does not cover or authorize industrial activities, nor operations involving the washing of equipment, handling of septic waste, intensive use of heavy machinery, or constant heavy truck traffic. On the contrary, the activities that the petitioner classifies as "of an industrial nature," such as the washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery such as forklifts, and storage associated with said operations, are neither conducted nor authorized for the property [blank], but rather have a specific and active commercial license to be exercised exclusively on the property with registration number [blank], which has different urban conditions and authorizations. On said property, the company Terra Equipos S.A. maintains a commercial license for activities that include, among others: • rental and sale of construction equipment and machinery, • parking for tanker trucks for transport of septic sludge, • repair and maintenance workshop, • storage, • washing and disinfection of portable sanitary cabins, and • administrative offices.

These activities were authorized by means of administrative acts following verification of compliance with the corresponding technical, sanitary, environmental, and urban requirements, and are not linked to or transferred to property 401148-000; this has been confirmed by this local government, which, in fulfillment of its oversight duty, has conducted inspections at Dirección01 to verify that the activity carried out corresponds to that authorized by the commercial license granted for said property. Note that through official memorandum MM-PM-083-2026 of March 11, 2026, Leonardo Trejos Cespedes, coordinator of the Inspections Unit and Municipal Police, reported on the inspections that, in fulfillment of its oversight duty, have been conducted by that unit, at times jointly with the commercial licenses department.

According to said report, on February 15, 2022, a complaint was received from council member (regidor) Álvaro Arguedas Durán regarding alleged irregularities in the use of a business license (patente comercial) on the indicated property. In response to said complaint, on February 21, 2022, inspector Geovany Rivas Guerrero conducted an on-site inspection, indicating that no administrative office or any commercial activity was observed. Subsequently, through official memorandum AMM-0370-2025 of June 24, 2025, signed by acting municipal mayor (alcalde municipal a.i.) Emmanuel Ferrer Venegas, a new inspection was requested regarding alleged irregularities related to the commercial license granted for cadastral plan SJ-68073-92 in the name of Terra Equipos S.A. In response to said request, the visit conducted by Lic. Karla Matamoros Camacho was considered, whose results were communicated through official memorandum ATM-LC-292-2025, indicating that "on June 30 of the current year, jointly with Municipal Police officers Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes, and myself, we attended the aforementioned property, where we were received by Mr. Nombre05, a collaborator of the represented company Terra Equipos. Upon entering the aforementioned property, it was observed that there were some light cargo vehicles parked on the premises, while the rest of the property contained stored metallic structures, as can be seen in the photographs shown in this report; the presence of two persons (laborers) working for the company was noted.

[…] […] […]

Based on your request and in describing what was observed at the time of the visit, it is confirmed that the activity of 'Sale and Display of Metallic Structures' is being carried on." Likewise, the actions taken by the Municipal Police during the same inspection were reported through official memorandum MM-PM-197-2025, from which unit it was reported that, "On June 30 of the current year, jointly with Municipal Police officers Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes, accompanied by the head of commercial licenses Lic. Karla Matamoros Camacho, we attended the site. It was observed that, at the time of the visit, the activity of 'Sale and Display of Metallic Structures' is being carried on. On the premises there are some light cargo vehicles and metallic structures; no other distinct activities were observed inside the facilities." Subsequently, through official memorandum MM-PM-287-2025 of September 30, 2025, an analysis was conducted in the SIGRAMU system, determining that for Dirección02, corresponding to cadastral plan SJ-68073-1992, construction proceedings on file exist that are linked to what is present on the site.

These reports from the various inspections conducted by the competent municipal departments at Dirección01—to verify that the commercial activity being carried out conforms to what is permitted by the license granted for that location—demonstrate that this municipality has been diligent and in no case remiss in its oversight duties or in its response to what has been reported by the petitioner, since actions have been carried out both in the field and at the internal administrative level to verify the facts set forth by him. Said field actions, as reported by the executing units, have resulted in the finding that at property Dirección03, the company Terra Equipos S.A. continues to conduct the activity of "Sale and Display of Metallic Structures," which was the activity approved by the granted license; in light of this, it cannot be validly maintained that there is a substantial or irregular modification of the commercial activity authorized for property 401148-000.

In this regard, bearing in mind that the activities questioned by the petitioner here have administrative backing in an independent commercial license granted for a different property under a distinct legal framework, it follows that the petitioner's argument may stem from a material confusion between different properties and different commercial licenses, attributing to property 401148-000 activities that do not form part of the license granted for that property, but are instead legally authorized to be exercised on a different property, duly identified as property 436018-000.

In addition, it is important to reiterate what was already stated by Ms. Nombre06 in official memorandum ATM-LC-111-2026, to the effect that some of the facts reported by the complainant do not fall within this municipality's oversight competencies, but rather within those of other entities such as the Ministry of Health—a position that will be elaborated upon further below.

Likewise, this Court should be made aware that, in response to the multiple complaints filed by Mr. Nombre01, the office of the municipal mayor (alcaldía municipal) has initiated a preliminary investigation (investigación preliminar) in order to establish the true facts of the matter. This forms part of the internal administrative oversight (fiscalización administrativa) actions undertaken, specifically through official memorandum IPAD-006-2025 of October 1, 2025, demonstrating that this office has by no means been unresponsive to the situation reported by the petitioner. Likewise, with respect to the technical-legal report referenced by the appellant, titled "Informe Técnico Jurídico sobre las anomalías en el otorgamiento de patente comercial a terra equipos," submitted to this municipality by Attorney (Licenciado) Miguel Herrera González on December 4, 2025, said report was duly received and forwarded to the investigating body of IPAD-006-2025 for inclusion in the preliminary investigation proceedings. Additionally, this was communicated to Mr. Herrera Gómez, as representative of Mr. Nombre01, through official memorandum AMM-0900-2025 dated December 11, 2025. Along the same lines, on February 3, 2026, an administrative claim (reclamo administrativo) was received from Mr. Herrera Gómez as representative of Mr. Nombre01, requesting the initiation of an ordinary administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo ordinario) regarding the same facts. In response, through official memorandum AMM-0127-2026 dated February 16, 2026, this office addressed the administrative claim, reiterating that through official memorandum No. IPAD‑006‑2025 of October 31, 2025, the preliminary investigation process was opened with respect to the facts he reported in connection with the commercial license (patente) granted to the company Terra Equipos S.A. and the land use (uso de suelo). It was indicated that, before proceeding with that opening, this administration had, on a discretionary basis, considered it important to conduct a preliminary investigation in the case at hand, grounded in the jurisprudence of this Court, specifically its ruling No. 2011-010890 of 14:30 hrs. of August 17, 2011, which states: "(…) In this regard, this Court has held that, as a matter of principle, it is impossible to violate the right to due process during a preliminary investigation, since such an investigation, stricto sensu, does not form part of an administrative procedure per se, but rather constitutes a preparatory stage, the purpose of which is to determine whether there are grounds to open one. More specifically, it has been stated that a preliminary investigation may be defined as a discretionary verification exercise conducted by the Public Administration itself with respect to the circumstances of the specific case." (Emphasis added). In response to that reply, the appellant filed motions for reconsideration with subsidiary appeals (recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) against official memorandum AMM-0127-2026, which were resolved through ruling AMR-013-2026 of ten fifteen hours (10:15 a.m.) of February 23, 2026, rejecting the motion for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal filed by Mr. Miguel Herrera González as representative of Nombre01 against official memorandum AMM-0127-2026 of February 16, 2026, for the factual and legal reasons set forth therein. Subsequently, on February 25, 2025, Mr. Miguel Herrera González, as representative of Nombre01, filed a challenge against ruling AMR-013-2026, which was resolved in ruling AMR-016-2026 of ten hours (10:00 a.m.) of March 11, 2026, and was notified on March 11, 2026. The motion for reconsideration was rejected, and the appeal will be heard on appeal by the improper hierarchical superior (jerarca impropio), who, as the competent body, will review the legality of those administrative actions. It is evident, however, that the administrative claims filed by the appellant before this administration have been duly addressed. […] Having stated the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that, in response to the complaints filed with the municipality by the appellant herein regarding the facts in question, this administration requested the various municipal departments to review the administrative actions taken and to carry out the appropriate oversight, with the aim of verifying their compliance with the law. As a result, the technical departments have reported that the permits and licenses granted to the company Terra Equipos S.A. were issued in conformity with the legal framework, following confirmation that all applicable legal and technical requirements were effectively met. In this manner, taking into account what has been reported by the technical departments while also attending to the concerns of the petitioner, this office, acting responsibly and prior to initiating any administrative procedure as requested by the appellant before this office, has initiated a preliminary investigation to determine whether there are grounds to open a procedure — given that the competent municipal departments in each relevant area have reported lawful, objective, and legally compliant conduct. Nevertheless, as a diligent administration, this office has proceeded with the preliminary investigation in response to the concerns raised by the petitioner, in order to ascertain the true facts of the matter, and should the results of that investigation reveal any irregularity, this administration will take the corresponding measures. Accordingly, no omissive or unlawful conduct on the part of the Municipalidad de Mora is evident; on the contrary, what is demonstrated is the regular exercise of its powers of administrative control and authorization, which have been issued in strict adherence to the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), with no element having been established to date that would undermine this conclusion. Furthermore, a diligent and thorough fulfillment of the duty of oversight (fiscalización) is evident on the part of this municipality, having conducted the relevant inspections and investigations in response to the complaints filed by the appellant herein. Since it has also been shown that the requests submitted by Mr. Nombre01 — including reports, claims, and appeals — have been attended to, it is not true that this municipality has taken no action, as the complainant would have this Court believe.

IV. COMPETENCE OF THE MINISTERIO DE SALUD IN THE PRESENT CASE

In this case, it is important to note that, under the principle of legality, the Ministerio de Salud is the entity holding the sole and exclusive legal competence to handle complaints in cases where some form of noise pollution (contaminación sónica) may exist. In this regard, the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido provides as follows: "(…) Article 8°—Entity responsible for measurements. In order to verify compliance with the provisions of this Reglamento and those derived from it, the Ministerio de Salud, through the Regional Health Authority Offices (Áreas Rectoras de Salud), shall conduct inspection visits to noise-emitting sources in order to measure noise levels within buildings. (…)" (Emphasis added). In addition, the Ley General de Salud provides: "(…) On Inspections and Other Proceedings ARTICLE 346.— For the purposes of effectively monitoring compliance with the provisions of this law and its regulations, as well as supplementary resolutions issued by health authorities within their competencies, officials of the Ministerio, duly identified, may conduct inspections or visits to carry out sanitary operations, collect samples, or gather background information or evidence in buildings, dwellings, industrial establishments, commercial establishments, and any place in which violations of the laws, regulations, and resolutions referred to herein may be committed. Such proceedings must be conducted during the day, between six and eighteen hours, and individuals are obligated to facilitate them immediately. The time restriction shall not apply to inspections related to the control of food, narcotic drugs, hallucinogens, and psychotropic substances capable of causing, through their use, psychological or physical dependence. (…)" (Emphasis added). Furthermore, said law provides: "(…) ARTICLE 293.— Every natural or juridical person is obligated to exercise maximum diligence in complying with the applicable legal and regulatory provisions or the specific directives issued by the competent authority, in order to prevent or control atmospheric and environmental contamination in places intended for housing, work, or recreation. (…)" Therefore, as those provisions establish competence in situations of environmental and noise pollution such as those alleged by the appellant when stating that the activities of the company Terra Equipos at Dirección04 "generate excessive noise, vibrations, foul odors, and environmental contamination," such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Ministerio de Salud, through the Áreas Rectoras de Salud. Accordingly, it is this entity that bears responsibility for overseeing and enforcing compliance with the laws in order to prevent such contamination — not this municipality, as the appellant seeks to argue, which would be contrary to law.

V. AMPARO APPEAL HEARD BY THIS COURT UNDER CASE FILE 24-035927-0007-CO

In light of the facts reported by the appellant in the present amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), it is necessary to refer to the amparo appeal processed by this Court under case file No. 24-035927-0007, filed by Nombre01, national identity card (cédula de identidad) ED03, and Nombre07, national identity card ED05, against the MINISTERIO DE SALUD AND THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA. In that amparo appeal, the appellants stated that they reside in the Cantón de Mora, in a residential and commercial zone. They indicated that "some months ago, a large-scale warehouse called 'Terra Equipos Alquiler y Venta de Equipos para la Construcción' was installed on the property adjacent to their home." In that proceeding, they reported that the Municipalidad de Mora had "expanded land use permits (permisos de usos de suelo) without supervision or review, which worsens the problem they are suffering." They added that, with respect to the respondent Municipality, they had attempted to obtain information without positive results. In response to the facts set out by the appellant in that proceeding — the same appellant as in the present proceeding — the Court, through its ruling of 14:49 hours of January 2, 2025, admitted the case and requested a report from the director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora, as well as from the mayor and the president of the Municipal Council, both of the Municipalidad de Mora. Accordingly, this representation filed the corresponding report before this Constitutional Court on January 9, 2025. Based on the reports submitted, through ruling No. 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes (9:20 a.m.) of March 14, 2025, this Court resolved, with respect to this administration, as follows: "(…) First, with respect to the Municipalidad de Mora, any situation that would at this stage warrant the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction is prima facie ruled out. In this regard, it should be noted that it is not the role of this Court, in this summary amparo proceeding, to review whether the land use authorizations and operating permits (permisos de funcionamiento) granted to the company mentioned by the appellants comply with or contradict the provisions of ordinary legislation. Therefore, if the appellants are dissatisfied with such acts, they must raise the pertinent arguments before the competent ordinary administrative or judicial bodies, venues in which they may broadly discuss the merits of the matter and assert their claims. (…) Accordingly, any action or omission on the part of the respondent municipality susceptible of being declared in this proceeding is prima facie ruled out. (…) Por tanto: The appeal is dismissed. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado files a separate note. (…)" Accordingly, from the ruling of the Sala Constitucional in case file No. 24-035927-0007-CO, it is clearly established that it is not the role of this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary proceedings of the amparo appeal, to review or assess the merits of administrative acts relating to land use, commercial licenses, or operating permits when these have been issued by the Administration in the regular exercise of its competencies and in conformity with the principle of legality. In the present case, as in the precedent cited, no arbitrary, unlawful, or omissive conduct attributable to the Municipalidad de Mora is configured; on the contrary, what is demonstrated is a diligent administrative response, attentive to the facts reported by the appellant, seeking the issuance of duly motivated administrative acts subject to technical and legal oversight. It has already been shown before this Court that this administration has not disregarded the complaints filed by the appellant; on the contrary, it has even initiated a preliminary inquiry (indagación preliminar) for the purpose of thoroughly investigating and ruling out any irregularity. Therefore, in light of the reiterated jurisprudence of this Court and the objective elements set forth in this report, no violation of any fundamental rights has been established that would warrant the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction, rendering the amparo appeal inadmissible with respect to the grievances raised against this local government.

VI. ON THE SPECIFIC CASE

As already noted throughout this report, and by way of summary: with respect to what was reported by the appellant regarding the land use authorization issued by this municipality in connection with the property bearing parcel number (finca número) 401148, with cadastral survey plan (plano catastro) SJ-0068073-1992, belonging to TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, official memorandum No. DPOT-26-04 of March 12, 2026, signed by Phisilla Venegas Carvajal, the land use officer of the Municipalidad de Mora, indicates that the technical department considers the land use authorization issued to be compliant and in conformity with the law. According to the technical department, the authorization granted through ruling CU-22-373 was issued in accordance with the zone in which the property is located, which, as stated in the report, is a residential zone, and the land use permit was accordingly extended pursuant to the uses allowed by the regulations applicable to that zoning. Likewise, regarding the commercial license (licencia comercial) granted to Terra Equipos S.A. for STORAGE AND RENTAL, FOR THE DISPLAY AND SALE OF STRUCTURES FOR EVENTS — MINOR COMMERCE, to be operated on parcel Dirección03, with cadastral survey plan SJ-0068073-1992, as reported by official memorandum No. ATM-LC-111-2026 of March 12, 2026, signed by Karla Matamoros Camacho, head of the Commercial Licenses Department (Departamento de Licencias Comerciales) of the Municipalidad de Mora, said business license was approved in conformity with the law, as the company Terra Equipos S.A. complied with all requirements established by the licensing regulations for each procedure. As a result, the approved commercial licenses are today registered as active and issued in compliance with the law and the applicable zoning, according to the approved land use certificates. It is further reiterated that two licenses were granted, covering independent parcels and distinct activities, as has already been extensively explained in this report. Accordingly, as the competent technical departments have already indicated, the land use, construction permits (permisos constructivos), and commercial licenses granted by this Municipality for the development of the commercial activities of the company TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA on parcel Dirección03, cadastral survey plan SJ-0068073-1972, were issued in strict compliance with the legal framework and the applicable technical and legal requirements, with no element having been established to date that would undermine that conclusion. Nevertheless, and as a further exercise of administrative diligence, this Administration has ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation for the purpose of resolving any remaining doubt, thereby demonstrating that this office has deployed the various oversight measures that this municipality must carry out — and has in fact carried out — to ensure that the commercial activities approved by this local government for Terra Equipos S.A. comply with the law. In this regard, this mayoral office has, in a responsible manner, undertaken the corresponding administrative acts to address the complaints filed by the appellant before the municipal administration, not having been unresponsive to them. Furthermore, it has been established that, under the principle of legality, the noise and environmental pollution (contaminación ambiental) alleged by the complainant, in accordance with the regulations set forth above, falls within the exclusive competence of the Ministerio de Salud, working in coordination with its Áreas Rectoras de Salud. Indeed, it is this entity that is competent to oversee this type of environmental and noise pollution, to measure noise-emitting sources, and to supervise and ensure effective compliance with the law in relation to such situations — not this municipality. Finally, it should be noted that, with respect to the facts described, this municipality has already demonstrated before this Court its compliance with its legal duties in this regard, under amparo appeal No. 24-035927-0007-CO, resolved through ruling No. 2025007768 of nine hours twenty minutes (9:20 a.m.) of March 14, 2025. For all of the foregoing, this office considers it confirmed that, within the scope of its municipal competencies, the corresponding actions have been taken in response to the concerns raised by the appellant before this administration, without any omission, in pursuit of compliance with the principle of legality and applicable regulations. Accordingly, all administrative acts that have generated any right for the licensee have been and are being reviewed, with the aim of verifying their full compliance with the law. Therefore, and as already noted, in a demonstration of diligent and prudent administrative conduct, this Administration has ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation for the sole purpose of resolving any remaining doubt and definitively ruling out the existence of any potential irregularities — without this being interpreted as a violation of constitutional guarantees. On the contrary, responsible conduct has been demonstrated across all legal competencies of this local government, reiterating that this municipality has not been unresponsive to the complaints filed. Furthermore, in accordance with the line of reasoning of this Constitutional Court set out above (ruling No. 2025007768), it is not the role of this constitutional jurisdiction, in the summary proceedings of the amparo appeal, to review or assess the merits of administrative acts relating to land use, commercial licenses, or operating permits. In addition, the honorable magistrates are reminded that the competence to oversee and regulate noise pollution lies exclusively with the Ministerio de Salud, and that this local government bears no responsibility whatsoever in this regard. Accordingly, it is requested that the present amparo appeal be dismissed for lack of legal basis." 4.- Through a filing incorporated into the digital case file at 15:46 hours of March 19, 2026, Mr. Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho submitted an active joinder (coadyuvancia activa), in the following terms:

"FIRST: That in accordance with the provisions of Articles 34 and related articles of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, I appear in the present proceeding in the capacity of active joinder party on behalf of the appellant, having a direct, personal, and legitimate interest in the outcome of this appeal, as I am a neighbor sharing the eastern boundary with the company whose industrial activity affects us.

SECOND: That my standing derives from my capacity as a direct neighboring owner of the property where the company Terra Equipos S.A. carries out the reported activities, a situation that places me in a position of real, current, and ongoing harm, in terms substantially identical to those alleged by the appellant.

THIRD: That the activities carried out on said property, of an industrial nature in a residentially zoned area, produce within my legal sphere a direct impact on fundamental rights, particularly with respect to:

The right to health and personal integrity • The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment FOURTH: That the harm described is neither eventual nor hypothetical, but material, verifiable, and persistent over time, arising from the continuous operation of heavy machinery, transit of heavy-tonnage vehicles, generation of excessive noise, vibrations, and foul odors, under conditions incompatible with the residential use of the area.

FIFTH: That I fully endorse the facts, grounds, and claims set forth in the amparo appeal filed, which I adopt as my own for all applicable legal purposes.

SIXTH: That the inaction of the Municipalidad del Cantón de Mora is particularly serious, as it has sought to justify its omission by invoking the alleged existence of a disciplinary preliminary investigation (IPAD-006-2025), initiated since October 2025, without a substantive ruling having been issued to date, precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) having been adopted, or effective action having been taken aimed at halting the harm reported.

SEVENTH: That the supposed preliminary investigation, far from constituting a valid mechanism of administrative action, has become an instrument of indefinite delay, lacking a defined timeframe and bearing no direct relationship to the Administration's obligation to exercise its powers of control, oversight, and effective protection of the compromised fundamental rights.

EIGHTH: That the existence of a preliminary investigation does not suspend or replace the constitutional duty of the Administration to:

Resolve promptly, expressly, and with reasons the requests submitted • Adopt immediate measures in the face of current or imminent harm Prevent the continuation of impacts on fundamental rights NINTH: That, in the present case, the municipal omission acquires constitutional significance not only due to the absence of a substantive decision, but also because it permits the continuation of a presumably unlawful activity with effects on the enjoyment of constitutional guarantees regarding health, the environment, and the quality of life of neighboring residents.

TENTH: That the unjustified delay in adopting measures, in the presence of a current and ongoing harm, constitutes in itself an independent violation of the fundamental rights protected by Articles 21, 27, 45, and 50 of the Constitución Política.

ELEVENTH: That in this context, the Administration's conduct is contrary to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, environmental prevention, and effective administrative protection (tutela administrativa efectiva), by prioritizing an indefinite internal inquiry over the immediate protection of fundamental rights." 5.- Through a ruling of 06:08 hours of March 23, 2026, the instructing magistrate (magistrada instructora) granted a hearing to the Minister of Health regarding the facts alleged by the appellant.

**6.-** By means of a written submission incorporated into the digital case file at 15:30 hours on March 26, 2026, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, provides the following sworn statement:

*"By way of introduction, it is my duty to note that Executive Decree No. 40724-S of September 23, 2017, published in La Gaceta No. 215 of November 14, 2017, Supplement 273, entitled 'Organic Regulations of the Ministry of Health,' in force as of May 14, 2021, establishes as the Ministry of Health's Mission that it is the institution that directs and leads social actors in the development of actions that protect and improve the physical, mental, and social health of the population, through the exercise of oversight of the National Health System (Rectoría del Sistema Nacional de Salud), with a focus on health promotion and disease prevention, fostering a healthy and balanced human environment, under the principles of equity, efficiency, quality, transparency, and respect for diversity, whose actions are grounded primarily in the Political Constitution, Ley N° 5395 of October 30, 1973 'Ley General de Salud,' Ley N° 5412 of November 8, 1973 'Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud,' and Executive Decree No. 40724-S, previously cited, among others. Furthermore, the Ley General de Salud, in its articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, provides, among other things, that the health of the population is a public-interest good protected by the State, that it is an essential function of the State to safeguard the population's health, that it falls to the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, to define national health policy and to plan and coordinate all public and private activities relating to health, as well as to execute those activities that are within its purview under law, with the authority to issue autonomous regulations on these matters. It is important to note that every natural or legal person is subject to the mandates of the aforementioned law and other laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to health, which are matters of public order and, in the event of conflict, prevail over any other provisions of equal formal validity, without prejudice to the powers that the law grants to autonomous institutions in the health sector, as well as the general and specific, ordinary and emergency orders that health authorities issue in the exercise of their organic competencies; every person has the right to be duly informed by the competent official of the mandatory standards in force regarding health, subject to the provisions of international conventions and treaties. Having stated the foregoing, I now address the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) filed by Miguel Ángel Herrera González on behalf of Nombre01, who alleges that: '…his client Nombre01, national identity document CED02, is a neighboring resident of a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.A., located in a residential zone, in which industrial-type activities are being carried out in plain sight of the Municipalidad de Mora. He states that the respondent authority granted a commercial operating license (licencia comercial) to the company Terra Equipos S.A. for property registered in the San José partido, no. 401148-000, cadastral plan SJ-0068073-1972, based on land use (uso de suelo) no. CU-22-373 of May 6, 2022, under the assumption that the activity to be carried out was "RENTAL AND SALE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SALE AND DISPLAY OF METAL STRUCTURES." He notes that the aforementioned property is located in a residential zone in which, pursuant to the zoning plan (plan regulador) for the canton of Mora currently in force, industrial activities are expressly prohibited, including: warehouses, workshops, and any analogous use that generates disturbances to the neighborhood. He recounts that after the commercial operating license was granted and on a gradual basis, the company Terra Equipos S.Nombre03. substantially modified the authorized activity and began to engage in others of an industrial nature. He explains that said company engages in mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, washing and storage of trucks that transport septic solids or excrement, operation of heavy machinery, and constant heavy-truck traffic, generating excessive and constant noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use, as these activities extend into the late-night hours. He alleges that the described situation prevents his client, who is an elderly adult, as well as his client's household, from resting, enjoying tranquility, and living with dignity, and that they have experienced a degradation in their quality of life. He states that for several months the protected party (tutelado) has appeared before administrative authorities—both the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health—to request urgent intervention, submitting compelling technical, expert, and sanitary evidence that substantiates the actual harm. Nonetheless, he claims that the respondent municipality (ayuntamiento accionado) has engaged in a prolonged and unjustified failure to act, tolerating the continuation of the harm over time without taking any action to safeguard the fundamental rights of his client and the residents of the canton in that residential zone. In this regard, he details that on December 4, 2025, his special attorney, Miguel A. Herrera González, sent the mayor (alcalde) of Mora a document entitled "TECHNICAL-LEGAL REPORT ON THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS LICENSE TO TERRA EQUIPOS," through which he set forth that the company's activity continues until the late-night hours, generating noise that exceeds the permitted limits for a residential zone. Furthermore, that report referenced administrative irregularities detected and caused by heavy traffic, electrical hazards, visibility onto neighboring properties, and violations of privacy, and requested a municipal technical study on environmental noise and the protection of the rights of the affected residents, in accordance with the principles of human dignity, habitability, and a healthy environment. He mentions that through official communication AMM-0900-2025 he was informed that the said report was added to the preliminary investigation opened on October 31, 2025, under consecutive number IPAD-006-2025. He questions the fact that the Administration has kept the matter in an indefinite preliminary phase, without expressly resolving the main request or adopting measures to protect his fundamental rights….' Having stated the foregoing, I respond to the request of the honorable Constitutional Court, relying on report CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026, issued by Dr. Luz Cuadra Morales, Director of the Área Rectora de Salud Mora [regional health authority], as the response to this action, which states, in the relevant portions, the following: CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026: '… I. REGARDING THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER: That they are elderly adults residing in the canton of Mora in a residential and commercial zone. That adjacent to their property a large-scale warehouse named "Terra Equipos" was installed, serving industrial purposes for the mass storage of products, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing and storage of vehicles that transport septic sludge and excrement, generating noise, vibrations, and bothersome odors—a complaint they have filed with the Área Rectora de Salud and the municipality. II. ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ÁREA RECTORA DE SALUD AND THE SPECIFIC CASE: On March 11, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud Mora received a complaint filed by the protected party, Mr. Nombre01, alleging problems with noise, tall structures alongside his property wall, and workshop activities not covered by the permits granted to the reported company Terra Equipos. (folio 0048 to 0049) In response to the complaint, on March 18, 2024, we conducted an on-site inspection (visita de inspección ocular) at the complainant's home, where we were received by Ms. Nombre07, who stated that the main problem was the noise generated by the establishment and the risk of metal structures stored adjacent to his wall falling, as they exceeded the height of the wall. It should be noted here that during the on-site inspection no noise from workshop activity or metal strikes was heard. Stacking (estibaje) of metal structures above the wall was observed, which could fall onto the complainant's property. On that occasion the reported establishment was found with its gates closed and no one answered the health authority's call, leading to the rescheduling of an inspection at the establishment for April 8, 2024. (folio 0050 and 0051) On April 8, 2024, at the reported establishment "Terra Eventos," we were received by Mr. Nombre08, human capital manager. On site it was verified that the location stored metal structures for sale and display, which was consistent with the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) that had been granted. That same day, no repair work on structures was confirmed to be taking place, nor was any workshop activity confirmed; there was also no noise. However, the stacking of structures above the wall bordering the complainant's property was confirmed. The "commercial and industrial activities inspection form" was applied, identifying sanitary nonconformities (inconformidades sanitarias), and, through technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, it was recommended that the corresponding administrative acts (actos administrativos) be issued. (folios 0065 and 0070) As a result of the findings of the April 8, 2024 inspection, through sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, notified to the reported party on April 22, 2024, together with technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, the company was ordered, within 20 business days, to install smoke detectors, post emergency signage, maintain liquid soap and disposable towel dispensers, have a first aid kit, and not stack structures above the wall to prevent the risk of falls. (folios 0071 to 0075 and 0077) Everything set out above was brought to the attention of the protected party by email at 15:40 hours on April 9, 2024. (folio 0076) Continuing with the handling of the complaint, on May 21, 2024, the company Terra Equipos submitted to the Área Rectora de Salud Mora a written communication titled "Response to Sanitary Order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024," reporting compliance with the orders. Therefore, in follow-up to the submitted written communication and sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, on May 28, 2024, a visit to the establishment was carried out by the Área Rectora de Salud. During that visit, full compliance with points a, b, c, and d was confirmed, and partial compliance with point e), which concerned the stacking of the structures, was found: in the western sector the structures had been separated from the wall and the first row did not exceed the wall height; however, in the eastern sector, proper arrangement of the structures placed on racks, which continued to exceed the wall height, remained pending. It should be noted here that during the inspection no noise from the company was perceived, but a large quantity of stored structures was observed. As a result of the compliance-verification visit, technical report MS-DRRSCS ARSM-IT-237-2024 was issued. (folios 0091 to 0096) Since full compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024 had not been achieved—specifically point e), which required that structures not be stacked above the wall to prevent the risk of falls—a new sanitary order, CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, was issued and notified on June 4, 2024. Through this order, the company was instructed, given the quantity of metal structures stored, to expand its operating permit so as to include not only the sale and display but also the storage of structures, and within 15 business days to submit, validated by a professional in the field, a storage and stacking proposal with compliance timelines, specifying maximum stacking heights and setback distances from adjoining properties. (folios 0097 to 0099 and 0101) The complainant was informed by email at 10:07 hours on May 30, 2024 of the actions taken (folio 0100), and on June 4, 2024 he stated that noise continued and that progress in rearranging the structures was slow (folio 0104-0105). This concern was addressed through an email on June 11 (folio 0104), clarifying that during the verification inspection it had been confirmed that on the side where Mr. Loría's property is located, the stacks had been separated by more than one meter and that those closest to the dwelling did not exceed the wall height, and that, since the separation distance for structures is not regulated, a rearrangement proposal had been requested. Regarding the noise, he was told that the only way to determine a violation of the regulated noise limits is through a sound level measurement (medición sónica) that must be scheduled on the date and time proposed by the complainant himself. Not satisfied with the foregoing, on June 20 he again communicated by email that the stacks continue near the walls, that the materials on racks are a hazard, raised a new concern about the roof structure, which is made of heavy iron, and alleged that noise and material entry continued. Therefore, on June 25, 2024, he was again asked to indicate a date and time to schedule the sound measurement. (folios 0102 to 0103) It is appropriate to note here that through an email dated June 25 (folio 0102), the complainant was informed that the company Terra Eventos had submitted on June 24, 2024, a technical proposal to comply with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, which includes a schedule of activities for addressing the stacking of the structures, consisting of moving and rearranging structures, to be implemented from June to September 2024. The technical proposal, prepared by an occupational health professional, was duly reviewed and endorsed by this Área Rectora de Salud. (folios 0106 to 0130) In addition, included with said proposal was the municipal land use expansion for the storage of structures. (folios 0112 to 0115 and 0130) Now, in view of the new difficulty reported regarding the alleged risk posed by the establishment's roofs, on July 16 the site was visited and it was confirmed that the roofs were in good condition of preservation, had no broken or detached parts or parts that moved in the wind, and no bent beams or columns were present. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to obtain a better professional technical assessment, through technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-295-2024, it was recommended to the Director of the Área Rectora de Salud Mora that technical support be requested from the Oversight Unit (Unidad de Rectoría) of the Dirección Regional Central Sur, so that a civil engineer could assess the structure. (folios 0133 to 0138) The actions taken were reported to the complainant by email on July 22, 2024. (folio 0139) On July 24, 2024, due to the quantity of stored structures and in accordance with the provisions of Decreto N° 43432-S, "Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud," the company Terra Eventos submitted documentation for the expansion of its sanitary operating permit, and, upon fulfillment of the prescribed requirements, certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 was granted. (folio 0165) This was done taking into account that the municipality had already issued an expansion of a conforming land use for the storage of structures. By email dated August 5, 2024, the complainant inquired about the details of the civil engineer's visit; a response was sent on August 7 stating that no definite date had yet been set, and we took the opportunity to inform him that on August 8, 2024, the inspector would be carrying out visits in the Colón district, so that, if he so wished, the sound measurement could be carried out. However, no response was received. (folio 0166) On August 19, 2024, Mr. Loría filed a new complaint, this time regarding problems with the washing of latrines at the Terra Eventos establishment, and asked whether the measurement had been able to be carried out, to which the response was that the engineer would proceed the following day, August 20. Furthermore, he was informed that because no response had been received to the email sent to schedule the measurement, it had not been scheduled. (folio 0167) On August 20, a visit was carried out to investigate the latrine-washing problems and the structural condition of the roofs. With respect to the latrine-washing problem, technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-364-2024 was generated documenting the reported facts. (folios 0170 to 0171) The actions taken and confirmed were brought to the complainant's attention by email on August 21, 2024. (folio 0172) Regarding the assessment of the roofs, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Oscar Arroyo Barahona, through report MS-DRRSCS-URS-IT-0435-2024 dated August 22, 2024, detected no imminent danger to the stability of the structure; this was communicated to the protected party by email on August 28, 2024. (folios 0174 to 0178) With respect to the follow-up and verification of the technical proposal submitted by the reported company for compliance with the arrangement of the structures, on September 19, 2024, during an inspection visit and pursuant to technical report MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-434-2024, it was confirmed that the majority of the points indicated in the technical proposal had been complied with, with only the posting of signage and the records of weekly reviews remaining pending. (folios 0181 to 0185) The actions taken were again reported to the complainant on September 20, 2024, by email. (folio 0186). That same day it was agreed to schedule a sound measurement for September 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. (folios 0187 to 0188), a date on which, due to the absence of noise from the reported company, it was impossible to perform the sound level measurement (sonometría). A new attempt at a sound measurement was made on October 7, 2024; however, there was again no noise. (folio 0189 to 0190) On December 3, the complainant was informed that on December 5 and 9, 2024, a measurement could be carried out in the morning and afternoon, respectively (folio 0191). On December 5, it could not be carried out due to the absence of noise (folio 0194 and 0195). It should be noted that on December 9, the measurement could not be carried out because Mr. Loría misinterpreted the email sent, as he himself acknowledged, and had to attend a medical appointment. (folio 0193) On December 19 at 10:00 a.m., Mr. Loría sent an email alleging noise at the establishment (folio 0196), and although no sound measurement had been scheduled, Área Rectora de Salud staff set aside their office work in order to proceed with the corresponding measurement. The result, according to technical report MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-001-2025, was 48.4 dB(A) for ambient noise with the active generating source, which did not exceed the 65 dB(A) prescribed for residential zones pursuant to the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S. (folios 0199 to 0206) The results of the sound measurement were sent to Mr. Loría by email on January 7, 2025. (folio 0211) On January 8, 2025, a return visit was made to the Terra Eventos establishment, and it was confirmed that the outstanding points of sanitary order No. CS-ARS-MP-114-2024 had been complied with. (folios 0214 to 0218) Mr. Loría was informed of the compliance by email dated January 9, 2025. (folio 0219) On February 17, 2025, an email was received in which Mr. Loría stated that on February 13, 2025, a great deal of noise had been heard coming from the Terra Eventos company, to which a response was sent on February 18 asking him to confirm whether the disturbing noise was continuing from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. every day, so as to coordinate a sound measurement, since we would need to request the equipment from another área rectora de salud because ours was being calibrated, and no response was received. (folio 0230) On March 10, 2025, a document was received from Licda. Valeria Bolaños González, at that time attorney for Mr. Nombre01, alleging problems with noise pollution (contaminación sónica) due to industrial activity carried out at the Terra Eventos company. (folios 0231-0234) Accordingly, on March 19, 2025, we appeared at the affected parties' home with the purpose of carrying out a sound measurement; however, the measurement could not be carried out because there was no noise. (folio 0251) Again, on March 26, 2025, and May 15, 2025, we attempted by email to coordinate a sound measurement with the affected party as required by the noise measurement procedure; however, no response was received. (folio 0252-0253) Mr. Loría communicated by email as late as June 5, 2025, stating that the noise continued and asking whether we had issued any document to Terra Eventos expressing concerns, and inquiring about which activities the company was permitted to carry out at the location. (folio 0254) A response was sent by email on June 9, 2025, stating that notification to the company was not appropriate, since the measurement carried out in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted decibel levels and the reported noise problems had not been confirmed. Furthermore, he was informed that we could go to carry out the sound measurement on June 16, 2025, to which no response was again received. (folio 0255) On July 1, 2025, Mr. Loría sent an email stating that a truck carrying septic sludge had parked at Terra Eventos, which he considered harmful to his health, to which he was informed on July 2, 2025, that the following day we would carry out the visit both to conduct the sound measurement and to verify the matter of the septic sludge truck. (folio 0256) On July 3, 2025, a return visit was made to the location; from outside the premises no noise was perceived, so the sound measurement could not be carried out. Upon entering the company, it was verified that the only thing operating on the premises was a forklift arranging structures; a walkthrough of the entire storage yard was conducted and no type of mechanical work was being performed; no trucks with septic sludge were present on the premises; there was no type of bothersome odor, nor any discharge of wastewater or sludge onto the ground. (folios 0258-0261) By email sent on July 8, 2025, Mr. Loría was informed of what had been observed during the July 3, 2025 inspection. (folio 0262) On August 6, 2025, a note was received in which Mr. Nombre01 raised a series of questions about the company Terra Eventos, including the problems of noise pollution, (folios 0263-0279), a document that was responded to through official communication No. CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, informing him that multiple sound measurement attempts had been made—specifically in point 2, subpoint b)—but that it had not been possible to carry them out, either because there was no noise or because he had not responded to coordinate. Furthermore, several points relating to invasion of private property, loss of privacy, fire hazard, bothersome odors, and stacking of structures were clarified. (0280-0282) On October 23, 2025, a document titled "Administrative Petition for Enforcement of a Non-Complied Sanitary Order" was received (folio 0283-0299), through which Licdo. Miguel Herrera González, representative of Mr. Nombre01, raised several irregularities regarding the establishment's operation, including the noise problems. Each of the points raised in the document was addressed through document CARTA MS-DRRCS-ARSM-645-2025, including the matter of noise pollution (section D). Said response document was sent by email on October 30, 2025. (folio 0300 to 0304) On January 6, 2026, by email, Mr. Loría again reported bothersome noise coming from the Terra Eventos company, as well as the presence of a septic sludge tank (folio 0325), and an inspection was scheduled for January 13, 2026. On that day, a sound measurement could not be carried out because there was no noise; furthermore, no persons were observed conducting machinery washing or engaging in activities that generated noise; no trucks with septic sludge were at the location; no water at ground level was observed; and no bothersome odors were perceived. (folios 0330-0334) The complainant was informed of this by email. (folio 0336) Based on all of the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that this Sanitary Authority has not been remiss in fulfilling its duties and has devoted itself to addressing each of the complaints raised throughout the complaint-handling process, providing responses to all requests made by the individual concerned. ….'* (emphasis in the original) It is imperative to clarify that the Ministry of Health does not grant commercial operating permits or commercial business licenses (patentes comerciales) for commercial establishments; what the Ministry grants are sanitary operating permits or sanitary authorizations, it being understood that what defines these permits and/or authorizations is precisely the physical and sanitary conditions of the premises that allow it to operate, all in accordance with the provisions of articles 222, 298, 323, 324, and 328 of Ley No. 5395 of October 30, 1973 'Ley General de Salud.' It is the obligation of every natural or legal person carrying out a commercial, industrial, or service activity to have a sanitary operating permit; in the specific case of the commercial establishment "Terra Eventos," such a permit has been obtained. As can be seen, the reported situation has been properly attended to; the authorities of this Ministry have not been able to identify that the activities carried out in the commercial establishment produce noise or other environmental pollution; the appropriate administrative acts have been issued and the orders given have been complied with; all of this has been communicated to the complainant. The Ministry can only commit to continuing to address each situation raised by the petitioner and, where necessary, to conducting the corresponding verifications (noise measurements) that would make it possible to determine whether the noise being reported is in fact being produced—which has not been confirmed despite having conducted the corresponding noise measurements." **7.-** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings conducted.

Justice (Magistrada) **Garro Vargas** drafts the opinion; and, **Considering:** **I.- Object of the appeal.** The petitioner states that his client is a neighboring resident of a property owned by the company Terra Equipos S.Nombre03., located in a residential zone of the canton of Mora, in which industrial-type activities are being carried out with the knowledge of the respondent municipality. He indicates that said authority granted a commercial operating license under the assumption that the activity corresponded to the rental and sale of construction equipment and display of metal structures, despite the fact that the property is in a zone where the zoning plan expressly prohibits industrial activities.

The petitioner further states that, after the business license (patente) was granted, the company substantially changed its line of business, carrying out activities such as bulk storage of materials, loading and unloading of metal structures, washing of equipment and portable toilets, handling of trucks transporting septic waste, operation of heavy machinery, and constant movement of cargo vehicles, thereby generating excessive noise, vibrations, and foul odors at hours incompatible with residential use. The petitioner further contends that these activities directly affect the peace, rest, and quality of life of the protected party (tutelado), who is an elderly person, as well as of the petitioner's immediate family, due to the intensity and continuity of the disturbances. The petitioner states that, despite having approached the Municipalidad de Mora and the Ministry of Health with technical and sanitary evidence, no effective measures have been taken to remedy the situation. In that regard, the petitioner notes that on December 4, 2025, a technical-legal report was submitted to the mayor, denouncing irregularities in the issuance of the business license, the impacts from noise, heavy traffic, risks, and violations of privacy, and requesting that technical studies be conducted and that the rights of neighboring residents be protected. The petitioner notes that, while this report was reportedly incorporated into an administrative proceeding (procedimiento administrativo), it remains in an indefinite preliminary stage, with no resolution or concrete measures adopted. Finally, the petitioner argues that the prolonged failure to act by the respondent authority has allowed the continuation of activities incompatible with land use (uso de suelo), thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the residents of the area, and therefore requests that the constitutional protection remedy (amparo) be granted with all legal consequences.

**II.- Preliminary Matter.** Before analyzing the merits of the case — concerning the alleged violation of the right to prompt and complete proceedings (derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido) — it should be clarified that, since Ruling No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Court has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa) — with certain exceptions — those cases in which the question is whether a public authority has complied with the deadlines established by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (articles 261 and 325) or by sectoral laws governing special administrative proceedings, both for issuing a final administrative act (acto final) — in a proceeding initiated ex officio or at a party's request — and for resolving the applicable administrative appeals (recursos administrativos). In the present case, an exception applies, as the matter involves a complaint regarding noise pollution (contaminación sónica) which, allegedly, has not been resolved within a reasonable time by the respondent ministry. With this point clarified, the Court proceeds to resolve the specific situation raised in this amparo.

**III.- Joinder (Coadyuvancia).** Joinder (coadyuvancia) is a form of adhesive intervention that occurs when a person participates in a proceeding by aligning with the claims of one of the main parties. Accordingly, any person with a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding is entitled to act as an intervening party (coadyuvante), even though, not being the petitioning party or the respondent, that person will not be directly affected by what is resolved in the judgment. Joinder is therefore the procedural mechanism by which an intervening party may assist the party whose position aligns with its own, in order to facilitate the success of that party's claims; the intervening party is neither an independent party nor a co-litigant (litisconsorte), but merely an adherent without independent standing to bring suit within the same proceeding. On this point, Article 34 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) provides as follows:

*"Article 34. The petition shall be directed against the public servant or the head of the body that appears as the alleged author of the grievance. If one or the other acted in compliance with orders or instructions issued by a superior, or with the superior's authorization or approval, the amparo shall be deemed filed against both, without prejudice to what is decided in the judgment. If the identity of the servant is unknown, the petition shall be deemed filed against the hierarchical superior.* *A third party who derives subjective rights from the rule or act giving rise to the amparo proceeding shall also be considered a party.* *Furthermore, anyone with a legitimate interest in the outcome of the petition may appear and intervene as an intervening party for or against the petitioner." (Underlining not in the original).* In this way, the ruling's effects cannot reach the intervening party directly and immediately, nor can the judgment's res judicata (cosa juzgada) effect bind that party — although in amparo matters, the intervening party may benefit from the effects of the ruling, due to the erga omnes character of the jurisprudence and precedents of the constitutional jurisdiction (Article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law). In this case, the Court admits the joinder submitted by Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho, pursuant to Article 34 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, inasmuch as the intervener states that he has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding, in his capacity as a neighboring landowner adjoining the property where the reported activities are taking place, and alleges harm under circumstances substantially identical to those described by the petitioning party.

**IV.- Proven Facts.** The following facts are considered duly established as material to the resolution of this matter, either because they have been demonstrated in the record or because the respondent party failed to address them as required by the initial order:

• 1)On March 11, 2024, the protected party filed a complaint before the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora concerning noise problems, large structures placed next to the boundary wall (tapia) of the property, and workshop activities that, in the complainant's view, were not covered by the permits granted to the reported company Terra Equipos (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 2)On March 18, 2024, personnel from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted a visual inspection at the petitioner's residence, where they were received by Nombre07; no noise from a workshop or metal striking was perceived; metal structures stacked above the boundary wall were observed, presenting a potential risk of falling onto the neighboring property; and the reported establishment was found to be closed, so the inspection of the commercial premises was rescheduled for April 8, 2024 (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 3)On April 8, 2024, personnel from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted an inspection of the reported establishment, during which storage of metal structures for sale and display was verified as consistent with the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento); no workshop activity or structural repair work was confirmed; no noise was perceived; and the stacking of structures above the boundary wall adjoining the complainant's property was confirmed (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 4)On April 9, 2024, the petitioner was notified by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora in response to the complaint (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 5)On April 22, 2024, the reported company was notified of sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, which required it to install smoke detectors, post emergency signage, maintain dispensers with liquid soap and disposable towels, keep a first-aid kit, and refrain from stacking structures above the boundary wall to prevent the risk of falls (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 6)On May 21, 2024, Terra Equipos submitted a written response to sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, reporting compliance with the requirements (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 7)On May 28, 2024, personnel from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verified compliance with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-069-2024; confirmed full compliance with several requirements; found only partial compliance regarding the stacking of structures above the boundary wall; perceived no noise coming from the company; and observed a large quantity of stored metal structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 8)On May 30, 2024, the protected party was notified by email of the actions taken by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora and of the follow-up carried out on the sanitary order issued against the reported company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 9)On June 4, 2024, the reported company was notified of sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, which instructed it to expand its operating permit to include storage of structures and to submit, within fifteen business days, a technical storage and stacking proposal validated by a competent professional, specifying maximum heights and setback distances from the boundary lines (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 10)On June 4, 2024, the petitioner reported the continuation of noise and the slow progress in the rearrangement of structures within the reported establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 11)On June 11, 2024, the petitioner was informed that, during the verification inspection, the stacks on the side adjoining the petitioner's property were found to be set back more than one meter, and that those closest to the residence did not exceed the height of the boundary wall; the petitioner was also advised that any potential noise violation could only be determined through a noise level measurement (sonometría) to be scheduled at a date and time proposed by the petitioner (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 12)On June 20 and 25, 2024, the petitioner reiterated concerns about the proximity of structures to the boundary wall, risks posed by materials placed on racks, concerns regarding the roof structure, noise, and the movement of materials into the establishment; and the Área Rectora de Salud again asked the petitioner to propose a date and time for scheduling the noise level measurement (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 13)On June 24 and 25, 2024, the reported company submitted a technical proposal to comply with sanitary order CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, with a schedule from June to September 2024 for moving and rearranging structures; this proposal was reviewed and endorsed by the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora, along with the municipal land-use expansion approval for structure storage; and this was communicated to the protected party (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 14)On July 16, 2024, personnel from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora conducted a new inspection of the establishment and found that the roofs were in good condition, with no broken, detached, or unstable sections; accordingly, they recommended requesting specialized technical assistance for a supplementary structural assessment by a civil engineer (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 15)On July 22 and 24, 2024, the protected party was informed of the actions taken regarding the roof structure; additionally, Terra Eventos submitted documentation to expand its sanitary operating permit, resulting in the issuance of certificate CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 upon verification of the municipal land-use expansion for structure storage (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 16)On August 5, 7, 19, and 20, 2024, the petitioner inquired about the civil engineer's visit, reported problems related to the washing of portable latrines (letrinas), and again raised the need for a noise level measurement; the Área Rectora de Salud informed the petitioner of the scheduled inspection date, conducted a visit to verify the reported facts, prepared the corresponding technical report, and subsequently communicated the actions taken to the petitioner (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 17)On August 22 and 28, 2024, engineers Allan Bolaños Benavides and Óscar Arroyo Barahona concluded that the establishment's structure presented no imminent danger to its stability; this was communicated to the petitioner by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 18)On September 19, 20, and 23, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora followed up on the technical proposal for rearranging structures, verified compliance with the majority of its points, left pending only the placement of signage and the records of weekly reviews, informed the petitioner thereof, and scheduled a noise level measurement for September 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.; this measurement could not be carried out due to the absence of noise coming from the reported company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 19)On October 7, 2024, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora made a new attempt at a sonic measurement (medición sónica), which also could not be completed due to the absence of noise generated by the respondent company (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 20)On December 3, 5, 9, and 19, 2024, the protected party (tutelado) was informed of new opportunities to conduct a sonic measurement; one of them could not be carried out due to lack of noise; another was not conducted because the complainant himself misread the email that had been sent to him and had to attend a medical appointment; and finally, upon an email from Mr. Loría reporting noise, staff from the Área Rectora de Salud left their office duties to conduct the measurement, obtaining a result of 48.4 dB(A), corresponding to ambient noise plus an active generating source, a level that did not exceed the maximum of 65 dB(A) permitted for a residential zone by the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N.° 39428-S (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 21)On January 7, 8, and 9, 2025, the appellant (recurrente) received the result of the sound-level measurement (sonometría) conducted in December 2024; moreover, the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora confirmed that the respondent company had complied with the outstanding items of sanitary order (orden sanitaria) CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, a fact that was also communicated to him by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 22)On February 17 and 18, 2025, the protected party (amparado) again reported the existence of noise coming from the respondent company, and the Área Rectora de Salud asked him to confirm schedules in order to coordinate a sonic measurement, advising him that the equipment would have to be borrowed from another área rectora because their own was being calibrated, with no subsequent response from the complainant on record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 23)On March 10 and 19, 2025, the petitioner (promovente), through his then-attorney, again reported sonic contamination (contaminación sónica), and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora went to the home of the affected parties to conduct a measurement, a proceeding that could not be completed due to the absence of noise (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 24)On March 26, May 15, and June 5 and 9, 2025, the Área Rectora de Salud sought to coordinate new sonic measurements with the affected party, received no response to several of those attempts, and, when Mr. Loría again reported that the noise persisted, he was told that it was not appropriate to serve notice on the company for sonic contamination because the measurement conducted in December 2024 had not exceeded the permitted limits and the reported problems had not been verified; a new measurement was also offered for June 16, 2025, with no response on record (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 25)On July 1, 2, 3, and 8, 2025, the protected party reported the presence of a truck carrying septic sludge at the Terra Eventos establishment; the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection for the following day, visited the site, and found that no noise could be perceived from outside; that a sonic measurement was not possible due to the absence of sound; that inside the establishment only a forklift was operating, arranging structures; that no mechanical work was being performed; that there were no trucks with septic sludge; that there were no discharges of wastewater or sludge; and that no foul odors were detected; and subsequently reported these findings to the appellant by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 26)On August 6, 2025, the appellant submitted a written communication raising various questions regarding the Terra Eventos establishment, including those related to sonic contamination, invasion of private property, loss of privacy, fire hazard, foul odors, and storage of structures; this submission was answered by official letter CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, in which it was clarified that multiple attempts at sonic measurement had been made without it having been possible to carry them out, due to the absence of noise or lack of coordination with the affected party (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 27)On October 23 and 30, 2025, the representative of Mr. Nombre01 filed an administrative petition for the enforcement of a sanitary order that he considered had not been complied with, and the Área Rectora de Salud de Mora responded in writing to each of the points raised, including the one related to sonic contamination (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 28)On January 6 and 13, 2026, the protected party again reported disturbing noise and the presence of a septic sludge tank at the Terra Eventos establishment; accordingly, the Área Rectora de Salud scheduled an inspection and, upon conducting it, could not carry out a sonic measurement due to the absence of noise, did not observe anyone washing machinery or carrying out noise-generating activities, found no trucks with septic sludge, detected no water pooling on the ground, and perceived no foul odors; these results were subsequently communicated to the complainant by email (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).
• 29)As of March 26, 2026, the Terra Eventos commercial establishment held a sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) granted by the Ministerio de Salud, including the corresponding extension for the storage of structures (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

**III.- Unproven fact.** The following fact of relevance to this ruling is not considered to be duly established:

Sole: That there exists a final administrative act or definitive ruling by the Ministerio de Salud declaring the existence of sonic contamination in the reported establishment (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence submitted to the digital case file).

**IV.- Merits analysis.** First, it should be noted that this Tribunal has held that sonic contamination produced by noise has an impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. On this subject, ruling No. 2025-009098 of 09:50 a.m. on March 25, 2025, stated the following:

*"**IV.- On the specific case.** From the combined reading of Article 24 and Article 28 of our Political Constitution, the principle of freedom that governs individuals has as one of its limits the prohibition against harming third parties, and for that reason it protects their sphere of privacy and, consequently, the tranquility inherent in that sphere. Noise disturbs tranquility, especially when it affects the place where a person resides. Furthermore, in light of other constitutional provisions such as Article 50, which enshrines the right to a healthy environment, and Article 21, from which the right to health has been derived, the State is required to guarantee an environment free from sonic contamination. For these reasons, with respect to activities such as karaoke venues, live music establishments, and similar businesses, the jurisprudence of this Tribunal has been clear in emphasizing the need to respect the rights of neighboring residents."* It should be noted from the precedent partially quoted above that the Constitutional Chamber has stated that sonic contamination constitutes a form of environmental aggression that directly affects the health and tranquility of individuals, such that, when the permitted threshold is exceeded, the State is obligated to deploy effective and verifiable action to prevent, correct, and, where applicable, put an end to the source of contamination.

In the present matter, it is not apparent that the respondent health authority incurred any substantive violation of the protected party's fundamental rights with respect to sonic contamination, since the sequence of actions taken demonstrates that, from the date the complaint was filed on March 11, 2024, the Área Rectora de Salud activated on-site verification mechanisms, conducting initial inspections, issuing sanitary orders, and making follow-up visits to assess the conditions of the reported establishment. In that regard, inspections were conducted in March, April, and May of 2024, during which, while other sanitary situations were identified — such as the storage of structures and safety conditions — no noise could be perceived at the time of the inspections, which required rescheduling proceedings and maintaining administrative follow-up.

As regards the sound measurements (mediciones sonoras) themselves, it is clear that the authority attempted to carry them out on multiple occasions during 2024 — including September, October, and December — without being able to complete them, either because no noise was being generated at the time of the inspection or due to coordination issues with the complainant himself, which is a determining factor, inasmuch as the technical measurement depends on the actual presence of the reported phenomenon. Likewise, when a measurement was finally obtained in December 2024, with activity present at the site, the result was 48.4 dB(A), a value that falls below the permitted limit for a residential zone, making it impossible to establish the existence of a violation of the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, during 2025 the health authority continued to attend to the protected party's complaints, seeking new measurements in February, March, and subsequent months; these could not be completed on several occasions due to the absence of noise at the time of the visit or due to lack of coordination; and new inspections were even conducted in July of that year, during which, again, no sound levels were perceived that would have allowed a valid measurement to be taken. In this way, far from evidencing passive conduct, what is established is repeated, progressive, and technically oriented action aimed at verifying the complaint, in which the absence of conclusive results is attributable to the factual impossibility of capturing the phenomenon at the time of the measurements, and not to any administrative omission.

Accordingly, since no technical measurement has established that the permitted noise levels were exceeded, and since no inactivity on the part of the health authority in verifying the complaint is on record, it is not possible to find that a violation of the protected party's fundamental rights has been established in the substantive dimension of sonic contamination.

However, what does constitute a violation of his fundamental rights is that, despite the fact that since March 11, 2024, the protected party has reported, among other things, the noise problem, no final act expressly, clearly, and definitively resolving that petition has been issued as of the date the appeal was filed. Indeed, although the health authority has carried out various verification and follow-up actions, these have remained at a strictly material and preparatory level, without being translated into a conclusive decision determining whether or not a violation exists and, where applicable, ordering the corresponding measures. To that extent, the absence of a final ruling prevents the obligation to resolve the petitions filed by the administered parties promptly and expressly from being considered satisfied, since it is not sufficient to conduct verification proceedings if they do not culminate in an act that defines the legal situation submitted to the Administration's consideration. Therefore, allowing the matter to remain in an indefinite state, without a resolution bringing the case to a close, constitutes a violation of the right to prompt administrative resolution enshrined in Article 41 of the Political Constitution.

Consequently, it is appropriate to grant the appeal with respect to this aspect of the claim.

**V.-** Regarding the complaints directed against the Municipalidad de Mora, it should be noted first that the matter relating to the alleged sonic contamination was already addressed in the preceding considerando, in which it was determined that the verification, measurement, and control of noise levels falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministerio de Salud, in its capacity as the competent technical authority in this area. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to transfer to the Municipalidad the responsibility for any alleged harm arising from sound levels, given that said entity does not have the authority to measure them or to adopt the corresponding sanitary measures, and therefore no constitutionally significant omission in that regard can be attributed to it.

Furthermore, with respect to the other arguments raised by the appellant — relating to the granting of the commercial license (licencia comercial), conformity of land use (uso de suelo), the possible modification of the authorized activity, and the adequacy of municipal oversight activities — it is apparent that these fall within the domain of ordinary legality. Indeed, such challenges require determining whether the local government's administrative actions comply with the applicable urban planning regulations (normativa urbanística), the current land-use plan (plan regulador), and the specific conditions under which the business license (patente comercial) was granted, which in turn calls for a technical and evidentiary analysis that exceeds the scope of amparo proceedings.

In that regard, it is not within this constitutional jurisdiction to act as a reviewing body for the legality of administrative acts issued by the Municipalidad, nor to substitute the active Administration in evaluating technical matters related to land use, the granting of licenses, or the exercise of oversight powers, particularly when the legal system provides suitable ordinary channels for challenging such actions. Therefore, since no arbitrary or omissive conduct with a direct impact on fundamental rights is apparent — but rather a disagreement with the administrative actions taken — the claims raised in this respect are inadmissible in amparo proceedings.

**VI.- Note of Magistrate Castillo Víquez, regarding prompt and effective administrative justice.** I have supported this Tribunal's position that when a litigant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and effective justice in administrative proceedings, the appropriate body to hear the legal dispute is the Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, it has been established that this right is subject to judicial protection by means of the amparo appeal provided for in Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in conjunction with Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in cases where the petitioner considers that the Administration's material actions, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting his or her fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not mean that this Tribunal must change its line of jurisprudence, since it falls to the Tribunal itself, pursuant to Article 7 of its governing law, to exclusively define its own jurisdiction. Therefore, except for those legal and constitutional disputes that this same Chamber has recognized as exceptional cases — which may indeed be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo guarantee process — in all other cases, and for the reasons given by this Tribunal (ruling No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), jurisdiction lies with the judges of the administrative contentious jurisdiction, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, Constitutional Law (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding statutory provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.

**VII.- Note of Magistrate Salazar Alvarado.** In environmental matters, it is also the undersigned's view that, where the Public Administration has already intervened, jurisdiction to hear and resolve the matter belongs to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa). Nonetheless, I do proceed to examine the merits when other rights of persons affected by the contamination source (foco de contaminación) are at stake—among them, health, quality of life, and the right to enjoy a clean environment free from contamination (Article 50 of the Political Constitution)—as is the case here, in which the petitioning party filed a complaint regarding the irregular operation of an establishment causing environmental and noise contamination, which implicates the right to a healthy environment and the right to health, and which the petitioning party alleges has not been definitively resolved, in violation of the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and a dignified standard of quality of life.

**VIII.- Documentation submitted to the case file (expediente).** The parties are hereby advised that, if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, these must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Failing this, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the *"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial"*, approved by the Corte Plena at Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The petition is granted, solely on grounds of a violation of the right to prompt and effective administrative justice. Consequently, Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister of Health, or whoever holds that office, is ordered to take all necessary steps within the scope of her authority so that, within a maximum period of **TWO MONTHS** counted from the notification of this judgment, the complaint filed by the protected party (amparado) on March 11, 2024, is definitively resolved. The respondent party is warned that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prison sentence of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order to comply with or enforce, issued in a writ of amparo (recurso de amparo), and fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely penalized by another provision. The State is condemned to pay costs (costas), damages, and losses arising from the facts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in contentious-administrative judgment enforcement proceedings. As regards the Municipalidad de Mora, the petition is denied. Justice Castillo Víquez appends a note. Justice Salazar Alvarado appends a note. Notice to be served.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo.

Salazar A. | | Jorge Araya G. | --- | --- | --- | | Salazar A. | | [signature] Jorge Araya G. | | [signature] Anamari Garro V. | | [signature] Ingrid Hess H. | Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- Telephones: Telf01 / ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección05, Dirección06, 100 meters south of the Perpetuo Socorro church).

 Res. Nº 2026013352 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintiuno de abril de dos mil veintiseis .

Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 26-004879-0007-CO, interpuesto por MIGUEL HERRERA GONZÁLEZ, carnet profesional n.°2840, a favor de Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED03, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito presentado ante esta Sala a las 15:08 horas del 11 de febrero de 2026, la parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo en contra de la Municipalidad de Mora. Expone que su representado es vecino colindante de un inmueble propiedad de la empresa Terra Equipos S.A., que se encuentra en zona residencial, pero en el que se realizan actividades de tipo industrial a vista y paciencia de la Municipalidad de Mora. Enuncia que la autoridad accionada otorgó una licencia comercial a favor de la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. en la finca del partido de San José nro. 401148-000, plano SJ- 0068073- 1972, amparado al uso de suelo nro. CU- 22-373 del 6 de mayo 2022, bajo el supuesto de que la actividad a desarrollar era la “ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPOS DE CONSTRUCCIÓN VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METALIZADAS”. Acota que el inmueble mencionado se ubica en una zona residencial, en el que, conforme al plan regulador del cantón de Mora vigente, se prohíben expresamente las actividades industriales como: bodegas, talleres y cualquier uso análogo que generen molestias al vecindario. Relata que con posterioridad al otorgamiento de la licencia comercial y de forma progresiva, la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. modificó sustancialmente la actividad autorizada y se dedicó a realizar otras de carácter industrial. Explica que dicha sociedad realiza el almacenamiento masivo de productos, carga y descarga de estructuras metálicas, lavado de equipos e inodoros portátiles, lavado y almacenamiento de camiones que transportan solidos sépticos o excrementos, operación de maquinaria pesada y tránsito constante de camiones pesados, generando ruido excesivo y constante, vibraciones y malos olores, en horarios incompatibles con uso residencial, pues esas actividades se extienden hasta horas de la noche. Alega que lo descrito impide el descanso, la tranquilidad y la vida digna de su representado, quien es una persona adulta mayor, así como de su núcleo familiar, quienes han experimentado una degradación de su calidad de vida. Enuncia que desde hace varios meses, el tutelado ha acudido ante las autoridades administrativas, tanto a la Municipalidad de Mora como al Ministerio de Salud, a efectos de solicitar su intervención urgente, para lo cual aportó prueba técnica, pericial y sanitaria contundente que acredita la afectación real. No obstante, reclama que el ayuntamiento accionado ha incurrido en una omisión prolongada e injustificada, tolerando que la afectación continúe en el tiempo sin adoptar acción alguna en resguardo de los derechos fundamentales de su defendido y de los habitantes del cantón en esa zona residencial. En este sentido, detalla que el 4 de diciembre de 2025 su apoderado especial, Miguel A. Herrera González, dirigió al alcalde de Mora un documento denominado “INFORME TÉCNICO JURÍDICO SOBRE LAS ANOMALÍAS EN EL OTORGAMIENTO DE PATENTE COMERCIAL A TERRA EQUIPOS”, por medio de cual expuso que la actividad de la empresa mencionada se da hasta altas horas de la noche, generando un ruido que excede los límites permitidos en zona residencial. Asimismo, en ese informe se hizo alusión a irregularidades administrativas detectadas y causadas por el tránsito pesado, riesgos eléctricos, visibilidad hacia propiedades colindantes y la violación a la privacidad, por lo que se solicitó un estudio técnico municipal sobre ruido ambiental y la protección de los derechos de los vecinos afectados, conforme a los principios de dignidad humana, habitabilidad y medio ambiente sano. Menciona que mediante oficio AMM-0900-2025 se le indicó que el informe señalado se agregó al proceso de investigación preliminar aperturado el 31 de octubre de 2025 con el número de consecutivo IPAD-006-2025. Cuestiona que la Administración ha mantenido la situación en una fase preliminar indefinida, sin resolver expresamente la solicitud principal, ni adoptar medidas para tutelar sus derechos fundamentales. Solicita que se declare con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias legales que ello implique.

2.- Por resolución de las 15:51 horas del 06 de marzo de 2026, la Presidencia de la Sala dio curso a este proceso constitucional y se le solicitó informe al alcalde de Mora, sobre los hechos alegados por la parte recurrente.

3.- Mediante escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 14:49 horas del 13 de marzo de 2026, informa bajo juramento Alfonso Jiménez Cascante, en su condición de alcalde de Mora, lo siguiente:

“II. SOBRE EL USO DE SUELO CU- 22-373 DEL 06 DE MAYO DE 2022 Y PERMISOS CONSTRUCTIVOS EMITIDOS POR ESTE MUNICIPIO A LA EMPRESA TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. PRIMERO: Mediante resolución CU- 22-373 del 06 de mayo de 2022 se determinó como conforme el uso de suelo solicitado por el usuario TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA para la Dirección01 con plano catastro SJ 0068073-1992 para la actividad de “VENTA Y EXHIBICION DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS”. En virtud de lo anterior, mediante oficio N°DPOT-26-04 del 12 de marzo de 2026 suscrito por la funcionaria Phisilla Carvajal Venegas, encargada de Usos de Suelo, se informó sobre el uso de suelo CU-22-373 lo siguiente: “(…) Sirva la presente para saludarle, y al mismo tiempo dar respuesta al correo Informe Recurso Amparo; la situación de una propiedad ubicada en zona; zona Residencial; finca número 401148 de la cual es propietario TERRA EQUIPOS, en donde se le autorizaba ciertas actividades, tales como ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPOS DE CONSTRUCCIÓN VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METALIZADAS, se le han otorgado uso de suelo cu-22-373, 6 de mayo 2022. Como es de conocimiento general, el DPTO tienen dentro de sus competencias generar las autorizaciones en primera instancia para que se aprueben las licencias comerciales, esto luego de que el Administrado solicitante cumpla con una serie de requisitos. La fiscalización de las licencias comerciales; corresponde al Departamento de Administración Tributaria (PATENTES). La finca 401148 está ubicada en zona residencial para poder ejercer las actividades que le fueron permitidas:(imagen 1, 2, 3 y 4) […]

[…]

[…]

[…]

Estas imágenes dejan en evidencia que la finca 401148 se encuentra donde se mencionaba en la primera imagen y por ende se encuentra en zona residencial. Al determinar en los hechos antes descritos que la Finca de la cual es propietario TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA se encuentra zonificada como ¨Residencial (Z.R) ¨ genera que tenga ciertos límites ante determinadas actividades que se pueden y no hacer en la propiedad, por lo cual véase lo que establece el Plan Regulador de Mora en su numeral 4.1 donde taxativamente explica el uso permitido y no permitido: Usos Permitidos: ¨La vivienda unifamiliar y multifamiliar, y todos los usos urbanos compatibles con la vivienda, como centros educativos de servicios públicos comunales, comercio menor y otros similares que no provocan incompatibilidad. Los siguientes usos se permitirán solo frente a rutas o vías principales: clínicas, hospitales, clínicas para animales, salas de cine y centros deportivos¨ Usos no Permitidos: ¨La industria, incluidos talleres mecánicos y de enderezado y pintura, de rejas y portones, bodegas, aserraderos, bares y cantinas, comercial al mayoreo, y cualquier otro uso análogo a los citados que provoquen molestias en el vecindario, tales como humo, olores, ruido, tránsito intenso, uso y transporte de materiales tóxicos, inflamables o explosivos y cualquiera otra molestia que entre en conflicto con el uso predominante¨ Por lo que el uso de suelo otorgado CU-22-373, es un uso de suelos resueltos de conformidad con la zona y la finca. Es importante aclarar: De conformidad con el artículo 28 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y el artículo 102 del Reglamento de Construcciones, el Certificado de Uso de Suelo corresponde al acto jurídico concreto por medio del cual la Administración local acredita la conformidad o no del uso de suelo de un predio a los requerimientos de la Zonificación, por lo que las licencias comerciales o constructivas corresponde a un acto de autorización emitido por el Departamento de Administración Tributaria o Desarrollo y Control Urbano, quien verificará que se cumpla con toda la normativa pertinente y aplicable. La fiscalización de las licencias comerciales; corresponde al Departamento de Administración Tributaria (PATENTES) quien verificará que se cumpla con toda la normativa pertinente y aplicable. “ Asimismo, es importante señalar que en el por tanto de la resolución de uso de suelo N°CU-22-373 del 06 de mayo de 2022 se indica: “Siempre y cuando se cumplan con las condiciones establecidas para la zona, el uso propuesto en la propiedad con plano SJ-0068073-1992 para PERMISO DE FUNCIONAMIENTO ( VENTA Y EXHIBICION DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS.) es CONFORME siempre y cuando no se trate comercial al mayoreo, y cualquier otro uso análogo a los citados como no permitos que provoquen molestias en el vecindario, tales como humo, olores, ruido, tránsito intenso, uso y transporte de materiales tóxicos, inflamables o explosivos y cualquiera otra molestia que entre en conflicto con el uso predominante. Que no se genere la actividad de bodega- almacenamiento mismo que debe ser ubicado en la Zona Industrial.” De esta manera, de la resolución CU-22-373 del 06 de mayo de 2022 y del Informe DPOT-26-04 rendido por el área técnica, se desprende de manera clara, objetiva y verificable que la finca número 401148, propiedad de TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, se encuentra ubicada dentro de una zona Residencial (Z.Nombre02.), conforme a la zonificación establecida en el Plan Regulador del cantón de Mora. En este contexto, el Certificado de Uso de Suelo CU-22-373, emitido el 6 de mayo de 2022, constituye un acto administrativo mediante el cual la Administración Municipal acreditó la conformidad del uso solicitado para VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTIRAS PARA EVENTOS, con la zonificación vigente al momento de su emisión, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 28 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y el artículo 102 del Reglamento de Construcciones, siendo que la actividad descrita se determina como de comercio menor, actividad permitida en la zonificación correspondiente al área donde se ubica la finca número 401148 , que se ubica en zona residencial, misma que permite el uso descrito según el análisis realizado por el área técnica. Aunado, de acuerdo con el numeral 4.1 del Plan Regulador de Mora, siendo que la zona Residencial permite únicamente aquellos usos compatibles con la vivienda, tales como vivienda unifamiliar o multifamiliar, comercio menor y otros servicios urbanos que no generen incompatibilidad, molestias al vecindario ni impactos negativos asociados a ruido, tránsito intenso, almacenamiento o manipulación de materiales peligrosos o de gran volumen. Por el contrario, se encuentran expresamente prohibidos los usos industriales, bodegas, talleres, comercio al por mayor y cualquier actividad análoga que resulte incompatible con el uso predominante residencial. Bajo este marco normativo, la autorización del uso de suelo otorgada debe interpretarse restrictivamente y así mismo se dispuso en el por tanto de dicha resolución de uso de suelo (antes citado), en el cual se resolvió limitado el mismo a aquellas actividades que, por su naturaleza, escala y forma de operación, no contravengan las prohibiciones expresas establecidas para la zona residencial, estando CONFORME siempre y cuando “no se trate comercial al mayoreo, y cualquier otro uso análogo a los citados como no permitidos que provoquen molestias en el vecindario, tales como humo, olores, ruido, tránsito intenso, uso y transporte de materiales tóxicos, inflamables o explosivos y cualquiera otra molestia que entre en conflicto con el uso predominante. Que no se genere la actividad de bodega- almacenamiento mismo que debe ser ubicado en la Zona Industrial”. Por último, es importante aclarar que, así como lo menciona el informe, el mismo es claro al delimitar las competencias administrativas de un uso de suelo ya que, si bien es cierto este mismo Gobierno Local mediante el subproceso de Usos de Suelo emitió el certificado de uso de suelo N° CU-22-723 del 06 de mayo de 2022 de manera conforme para el proyecto pretendido por la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, lo cierto del caso es que dicho acto administrativo no es vinculante de manera directa para el momento de solicitud y aprobación de la Licencia de Construcción, esto en el tanto que si bien el uso de suelo es un requisito fundamental, al momento de la valoración de la licencia constructiva se deben entrar a analizar otra serie de factores fácticos y técnicos aplicables a la propuesta presentada para su aprobación, por lo que el hecho un uso de suelo conforme, no implica que la Licencia de Construcción también llegue a ser aprobada o no, ya que como se hizo mención, se deberá cumplir con toda una serie de requisitos para su respectivo trámite y aprobación. Lo anterior, puede evidenciarse a la luz de la resolución N° 2023019022 de las nueve horas treinta minutos del cuatro de agosto de dos mil veintitrés, emitida por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, quién indicó: “(…) se tiene que en el certificado de suelo emitido a solicitud de la recurrente, se indicó que el mismo no reemplazaba la licencia constructiva, el uso de suelo y la licencia de constructiva son actos administrativos distintos, por lo que el certificado de uso de suelo no reemplaza la licencia constructiva, su respectivo trámite y/o aprobación, de uso de suelo establece los lineamientos generales sobre el uso que puede darse de la finca en cuestión, indicando los lineamientos o normativa a la que se deberá ajustar el administrado al momento en que decida realizar algún tipo de desarrollo dentro de dicha propiedad, generando de esta manera el control sobre la zonificación acreditando la posibilidad de uso de este. La licencia de construcción constituye un acto administrativo, el cual se otorga de previo al inicio de las obras, como garantía de cumplimiento de todos los requerimientos técnicos y legales, perfeccionándose con el pago del canon respectivo establecido por el municipio para tales efectos, en todos aquellos casos en que no se cumpla con la totalidad de requisitos técnicos o legales aplicables al caso en concreto, no podrá ser expedida la licencia solicitada. (…)” (El resaltado es propio) Ahora bien, sobre otros permisos concedidos por parte de este gobierno local a la empresa Terra Equipos S, A, el Subproceso de Constructivo ha informado mediante oficio N°PUCC-013-2026 del 12 de marzo de 2026, suscrito por Walter Flores Blanco, encargado de dicho subproceso, lo siguiente: “(…) en lo que compete estrictamente a las actuaciones administrativas de este Subproceso respecto al inmueble matrícula , me permito informar lo siguiente: Tras la revisión de los registros del Sistema de Información Gráfica Municipal (SIGRAMU) y los ls archivos físicos del Subproceso de Control Constructivo, se detallan las siguientes licencias otorgadas para la finca mencionada: 1. Licencia de Construcción PC 269-13 A, Otorgada para obras de “Mantenimiento y Reparación” 2. m². Licencia de Construcción PC 269-13 C, Otorgada para la construcción de un galerón de 40 Indicando que, el otorgamiento de estas licencias responde estrictamente al cumplimiento normativo vigente al momento de su emisión. Dichos actos administrativos, durante su gestión y aprobación, cumplían plenamente con los requisitos técnicos y legales exigidos por la normativa constructiva y urbanística aplicable. Se entiende que, a la fecha de su otorgamiento, la Municipalidad actuó en estricto apego al principio de legalidad, verificando técnicamente que el desarrollo constructivo se ajustara a los parámetros autorizados para la Dirección02.” De acuerdo con lo informado por el funcionario Flores Blanco, todas las licencias constructivas otorgadas por esta Municipalidad a la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. fueron precedidas de un proceso de revisión técnica y jurídica integral, verificándose en cada caso el cumplimiento de la normativa aplicable, sin que medie omisión, dispensa o relajación de los controles administrativos exigidos. En ese sentido, cada permiso concedido constituye un acto administrativo debidamente motivado y emitido tras comprobarse el cumplimiento efectivo de los requisitos legales y técnicos correspondientes, lo cual evidencia que la actuación municipal se ha desarrollado de forma diligente, objetiva y conforme al ordenamiento jurídico. III. SOBRE LA LICENCIA COMERCIAL INSCRITA POR ESTE MUNICIPIO A TERRA EQUIPOS S.A, CÉDULA JURÍDICA CED01 En virtud de los hechos denunciados por el recurrente en el presente recurso en relación con la licencia comercial otorgada a favor de la empresa TERRA EQUIPOS S.ombre03.. en la finca del partido de San José número Dirección03, plano SJ- 0068073- 1972, para “ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPOS DE CONSTRUCCIÓN VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METALIZADAS”, siendo que el denunciante alude a que dicha actividad comercial fue modificó sustancialmente dedicándose a realizar otras ACTIVIDADES DE CARÁCTER INDUSTRIAL. Bajo ese contexto, el departamento de licencias comerciales de la Municipalidad de Mora a través del informe ° ATM-LC-111-2026 del 12 de marzo de 2026, suscrito por Karla Matamoros Camacho, jefe del Departamento de Licencias Comerciales, ha indicado lo siguiente: “(…) debo indicar que la aprobación de cada licencia comercial se genera a partir del planteamiento mediante el debido formulario de solicitud y el cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos. Cada uno de los requisitos se solicita con base a alguna normativa que así lo establece y los mismos son emitidos por la entidad o profesional correspondiente. Razón por la cual en esta Unidad se encarga de ratificar su cumplimiento, pero no interpone cuestionamiento sobre el criterio técnico que emite el profesional en ejercicio de sus competencias. Con respecto a la licencia comercial inscrita a Terra Equipos S. A. con cédula jurídica CED01 procedo a detallar: El 05 de noviembre del 2013, el Sr. Nombre04, con cédula ED04,, con representación judicial y extrajudicial de Terra Equipos S. A. con cédula jurídica CED01, plantea solicitud de licencia comercial con las siguientes características: • Sobre finca #436018-000 • Con plano catastro SJ-260201-95 • Uso de suelo del 17 de enero del 2013 • Actividad: ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPO Y MAQUINARIA DE CONSTRUCCIÓN Y ALMACENAMIENTO DE CABAÑAS SANITARIAS • Uso de suelo del 14 de junio del 2013 • Actividad: PARQUEO PARA CAMIONES CISTERNA PARA TRANSPORTE DE LODOS SÉPTICOS Y OFICINAS ADMINISTRATIVAS. • Licencia comercial aprobada mediante Resolución N° LICCO-077-2013-AT. En fecha 04 de marzo del 2014 solicita ampliación a la licencia comercial con las siguientes características: • Sobre finca #436018-000 • Con plano catastro SJ-260201-95 • Uso de suelo RU-466-13 del 29 de julio del 2013 • Actividad por agregar: TALLER DE REPARACIÓN Y MANTENIMIENTO. • Licencia comercial aprobada mediante Resolución N° LICCO-018-2014-AT. El 13 de mayo del 2022 la representada solicita licencia comercial con las siguientes características: • Sobre finca #401148-000 • Con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992 • Uso de suelo CU-22-373 del 06 de mayo del 2022 • Actividad: VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METÁLICAS • Licencia comercial aprobada mediante Resolución N° 071-2022-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT. Para el 21 de junio del 2024 la representada solicita ampliación a la licencia con las siguientes características: • Sobre finca #436018-000 • Con plano catastro SJ-260201-1995 • Uso de suelo CU-24-371 del 12 de mayo del 2024 • Actividad por agregar: LAVADO DE CABAÑAS SANITARIAS Y DESINFECCIÓN • Licencia comercial aprobada mediante Resolución N° 421-2024-AMPLIA-LICCO-AT. En fecha 13 de agosto del 2024 la representada solicita nueva ampliación a licencia comercial con las siguientes características • Sobre finca #401148-000 • Con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992 • Uso de suelo CU-24-488 del 18 de junio del 2024 Actividad por agregar: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ALQUILER PARA EXHIBICIÓN Y VENTA DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS COMERCIO MENOR • Licencia comercial aprobada mediante Resolución N° 445-2024-AMPLI-LICCO-AT. Del detalle anteriormente expuesto se determina que Terra Equipos S. A. con cédula jurídica CED01 en registros de la Municipalidad de Mora al día de hoy mantiene licencia comercial en dos números de finca, en cada una de ellas con las siguientes actividades inscritas: Finca #436018-000, con plano catastro SJ-260201-1995 Actividad autorizada: ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPO Y MAQUINARIA DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, PARQUEO PARA CAMIONES CISTERNA PARA TRANSPORTE DE LODOS SÉPTICOS, TALLER DE REPARACIÓN Y MANTENIMIENTO, ALMACENAMIENTO, LAVADO Y DESINFECCIÓN DE CABAÑAS SANITARIAS Y OFICINAS ADMINISTRATIVAS. Finca #401148-000, con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992 Actividad autorizada: VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METÁLICAS, ALMACENAMIENTO Y ALQUILER PARA EXHIBICIÓN Y VENTA DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS COMERCIO MENOR Del recurso de amparo interpuesto por el Sr. Nombre01 en contra de la Municipalidad de Mora, se entiende que la disconformidad del demandante es por la actividad que se genera en la finca #401148-000, con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992, lugar autorizado para la VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METÁLICAS, ALMACENAMIENTO Y ALQUILER PARA EXHIBICIÓN Y VENTA DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS COMERCIO MENOR. Sobre el mismo documento, en el apartado III. Hechos Relevantes Desde La Óptica Constitucional, punto 3, el Sr. Nombre01 expone: Con posterioridad al otorgamiento de la licencia comercial, y de forma progresiva, la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. modificó sustancialmente la actividad autorizada de “ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPOS DE CONSTRUCCIÓN VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METALIZADAS”, dedicándose a realizar otras ACTIVIDADES DE CARÁCTER INDUSTRIAL, diferentes al uso de suelo que originó la licencia comercial que se le otorgó, entre ellas: almacenamiento masivo de productos, carga y descarga de estructuras metálicas, lavado de equipos e inodoros portátiles, lavado y almacenamiento de camiones que transportan solidos sépticos o excrementos, operación de maquinaria pesada como montacargas y grúas y tránsito constante de camiones pesados, generando ruido excesivo y constante, vibraciones y malos olores, en horarios incompatibles con uso residencial, pues estas actividades se extienden hasta las nueve o más de la noche. A lo que es importante indicar que sobre la actividad de almacenamiento, lavado y desinfección de las cabinas sanitarias (inodores portátiles) se realiza sobre la finca #, con plano catastro SJ-260201-1995, así mismo se indica en informe de inspección MM-UI-105-2024 emitido por Reiner Reyes Fuentes, Inspector de la Unidad de Inspecciones y Policía Municipal de la Municipalidad de Mora en inspección conjunta realizada el 20 de agosto del 2024, con los personeros del Ministerio de Salud quienes también documentaron visita mediante oficio MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-365-2024 emitido por Maycol Ávalos Rodríguez, Lic. en Gestión Ambiental e Ingeniería en Salud Ocupacional del Ministerio de Salud. En diversos puntos de la denuncia, el afectado hace referencia a la protección de la salud (contaminación sónica / ruidos, malos olores y condiciones incompatibles con la vida sana) temas de salud pública que son de injerencia del Ministerio de Salud. Razón por la cual las medidas efectivas, idóneas y verificables para cesar la afectación a la salud que el demandado solicita deben ser direccionadas a la entidad en competencia. Hoy en día, en registros de la Municipalidad de Mora, la representada Terra Equipos S. A. con cédula jurídica CED01 se mantiene en cumplimiento de requisitos y de sus obligaciones tributarias (…)” Así las cosas, de lo señalado por el informe del departamento de licencias comerciales, se extrae que, en lo que respecta a la finca matrícula , ubicada en zona residencial, la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, mantiene una licencia comercial autorizada para el ejercicio de las siguientes actividades: • Venta y exhibición de estructuras metálicas, y • Almacenamiento y alquiler para exhibición y venta de estructuras para eventos, esto como ya se mencionó bajo la modalidad de comercio menor. Dicha licencia fue otorgada con base en el Certificado de Uso de Suelo CU-22-373 del 6 de mayo de 2022, el cual establece de forma expresa restricciones claras para la zonificación aplicable a la ubicación de dicha propiedad, excluyendo actividades de carácter industrial, bodegaje a gran escala, comercio al por mayor o cualquier uso que genere molestias incompatibles con la zonificación residencial. En consecuencia, la licencia comercial vigente para la finca no ampara ni autoriza actividades industriales, ni operaciones que impliquen lavado de equipos, manejo de residuos sépticos, uso intensivo de maquinaria pesada, ni tránsito constante de camiones pesados. Por el contrario, las actividades que el recurrente califica como “de carácter industrial”, tales como lavado de equipos e inodoros portátiles, lavado y almacenamiento de camiones que transportan sólidos sépticos o excrementos, operación de maquinaria pesada como montacargas, y almacenamiento asociado a dichas operaciones, no se desarrollan ni se encuentran autorizadas para la finca , sino que cuentan con licencia comercial expresa y vigente para ser ejercidas exclusivamente en la finca matrícula , la cual posee condiciones urbanísticas y autorizaciones distintas. En dicha finca, la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. mantiene licencia comercial para actividades que incluyen, entre otras: • alquiler y venta de equipo y maquinaria de construcción, • parqueo para camiones cisterna para transporte de lodos sépticos, • taller de reparación y mantenimiento, • almacenamiento, • lavado y desinfección de cabinas sanitarias, y • oficinas administrativas. Estas actividades fueron autorizadas mediante actos administrativos luego de la verificación del cumplimiento de los requisitos técnicos, sanitarios, ambientales y urbanísticos correspondientes, y no se encuentran vinculadas ni trasladadas a la finca 401148-000, esto ha sido comprobado por este gobierno local, el cual en cumplimiento a su deber de fiscalización ha realizado inspecciones en la Dirección01 para verificar que la actividad desarrollada se ajuste a la autorizada mediante la licencia comercial otorgada sobre dicho inmueble. Véase como mediante oficio MM-PM-083-2026 del 11 de marzo de 2026, Leonardo Trejos Cespedes, coordinador de la Unidad de Inspecciones y Policía Municipal informó sobre las inspecciones que en atención al deber de fiscalización han realizado desde dicha área, en ocasiones en conjunto con el departamento de licencias comerciales. Según se indica en el informe señalado, el 15 de febrero de 2022 se recibió denuncia presentada por el regidor Álvaro Arguedas Durán sobre presuntas irregularidades en el uso de una patente comercial en la propiedad indicada. En atención a dicha denuncia, el 21 de febrero de 2022 el inspector Geovany Rivas Guerrero realizó inspección en el sitio, indicando que no se observó oficina administrativa ni actividad comercial alguna. Posteriormente, mediante oficio AMM-0370-2025 del 24 de junio de 2025, suscrito por el alcalde municipal a.i. Emmanuel Ferrer Venegas, se solicitó realizar nueva inspección sobre presuntas irregularidades relacionadas con la licencia comercial otorgada al plano catastrado SJ-68073-92 a nombre de Terra Equipos S.A. En respuesta a dicha solicitud se consideró la visita realizada por la licenciada Karla Matamoros Camacho, cuyos resultados fueron comunicados mediante el oficio ATM-LC-292-2025 indicándose que “el día 30 de junio del presente, de forma conjunta los compañeros de la Policía Municipal, Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes y mi persona, nos apersonamos a la propiedad antes descrita donde fuimos atendidos por el Sr. Nombre05 colaborador de la representada Terra Equipos. Al momento de ingresar al bien inmueble antes descrito se pudo observar que en el lugar se mantenían algunos vehículos de carga liviana estacionados, el resto de la propiedad disponía de almacenamiento de estructuras metálicas como se puede observar en las fotografías que se muestran en este informe, se pudo divisar la presencia de dos personas (peones) colaboradoras de la empresa. […] […] […] De acuerdo con su solicitud y en descripción de lo observado al momento de la visita, se comprueba que se mantiene en ejercicio la actividad de “Venta y Exhibición de Estructuras Metálicas”. De igual manera, se reportaron las actuaciones realizadas por la Policía Municipal en la misma inspección mediante oficio MM-PM-197-2025, unidad la cual informó que, “El día 30 de junio del presente, de forma conjunta los compañeros de la Policía Municipal, Roy Quesada Chavarría, Alejandro Quirós Brenes, en compañía de la encargada de licencias comerciales Lic, Karla Matamoros Camacho, se hacen presentes al lugar. Se logra observar que, al momento de la visita, se mantiene en ejercicio la actividad de “Venta y Exhibición de Estructuras Metálicas”. En el sitio hay algunos vehículos de carga liviana y estructuras metálicas, no se divisan otras actividades distintas dentro de las instalaciones.” Luego, mediante oficio MM-PM-287-2025 del 30 de setiembre de 2025, se efectuó un análisis en el sistema SIGRAMU, determinándose que sobre la Dirección02, correspondiente al plano catastrado SJ-68073-1992, y constan trámites de construcción vinculados con lo existente en el sitio. Estos informes de diversas inspecciones efectuadas por los departamentos municipales competentes en la Dirección01 para verificar que la actividad comercial que se está desplegando se ajuste a lo permitido por la patente conferida sobre la misma, evidencian que este municipio ha sido diligente y en ningún caso omisos de sus deberes de fiscalización y atención a lo denunciado por el recurrente, toda vez que se han gestionado actuaciones tanto en campo como a nivel interno administrativo, para comprobar los hechos por él expuestos. Dichas actuaciones en campo según informan las unidades ejecutaras, han dado como resultado que en la finca Dirección03 la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, mantiene en ejercicio la actividad de “Venta y Exhibición de Estructuras Metálicas” la cual fue la aprobada por la patente otorgada, ante lo cual no puede sostenerse válidamente que exista una modificación sustancial o irregular de la actividad comercial autorizada en la finca 401148-000. En este sentido, teniendo en cuenta que las actividades cuestionadas por el aquí recurrente cuentan con respaldo administrativo en una licencia comercial independiente, otorgada para otro inmueble, bajo un régimen jurídico distinto, se desprende que el argumento del recurrente puede partir de una confusión material entre fincas y licencias comerciales distintas, atribuyendo a la finca 401148-000 actividades que no forman parte de la licencia otorgada para ese inmueble, sino que se encuentran legalmente autorizadas para ejercerse en otra propiedad diferente, debidamente identificada como la finca 436018-000. Aunado a esto, es importante reiterar lo ya indicado por la señora Nombre06 en el oficio ATM-LC 111-2026, respecto a que algunos de los hechos denunciados por el ofendido no están bajo las competencias de fiscalización de este municipio, sino de otras entidades como el Ministerio de Salud, tesis que se ampliara más adelante. Asimismo, se debe hacer del conocimiento de esta Sala que ante las múltiples denuncias realizadas por el señor Nombre01, el despacho de la alcaldía municipal ha iniciado una investigación preliminar para poder comprobar la verdad real de los hechos, siendo esta parte de las actuaciones de fiscalización administrativa internas que se han desarrollado, esto mediante oficio IPAD-006-2025 del 1 de octubre de 2025, no siendo omisos de ninguna manera frente a la situación denunciada por el administrado. Igualmente, respecto al informe técnico-jurídico al que hace referencia el recurrente, titulado “Informe Técnico Jurídico sobre las anomalías en el otorgamiento de patente comercial a terra equipos” presentado ante este municipio por el Licenciado Miguel Herrera González en fecha 04 de diciembre del 2025, el mismo se tuvo por recibido y se comunicó al órgano investigador de la IPAD-006-2025 para que sea agregado a dicho proceso de investigación preliminar, esto, además, fue puesto en conocimiento del señor Herrera Gómez como representante del señor Nombre01 mediante oficio AMM-0900-2025 de fecha 11 de diciembre de 2025. En esa misma línea, el 03 de febrero de 2026 se recibió reclamo administrativo del señor Herrera Gómez como representante del señor Nombre01 mediante el cual requirió el inicio de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sobre los mismos hechos, ante esto, mediante oficio AMM-0127-2026 de fecha 16 de febrero de 2026, este despacho brindó atención al reclamo administrativo reiterándole que mediante el oficio N.°IPAD‑006‑2025 del 31 de octubre de 2025, se dio inicio al proceso de investigación preliminar respecto de los hechos por él denunciados en relación con la patente otorgada a la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, y el uso de suelo, indicándole que, antes de proceder con dicha apertura esta administración de manera facultativa ha considerado importante realizar la investigación preliminar en el caso en cuestión, esto amparado en jurisprudencia de esta Sala, específicamente su resolución N.° número 2011-010890 de las 14:30 hrs. del 17 de agosto de 2011, en la cual se ha indicado: “(…) En este sentido, este Tribunal ha declarado que en tesis de principio es imposible violar el derecho de defensa durante una investigación preliminar, ya que ésta, stricto sensu, no forma parte de un procedimiento administrativo en sí, sino que más bien constituye un estadio preparatorio, cuyo objeto es juzgar si existe mérito para abrirlo o no. Más específicamente, se ha dicho que la investigación preliminar puede definirse como una labor facultativa de comprobación desplegada por la propia Administración Pública de las circunstancias del caso concreto.” (El subrayado es propio). Ante esta respuesta el recurrente ha presentado recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra el oficio AMM-0127-2026 mismo que fue resuelto mediante resolución AMR-013-2026 de las diez horas quince minutos del 23 de febrero del dos mil veintiséis, rechazando el recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio interpuesto por el señor Miguel Herrera González en representación de Nombre01 contra el oficio AMM-0127-2026 del 16 de febrero de 2026 por las consideraciones de hecho y de derecho en ella expuestas. Posteriormente, el 25 de febrero de 2025 el señor Miguel Herrera González en representación de Nombre01, presentó impugnación contra la resolución AMR-013-2026 la cual se resolvió en la resolución AMR-016-2026 de las diez horas del once de marzo de dos mil veintiséis y fue notificada el pasado 11 de marzo de 2026, se rechazó la revocatoria y la apelación será conocida en alzada por el jerarca impropio quien como ente competente revisará la legalidad de esas actuaciones administrativas, pero se evidencia que los reclamos administrativos presentados por el recurrente ante esta administración han sido debidamente atendidos. […] Dicho lo anterior, se ha demostrado que esta administración frente a las denuncias presentadas al municipio por el aquí recurrente sobre los hechos en cuestión, ha solicitado a las diferentes dependencias municipales la revisión de las actuaciones administrativa y la fiscalización debida, con el fin de verificar que se ajusten a derecho, en virtud de lo cual las áreas técnicas han informado que los permisos y licencias concedidas a la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, se han emitido ajustados al ordenamiento jurídico tras comprobarse el cumplimiento efectivo de los requisitos legales y técnicos correspondientes. De esta manera, teniendo en cuenta lo informado por las áreas técnicas pero atendiendo a las inquietudes del administrado, este despacho de manera responsable, previo a iniciar cualquier procedimiento administrativo como ha solicitado el recurrente ante esta representación, se ha iniciado una investigación preliminar que permita determinar si existe mérito o no para abrir un procedimiento, toda vez que desde las dependencias municipales competentes en cada campo, se ha manifestado un actuar cumplido, objetivo y conforme al ordenamiento jurídico, pero como administración diligente, este despacho ha procedido con la investigación preliminar en atención de las preocupaciones expuestas por el administrado para determinar la verdad real de los hechos y en caso que los resultados que arroje la investigación preliminar determinen alguna irregularidad, esta administración tomará las medidas respectivas. Así las cosas, no se evidencia una actuación omisiva o ilegítima por parte de la Municipalidad de Mora, sino por el contrario, se manifiesta el ejercicio regular de sus competencias de control y autorización administrativa, las cuales se han emitido con estricto apego al principio de legalidad sin acreditarse hasta el momento elemento alguno que desvirtúe esto. Además, se evidencia una actuación diligente y cumplida del deber de fiscalización por parte de este municipio al realizar las inspecciones e investigaciones respectivas ante las denuncias presentadas por el aquí recurrente y toda vez que ha quedado expuesto que se han atendido las gestiones presentadas por el señor Nombre01 como informes, reclamos y recursos, no siendo cierto que este municipio no ha tomado acción alguna como lo quiere hacer ver quien reclama. IV. COMPETENCIA DEL MINISTERIO DE SALUD EN EL PRESENTE CASO En este caso es importante indicar que, bajo el principio de legalidad, el Ministerio de Salud es el ente que posee la competencia legal única y exclusiva para la atención de denuncias por casos en los que pueda existir algún tipo de contaminación sónica, para esto, véase como el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, establece lo siguiente: “(…) Artículo 8°-Ente encargado de las mediciones. Para comprobar el cumplimiento de las disposiciones contenidas en el presente Reglamento, así como de aquellas que del mismo se derive, el Ministerio de Salud, a través de las Áreas Rectoras de Salud, realizará visitas de inspección a las fuentes emisoras de ruido, para la medición de ruido en el interior de los inmuebles. (…)” (El resaltado es propio). Además, la Ley General de Salud, establece: “(…) De las inspecciones y otras diligencias ARTICULO 346.- Para los efectos de llevar a cabo el efectivo control del cumplimiento de las disposiciones de esta ley y de sus reglamentos, de resoluciones complementarias que las autoridades de salud dicten dentro de sus competencias, podrán los funcionarios dependientes del Ministerio, debidamente identificados, hacer inspecciones o visitas para practicar operaciones sanitarias, recoger muestras o recolectar antecedentes o pruebas, en edificios, viviendas y establecimientos industriales, de comercio y en cualquier lugar en el que pudieran perpetrarse infracciones a las leyes y reglamentos y resoluciones aludidos. Tales diligencias deberán practicarse durante el día, entre las seis y dieciocho horas y los particulares están en la obligación de facilitarles de inmediato. La limitación horaria no regirá para las inspecciones relativas al control de alimentos, de estupefacientes, alucinógenos y sustancias psicotrópicas capaces de producir por su uso, dependencia psíquica o física. (…)” (El resaltado es propio). Así también, dicha norma establece: “(…) ARTICULO 293.- Toda persona natural o jurídica queda obligada a emplear el máximo de su diligencia en el cumplimiento de las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias o de los pedidos especiales que ordene la autoridad competente, a fin de evitar o controlar la contaminación atmosférica y del ambiente de los lugares destinados a la vivienda, trabajo o recreación. (…)” Por lo anterior, véase como dichas normas establecen la competencia ante situaciones de contaminación ambiental y sónica como las alegadas por el recurrente al mencionar que las actividades de la empresa Terra Equipos en la Dirección04 “generan ruido excesivo, vibraciones, malos olores y contaminación ambiental”, compete de manera exclusiva al Ministerio de Salud por medio de las Áreas Rectoras de Salud, por lo cual, es esta entidad la responsable de la fiscalización y control del cumplimiento de las leyes a fin de evitar este tipo de contaminación y no, así como lo pretende el recurrente en reprochar dichas conductas a este municipio, lo cual es contrario a derecho. V. RECURSO DE AMPARO CONOCIDO POR ESTA SALA BAJO EL EXPEDIENTE 24-035927-0007-CO Ante los hechos denunciados por el recurrente en el presente recurso de amparo es necesario referir al recurso de amparo tramitado por esta Sala bajo el expediente nro. 24-035927-0007 interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad ED03 Y Nombre07, cédula de identidad ED05,, contra el MINISTERIO DE SALUD Y LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE MORA. En dicho recurso de amparo los recurrentes manifestaron que residen en el cantón de Mora, en una zona residencial y de comercio. Indicando que “hace unos meses, se instaló en la propiedad contigua a su casa de habitación, una bodega de grandes dimensiones denominada "Terra Equipos Alquiler y Venta de Equipos para la Construcción". En ese proceso denunciaron que, la Municipalidad de Mora, había “ampliado los permisos de usos de suelo, sin supervisión ni revisión, lo que provoca una agravación del problema que sufren”. Agregaron que, respecto a la Municipalidad accionada, habían tratado de pedir información, sin resultados positivos. En atención de los hechos señalados por el recurrente en dicho proceso, mismo recurrente del presente proceso, este despecho mediante resolución de las 14:49 horas de 2 de enero de 2025, le dio curso al proceso y le solicitó informe al director del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora; asimismo, al alcalde y al presidente del Concejo, ambos de la Municipalidad Mora, por lo cual esta representación el 9 de enero de 2025 rindió el informe correspondiente ante este Tribunal Constitucional. En virtud de los informes rendidos, mediante resolución Nº 2025007768 de las nueve horas veinte minutos del catorce de marzo de dos mil veinticinco, este despacho resolvió en lo que respecta a esta administración, lo siguiente: “(…) En primer lugar, en relación con la Municipalidad de Mora, a priori se descarta alguna situación que en este momento amerite la intervención de esta jurisdicción constitucional. Al respecto, conviene advertir que no le corresponde esta Sala, en este proceso sumario de amparo, revisar si los usos de suelo y los permisos de funcionamiento otorgados a la empresa aludida por la parte accionante se ajustan o no a las disposiciones de la legislación ordinaria. De tal manera, si los accionantes se encuentran inconformes con tales actos, deberán formular los alegatos pertinentes ante las instancias administrativas o jurisdiccionales comunes competentes, sedes en las que podrán discutir de forma amplia el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones. (…) Ergo, prima facie se descarta alguna acción u omisión de la municipalidad recurrida susceptible de ser declarada en esta vía. (…) Por tanto: Se declara sin lugar el recurso. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado pone nota (…)” Así las cosas, de lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en el expediente N.° 24-035927-0007-CO, se desprende con claridad que no corresponde a esta jurisdicción constitucional, en la vía sumaria del recurso de amparo, revisar ni valorar el fondo de los actos administrativos relativos a usos de suelo, licencias comerciales o permisos de funcionamiento, cuando estos han sido emitidos por la Administración en ejercicio regular de sus competencias y conforme al principio de legalidad. En el presente caso, al igual que en el antecedente citado, no se configura una actuación arbitraria, ilegítima u omisiva imputable a la Municipalidad de Mora, sino una actuación administrativa diligente y atenta de los hechos denunciados por el recurrente, procurando la emisión de actos administrativos debidamente motivados y sujetos a control técnico y jurídico, respecto de los cuales se ha demostrado ya en esta vía que esta administración no ha ignorado las denuncias presentadas por el recurrente, por el contrario, incluso ha iniciado una indagación preliminar con el fin de investigar a fondo y descartar cualquier irregularidad. Por tanto, a la luz de la jurisprudencia reiterada de esta Sala y de los elementos objetivos que se exponen en este informe, no se acredita vulneración alguna a derechos fundamentales que amerite la intervención de esta jurisdicción constitucional, resultando improcedente el recurso de amparo en cuanto a los reproches formulados contra este gobierno local. VI. DEL CASO EN CONCRETO: Como ya se ha mencionado a lo largo de este informe, de manera resumida se indica que, en atención a lo denunciado por el recurrente respecto al uso de suelo emitido por este municipio en relación con la propiedad con número de finca número 401148 con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992, propiedad de TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, del oficio N°DPOT-26-04 del 12 de marzo de 2026 suscrito por Phisilla Venegas Carvajal, encargada de usos de suelo de la Municipalidad de Mora, se desprende que, dicha área técnica tiene el uso de suelo emitido como conforme y ajustado a derecho, ya que según indica la parte técnica dicho uso otorgado mediante la resolución CU-22-373, se emitió de conformidad a la zona donde se ubica la propiedad, la cual según menciona el informe, se ubica en zona residencial, para lo cual el permiso de uso de suelo señalado se extendió según los usos permitidos por la normativa para dicha zonificación. Igualmente, sobre la licencia comercial otorgada a Terra Equipos S,A, para ALMACENAMIENTO Y ALQUILER, PARA EXHIBICIÓN Y VENTA DE ESTRUCTURAS PARA EVENTOS COMERCIO MENOR, a explotar en la finca número Dirección03, con plano catastro SJ-0068073-1992, según informa el oficio N° ATM-LC-111-2026 del 12 de marzo de 2026, suscrito por Karla Matamoros Camacho, jefe del Departamento de Licencias Comerciales de la Municipalidad de Mora, dicha patente fue aprobada conforme a derecho, toda vez que indica que la empresa Terra Equipos S,A, cumplió con la totalidad de los requisitos establecidos por la normativa de patentes para cada trámite, por lo cual hoy en día las licencias comerciales aprobadas se registran activas y emitidas conforme a derecho y a la zonificación según los certificados de usos de suelo aprobados, asimismo, se reitera que son dos las patentes concedidas, sobre fincas independientes y para actividades distintas, lo cual ya ha sido ampliamente explicado en este informe. Así las cosas, como ya las áreas técnicas competentes han indicado, los permisos de uso de suelo, constructivos y las licencias comerciales otorgados por esta Municipalidad para el desarrollo de las actividades lucrativas de la empresa TERRA EQUIPOS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA en la finca número Dirección03, plano catastrado SJ-0068073-1972, se han emitido en estricto apego al ordenamiento jurídico y al cumplimiento de los requisitos técnicos y legales aplicables, sin que a la fecha se haya acreditado elemento alguno que desvirtúe dicha conclusión. No obstante, y en una actuación reforzada de diligencia administrativa, esta Administración ha dispuesto la apertura de una investigación preliminar con el fin de esclarecer cualquier duda que pudiera subsistir, demostrándose así que esta representación ha desplegado las diferentes gestiones de fiscalización que este municipio debe ejecutar y que efectivamente ha ejecutado, para asegurar que las actividades lucrativas aprobadas por este gobierno local a Terra Equipos S,A, se ajusten a derecho, siendo así que este despacho de la alcaldía de manera responsable ha entablado los actos administrativos respectivos para atender a las denuncias que el aquí recurrente ha presentado ante la administración municipal no siendo omiso ante las mismas. Por otro lado, ha quedado expuesto que bajo el principio de legalidad, las afectaciones manifestadas de contaminación sónica y ambiental que denuncia el ofendido, de acuerdo con la normativa anteriormente expuesta, es competencia exclusiva del Ministerio de Salud en coordinación de sus Áreas Rectoras de Salud, pues bien, es este el ende el competente para fiscalizar esta clase de contaminación ambiental y/o sónica y realizar las mediciones de fuentes emisoras de ruido y supervisar y asegurar el cumplimiento efectivo de la ley en relación con estas situaciones y no de este municipio. Por último, debe tenerse en cuenta que, sobre los hechos expuestos, este municipio ya ha tenido por demostrado ante esta Sala el cumplimiento de sus deberes legales frente a los mismos, esto bajo el recurso de amparo N.° 24-035927-0007-CO resuelto mediante resolución Nº 2025007768 de las nueve horas veinte minutos del catorce de marzo de dos mil veinticinco. Por todo lo anterior, considera esta representación que se ha confirmado que desde las competencias municipales se han realizado las actuaciones correspondientes en atención a las preocupaciones manifestadas por el recurrente ante esta administración, sin omisión alguna, esto en aras de cumplir con el principio de legalidad y la normativa vigente, por lo que a la fecha se han y se están revisado todas las actuaciones administrativas que han generado algún derecho al patentado, esto con el fin de corroborar que todo se ajuste a derecho. Por lo cual, y como ya se mencionó, en manifestación de una actuación administrativa diligente y prudente, esta Administración ha dispuesto la apertura de una investigación preliminar con el único fin de esclarecer cualquier duda que pudiera subsistir y descartar de manera definitiva la existencia de eventuales irregularidades, pero sin que esto se interprete como una violación a las garantías constitucionales, por el contrario, se ha demostrado un actuar responsable desde todas las competencias legales de este gobierno local, reiterándose que este municipio no ha sido omiso de las denuncias interpuestas. Además, de acuerdo con la línea de esta Sala Constitucional anteriormente señalada (resolución Nº 2025007768), no corresponde a esta jurisdicción constitucional, en la vía sumaria del recurso de amparo, revisar ni valorar el fondo de los actos administrativos relativos a usos de suelo, licencias comerciales o permisos de funcionamiento. Aunado a esto, se reitera que deben tener en cuenta los señores magistrados que la competencia para fiscalizar y regular la contaminación sónica es exclusiva del Ministerio de Salud, por lo que, este gobierno local no tiene ningún tipo de responsabilidad. En ese sentido, se solicita se declare sin lugar el presente recurso de amparo por carecer de asidero legal”.

4.- Mediante escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 15:46 horas del 19 de marzo de 2026, el señor Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho presentó una coadyuvancia activa, en los siguientes términos:

“PRIMERO: Que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 34 y concordantes de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, me apersono en el presente proceso en calidad de coadyuvante activo de la parte recurrente, por tener un interés directo, personal y legítimo en el resultado del presente recurso, pues soy colindante por el sector este con la empresa cuya actividad industrial nos afecta.

SEGUNDO: Que mi condición de legitimación deriva de mi calidad de vecino colindante directo del inmueble donde la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. desarrolla las actividades denunciadas, situación que me coloca en una posición de afectación real, actual y continuada, en términos sustancialmente idénticos a los alegados por la parte recurrente.

TERCERO: Que las actividades desplegadas en dicho inmueble, de carácter industrial en una zona de uso residencial, generan en mi esfera jurídica una afectación directa a derechos fundamentales, particularmente en cuanto a:

El derecho a la salud e integridad personal • El derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado CUARTO: Que la afectación descrita no es eventual ni hipotética, sino material, comprobable y persistente en el tiempo, derivada de la operación continua de maquinaria pesada, tránsito de vehículos de alto tonelaje, generación de ruidos excesivos, vibraciones y malos olores, en condiciones incompatibles con el uso residencial de la zona.

QUINTO: Que comparto en todos sus extremos los hechos, fundamentos y pretensiones planteados en el recurso de amparo interpuesto, los cuales hago propios para todos los efectos legales correspondientes.

SEXTO: Que resulta particularmente grave la inacción de la Municipalidad del Cantón de Mora, la cual ha pretendido justificar su omisión en la supuesta existencia de una investigación preliminar de carácter disciplinario (IPAD-006-2025), iniciada desde el mes de octubre de 2025, sin que a la fecha exista resolución de fondo, adopción de medidas cautelares ni actuación efectiva dirigida a cesar la afectación denunciada.

SÉTIMO: Que la supuesta investigación preliminar, lejos de constituir un mecanismo válido de actuación administrativa, se ha convertido en un instrumento de dilación indefinida, carente de plazo cierto y sin relación directa con la obligación de la Administración de ejercer sus potestades de control, fiscalización y tutela efectiva de los derechos fundamentales comprometidos.

OCTAVO: Que la existencia de una investigación preliminar no suspende ni sustituye el deber constitucional de la Administración de:

Resolver de forma pronta, expresa y motivada las gestiones planteadas • Adoptar medidas inmediatas ante la existencia de daño actual o inminente Prevenir la continuidad de afectaciones a derechos fundamentales NOVENO: Que, en el presente caso, la omisión municipal adquiere relevancia constitucional no solo por la ausencia de una decisión de fondo, sino porque permite la continuidad de una actividad presuntamente ilegal con efectos en el disfrute de garantías constitucionales, sobre la salud, el ambiente y la calidad de vida de los vecinos colindantes.

DÉCIMO: Que la dilación injustificada en la adopción de medidas, en presencia de una afectación actual y continuada, constituye por sí misma una violación autónoma a los derechos fundamentales protegidos por los artículos 21, 27, 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política.

DÉCIMO PRIMERO: Que en este contexto, la actuación de la Administración resulta contraria a los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, prevención ambiental y tutela administrativa efectiva, al privilegiar una indagación interna indefinida sobre la protección inmediata de derechos fundamentales”.

5.- Por resolución de las 06:08 horas del 23 de marzo de 2026, la magistrada instructora le confirió audiencia a la ministra de Salud, sobre los hechos alegados por la parte recurrente.

6.- Mediante escrito incorporado al expediente digital a las 15:30 horas del 26 de marzo de 2026, informa bajo juramento Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, en su condición de ministra de Salud, lo siguiente:

“De previo, es mi deber manifestar que el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 40724-S del 23 de setiembre del 2017, publicado en La Gaceta N°215 del 14 de noviembre del 2017, alcance 273 denominado “Reglamento Orgánico del Ministerio de Salud”, vigente a partir del 14 de mayo del 2021, establece como Misión del Ministerio de Salud, que es la institución que dirige y conduce a los actores sociales para el desarrollo de acciones que protejan y mejoren el estado de salud físico, mental y social de los habitantes, mediante el ejercicio de la Rectoría del Sistema Nacional de Salud, con enfoque de promoción de la salud y prevención de la enfermedad, propiciando un ambiente humano sano y equilibrado, bajo los principios de equidad, eficiencia, calidad, transparencia y respeto a la diversidad, cuyo fundamento en sus actuaciones lo constituyen primordialmente la Constitución Política, la Ley N° 5395 del 30 de octubre de 1973 “Ley General de Salud”, Ley N° 5412 del 8 de noviembre de 1973 “Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud” y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 40724-S, anteriormente citado, entre otros. Además, la Ley General de Salud, en sus numerales 1, 2, 3, 4 y 7 dispone, entre otras cosas, que la salud de la población es un bien de interés público tutelado por el Estado, que es función esencial del Estado velar por la salud de la población, que corresponde al Poder Ejecutivo, por medio del Ministerio de Salud, la definición de la política nacional de salud, la formación, planificación y coordinación de todas las actividades públicas y privadas relativas a salud, así como la ejecución de aquellas actividades que le competen conforme a la ley, teniendo potestades para dictar reglamentos autónomos en estas materias. Resulta de importancia indicar que, toda persona natural o jurídica, queda sujeta a los mandatos de la citada ley y demás leyes, reglamentos y disposiciones administrativas relativas a la salud, que son de orden público y en caso de conflicto prevalecen sobre cualesquiera otras disposiciones de igual validez formal, sin perjuicio de las atribuciones que la ley confiere a las instituciones autónomas del sector salud, así como de las órdenes generales y particulares, ordinarias y de emergencia, que las autoridades de salud dicten en el ejercicio de sus competencias orgánicas y tiene derecho a ser informada debidamente por el funcionario competente sobre las normas obligatorias vigentes en materia de salud, salvo lo dispuesto en los convenios y tratados internacionales. Una vez expuesto lo anterior, me refiero al recurso de amparo interpuesto por Miguel Ángel Herrera González en favor de Nombre01, quien alega que: “…su representado Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED02, es vecino colindante de un inmueble propiedad de la empresa Terra Equipos S.A., que se encuentra en zona residencial, pero en el que se realizan actividades de tipo industrial a vista y paciencia de la Municipalidad de Mora. Enuncia que la autoridad accionada otorgó una licencia comercial a favor de la empresa Terra Equipos S.A. en la finca del partido de San José nro. 401148-000, plano SJ-0068073-1972, amparado al uso de suelo nro. CU- 22-373 del 6 de mayo 2022, bajo el supuesto de que la actividad a desarrollar era "ALQUILER Y VENTA DE EQUIPOS DE CONSTRUCCIÓN VENTA Y EXHIBICIÓN DE ESTRUCTURAS METALIZADAS". Acota que el inmueble mencionado se ubica en una zona residencial, en el que, conforme al plan regulador del cantón de Mora vigente, se prohíben expresamente las actividades industriales como: bodegas, talleres y cualquier uso análogo que generen molestias al vecindario. Relata que con posterioridad al otorgamiento de la licencia comercial y de forma progresiva, la empresa Terra Equipos S.Nombre03. modificó sustancialmente la actividad autorizada y se dedicó a realizar otras de carácter industrial. Explica que dicha sociedad realiza el almacenamiento masivo de productos, carga y descarga de estructuras metálicas, lavado de equipos e inodoros portátiles, lavado y almacenamiento de camiones que transportan solidos sépticos o excrementos, operación de maquinaria pesada y tránsito constante de camiones pesados, generando ruido excesivo y constante, vibraciones y malos olores, en horarios incompatibles con uso residencial, pues esas actividades se extienden hasta horas de la noche. Alega que lo descrito impide el descanso, la tranquilidad y la vida digna de su representado, quien es una persona adulta mayor, así como de su núcleo familiar, quienes han experimentado una degradación de su calidad de vida. Enuncia que desde hace varios meses, el tutelado ha acudido ante las autoridades administrativas, tanto a la Municipalidad de Mora como al Ministerio de Salud, a efectos de solicitar su intervención urgente, para lo cual aportó prueba técnica, pericial y sanitaria contundente que acredita la afectación real. No obstante, reclama que el ayuntamiento accionado ha incurrido en una omisión prolongada e injustificada, tolerando que la afectación continúe en el tiempo sin adoptar acción alguna en resguardo de los derechos fundamentales de su defendido y de los habitantes del cantón en esa zona residencial. En este sentido, detalla que el 4 de diciembre de 2025 su apoderado especial, Miguel A. Herrera González, dirigió al alcalde de Mora un documento denominado "INFORME TÉCNICO-JURÍDICO SOBRE LAS ANOMALÍAS EN EL OTORGAMIENTO DE PATENTE COMERCIAL A TERRA EQUIPOS", por medio de cual expuso que la actividad de la empresa mencionada se da hasta altas horas de la noche, generando un ruido que excede los límites permitidos en zona residencial. Asimismo, en ese informe se hizo alusión a irregularidades administrativas detectadas y causadas por el tránsito pesado, riesgos eléctricos, visibilidad hacia propiedades colindantes y la violación a la privacidad, por lo que se solicitó un estudio técnico municipal sobre ruido ambiental y la protección de los derechos de los vecinos afectados, conforme a los principios de dignidad humana, habitabilidad y medio ambiente sano. Menciona que mediante oficio AMM-0900-2025 se le indicó que el informe señalado se agregó al proceso de investigación preliminar aperturado el 31 de octubre de 2025 con el número de consecutivo IPAD-006-2025. Cuestiona que la Administración ha mantenido la situación en una fase preliminar indefinida, sin resolver expresamente la solicitud principal, ni adoptar medidas para tutelar sus derechos fundamentales…”. Expuesto lo anterior, atiendo lo solicitado por el honorable Tribunal Constitucional, con sustento en el informe CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026, emitido por la Dra. Luz Cuadra Morales, Directora del Área Rectora de Salud Mora, como contestación de esta acción, el cual refiere en lo que interesa lo que sigue: CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-182-2026: “… I. SOBRE LOS HECHOS ALEGADOS POR EL RECURRENTE Que son personas adultas mayores que residen en el cantón de Mora en zona residencial y de comercio. Que contiguo a su propiedad se instaló bodega de grandes dimensiones denominada “Terra Equipos” que sirve de uso industrial para almacenamiento masivo de productos, carga y descarga de estructuras metálicas, lavado y almacenamiento de vehículos que transportan lodos sépticos y excrementos, generando ruido, vibraciones y olores molestos, denuncia que han planteado ante el Área Rectora de Salud y la Municipalidad. II. DE LA ACTUACIÓN DEL ÁREA RECTORA DE SALUD Y EL CASO EN CONCRETO Que en fecha 11 de marzo 2024, recibió el Área Rectora de Salud Mora denuncia promovida por el amparado, Sr. Nombre01, argumentando problemas de ruido, altas estructuras a la par de la tapia de su propiedad y actividades de taller que no comprenden los permisos otorgados a la empresa denunciada Terra Equipos. (folio 0048 al 0049) En atención a lo denunciado el 18 de marzo 2024, procedimos con visita de inspección ocular en la vivienda del denunciante siendo atendidos por la Sra. Nombre07, quien manifestó que el principal problema radicaba en el ruido generado por el establecimiento y el riesgo de caída de estructuras metálicas que se almacenan contiguo a su tapia que sobrepasan la altura de esta. Cabe aquí mencionar, que durante la inspección ocular no se escucharon ruidos provenientes de taller o golpes de metales. Se observó estibaje por sobre la tapia de estructuras metálicas que podrían caer en el predio del denunciante. En esta ocasión el establecimiento denunciado se encontraba con portones cerrados y nadie atendió el llamado de la autoridad sanitaria, procediendo a reprogramar inspección en el establecimiento para el 08 de abril 2024. (folio 0050 y 0051) El 08 de abril de 2024, en el establecimiento denunciado “Terra Eventos”, fuimos atendidos por el Sr. Nombre08, gerente de capital humano, en el sitio se verificó que en el lugar se almacenaban estructuras metálicas para venta y exhibición de estructuras lo que era concordante con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento otorgado, ese mismo día no se comprobó que el lugar se estuvieran realizando labores de reparación de estructuras, ni se comprobó actividad de taller, tampoco había ruido, sin embargo si se confirmó el estibamiento de estructuras por sobre la tapia que colinda con el denunciante. Se aplicó “formulario de inspección de actividades comerciales e industriales” acreditándose inconformidades sanitarias, recomendando mediante informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, dirigir los actos administrativos correspondientes. (folios 0065 y 0070). Resultado de los hallazgos de la inspección de fecha 08 de abril 2024, mediante orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, notificada al denunciado en fecha 22 de abril 2024 junto con informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-156-2024, se ordenó en el plazo de 20 días hábiles colocar detectores de humo, ubicar rotulación de emergencia, mantener dispensadores con jabón líquido y toallas desechables, contar con botiquín de primeros auxilios, y no estibar estructuras por sobre la tapia para evitar riesgo de caídas. (folios del 0071 al 0075 y 0077) Todo lo hasta aquí expuesto fue puesto en conocimiento del amparado mediante correo de las 15:40 horas del 09 de abril del 2024. (folio 0076) Continuando con la atención de la denuncia en fecha 21 de mayo del 2024, la empresa Terra Equipos presentó ante el Área Rectora de Salud Mora escrito “Contestación a la Orden Sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024”, comunicando cumplimiento de las ordenanzas. Por tanto, en seguimiento a escrito presentado y orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024 , el día 28 de mayo 202 se realiza visita establecimiento por parte del Área Rectora de Salud. En dicha visita se comprueba el cumplimiento total de los puntos a. b. c. y d. , y parcialmente el punto e) que correspondía al estibaje de las estructuras, dado que en el sector oeste las estructuras fueron separadas de la tapia y la primera hilera no sobrepasaba la tapia; sin embargo, en el sector este quedaba pendiente un mejor empleo de las estructuras que fueron acomodadas en racks, que continuaban sobrepasando la tapia. Aquí se debe indicar, que durante la inspección no se percibieron ruidos por parte de la empresa, pero si gran almacenamiento de estructuras. Resultado de la visita de verificación de cumplimiento, se emitió informe técnico MS-DRRSCS ARSM-IT-237-2024 (folios 0091 al 0096) Siendo que no se tenía cumplimiento total de la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, específicamente en su punto e) que consistía en no estibar estructuras por sobre la tapia para evitar riesgo de caídas, se notifica nueva orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-114-2024 el día 04 junio 2024, mediante la cual se instruyó a la empresa, por la cantidad de estructuras metálicas almacenadas, ampliar el permiso de funcionamiento para que se incluyera no solo la venta y exhibición, sino también el almacenamiento de estructuras, y en un plazo de 15 días hábiles presentar propuesta de almacenamiento y estibaje de estructuras con plazos a cumplir, validada por un profesional en la materia donde se determinaran las alturas máximas de estibas y el retiro con las colindancias (folios 0097 al 0099 y 0101) Vía correo electrónico a las 10:07 horas del 30 de mayo 2024, se informó al denunciante lo actuado (folio 0100), quien el 04 de junio del 2024, manifestó continuación de ruidos y avance lento en el reacomodo de estructuras (folio 0104-0105). Este argumento fue atendido mediante correo del 11 de junio (folio 0104) cuando se aclaró que durante la inspección de verificación se comprobó que del lado donde se ubica la propiedad del Sr. Loria, las estibas estaban separadas a más de un metro y que las más cercanas a la vivienda no superaban la altura de la tapia, y siendo que la separación de las estructuras no está normada se solicitó la propuesta de reacomodo. En cuanto al ruido se le indicó que la única forma de determinar infracción a los límites de ruido regulados es por medio de prueba de sonometría que debe ser programada en el horario y día que el mismo proponga. No conforme con lo dicho, el 20 de junio también vía correo electrónico manifestó que las estibas siguen cerca de las tapias que los materiales en racks son un peligro, argumenta nueva preocupación por la estructura del techo que es de hierro pesado, y acusa se mantiene el ruido e ingreso de material, por lo que, el 25 de junio 2024, nuevamente se le solicitó indicar fecha y hora para programar la medición sónica. (folios del 0102 al 0103) Es oportuno aquí señalar que mediante correo electrónico de fecha 25 de junio (folio 0102) al denunciante se le comunicó que la empresa Terra Eventos había presentado el 24 de junio de 2024 propuesta técnica para cumplir con la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, la cual incluye cronograma de actividades para trabajar el estibaje de las estructuras, que consiste en movimientos y reacomodo de estructuras, a implementar de junio a setiembre 2024. La propuesta técnica elaborada por un profesional en salud ocupacional fue debidamente revisada y refrendada por esta Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud (folios 0106 al 0130) Además, dentro de dicha propuesta, se adjuntaba la ampliación de uso de suelo municipal para el almacenamiento de estructuras (folios 0112 al 0115 y 130) Ahora bien, en vista de la nueva dificultad denunciada respecto al presunto riesgo que representan los techos del establecimiento, el día 16 de julio se visitó el lugar constatándose que los techos estaban en buen estado de conservación, no tenían partes rotas, desprendidas o que se movieran con el viento, ni mantenía vigas ni columnas dobladas, empero a lo dicho, para contar con un mejor criterio técnico profesional, mediante informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-295-2024, se recomendó a la Dirección de Área Rectora de Salud Mora, requerir apoyo técnico de la Unidad de Rectoría de la Dirección Regional Central Sur, para que un ingeniero civil valorara la estructura. (folios 0133 al 0138) Lo actuado fue informado al denunciante vía correo electrónico del día 22 de julio 2024 (folio 0139) En fecha 24 de julio 2024, debido a la cantidad de estructuras almacenadas y conforme a lo establecido en el Decreto N° 43432-S, “Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud”, la empresa Terra Eventos presentó documentación para la ampliación de permiso sanitario de funcionamiento y en cumplimiento de requisitos preceptuados se otorgó el certificado CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 (folio 0165). Esto tomando en consideración que la Municipalidad ya había emitido la ampliación de un uso de suelo conforme para almacenamiento de estructuras. Por correo electrónico de fecha 05 de agosto 2024, el denunciante consultó detalles de la visita del ingeniero civil, dándose respuesta el 07 de agosto que aún no teníamos fecha definida, aprovechamos la ocasión para indicarle que el 08 de agosto 2024, el inspector estaría realizando visitas en el distrito Colón, para que, si a bien lo tenía, se realizará la medición sónica, sin embargo, no obtuvimos respuesta alguna. (folio 0166) El día 19 de agosto 2024, el Sr. Loria promueve nueva denuncia en esta ocasión por problemas con el lavado de letrinas en el establecimiento Terra Eventos e indica si se ha podido realizar la medición, a lo que se responde que el día de mañana 20 agosto se realizará por parte del ingeniero. Además, se le indica que debido a que no obtuvimos respuesta del correo enviado para realizar la medición, la misma no fue programada (folio 0167). El día 20 de agosto se procede a realizar visita para comprobar los problemas de lavado de letrinas y situación estructural de techos. Con respecto al problema de lavado de letrinas, se genera el informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-IT-364-2024 los hechos denunciados. (folios 0170 al 0171) Lo actuado y confirmado fue puesto en conocimiento del denunciante vía correo del 21 de agosto 2024 (folio 0172) Con respecto a la valoración de los techos, los ingenieros Allan Bolaños Benavides y Oscar Arroyo Barahona, mediante informe MS-DRRSCS-URS-IT-0435-2024 de fecha 22 de agosto 2024, no detectaron peligro inminente en la estabilidad de la estructura, circunstancia comunicada al amparado vía correo electrónico del 28 de agosto 2024. (folios 0174 al 0178) En cuanto al seguimiento y verificación de propuesta técnica presentada por la empresa denunciada para cumplir con el acomodo de las estructuras, el 19 de setiembre 2024, durante visita de inspección y según informe técnico MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-434-2024, se acreditó que la mayoría de los puntos indicados en la propuesta técnica fueron cumplidos, quedando únicamente pendiente la colocación de la rotulación y los registros de las revisiones semanales (folios 0181 al 0185) Lo actuado nuevamente fue informado al denunciante el día 20 de setiembre 2024, vía correo electrónico. (folio 0186). Ese mismo día se acordó programar medición sónica para el día 23 de setiembre de 2024 a las 2.00 pm, (folios 0187 al 0188) día en que a falta de ruidos por parte de la empresa denunciada fue imposible cumplir con la aplicación de prueba de sonometría. Se realizó nuevo intento de medición sónica el día 07 de octubre de 2024, sin embargo, tampoco hubo ruidos (folio 0189 al 0190) El día 03 de diciembre, se le indicó al denunciante que el 05 y 09 de diciembre 2024 se podría realizar medición por la mañana y tarde, respectivamente (folio 0191). El día 05 de diciembre no se pudo realizar a falta de ruido (folio 0194 y 0195.). Cabe mencionar que el día 09 de diciembre no se pudo realizar la medición ya que el Sr Loría mal interpretó el correo enviado como él mismo lo indicó y tuvo que asistir a una cita médica. (folio 0193) El día 19 de diciembre a las 10.00 am, promueve el Sr. Loria correo electrónico argumentando ruidos en el establecimiento (folio 0196), y pese a que no se había programado prueba de sonometría, personal del Área Rectora de Salud desatiende labores de oficina para proceder con respectiva medición, cuyo resultado según informe técnico MS-DRRCS-ARSM-IT-001-2025 de 48.4 dB (A) para ruido ambiente más fuente generadora activa, no superó los 65 dB (A) preceptuados para zona residencial como deviene del Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N° 39428-S (folios 0199 al 0206). El resultado de la sonometría se envió al señor Loria mediante correo electrónico enviado el 7 de enero de 2025. (folio 0211) El 8 de enero de 2025 se regresó a la empresa Terra Eventos y se comprobó que se cumplió con los puntos faltantes de la orden sanitaria N0 CS-ARS-MP-114-2024. (folios 0214 al 0218). Al señor Loría se le informo del cumplimiento mediante el correo electrónico con fecha 9 de enero de 2025 (folio 0219). El 17 de febrero de 2025 se recibe correo electrónico donde el señor Loría indicó que el 13 de febrero de 2025 se escucharon muchos ruidos desde la empresa Terra Eventos a lo que se le indicó en correo del 18 de febrero que nos confirmara si los ruidos molestos seguían siendo de 7 am a 10 am y de 2 pm a 5 pm todos los días para coordinar medición sónica ya que debíamos solicitar el equipo a otra área rectora de salud porque el nuestro estaba en calibración, a lo que no obtuvimos respuesta (folio 0230). El 10 de marzo de 2025 recibimos documento de la Licda Valeria Bolaños González, abogada en aquel momento del señor Nombre01, manifestando problemas por contaminación sónica debido a actividad industrial realizada en la empresa Terra Eventos (folios 0231-0234), razón por la cual el 19 de marzo de 2025 nos apersonamos en la vivienda de los afectados con el propósito de realizar medición sónica, sin embargo, la medición no se pudo realizar porque no había ruido. (folio 0251) Nuevamente, los días 26 de marzo de 2025 y 15 de mayo de 2025 mediante correo electrónico se trató de coordinar medición sónica con el afectado como lo establece el procedimiento de medición de ruido, sin embargo, no brindo respuesta (folio 0252-0253). El señor Loría se manifestó por correo electrónico hasta el 5 de junio de 2025 indicando que seguían los ruidos y preguntando si nosotros habíamos notificado algún documento a Terra Eventos expresando molestias y consultando sobre cuales actividades podía realizar la empresa en el lugar (folio 0254). Se le responde vía correo el 9 de junio de 2025 que no procedía la notificación a la empresa ya que la medición realizada en diciembre 2024 no sobrepaso los decibeles permitidos y no se habían comprobado los problemas de ruido denunciados. Además, se le indicó que podíamos ir a realizar la medición sónica el 16 de junio de 2025 a lo que tampoco tuvimos respuesta. (folio 0255). El 1 de julio de 2025 el señor Loría envió correo electrónico indicando que en Terra Evento había parqueado un camión con lodo sépticos lo que consideraba perjudicial para su salud, a lo que se le informo el 2 de julio de 2025 que al día siguiente íbamos a realizar la visita tanto para hacer la medición sónica como para verificar lo del camión de lodos sépticos (folio 0256). El 3 de julio de 2025 se regresó al lugar, desde fuera de las instalaciones no se percibieron ruidos, por lo que no se pudo proceder con la medición sónica, al entrar a la empresa se verificó que lo único que estaba operando en el lugar era un montacargas haciendo acomodo de estructuras, se hizo un recorrido por todo el patio de almacenamiento y no estaban realizando ningún tipo de trabajo mecánico, tampoco había en el lugar camiones con lodos sépticos, no había ningún tipo de olor molesto, ni vertido de aguas residuales o lodos en el suelo. (folios 0258 -0261). Mediante correo electrónico enviado el 8 de julio de 2025, se informó al señor Loría sobre lo observado en la inspección el 3 de julio de 2025. (folio 0262). El 6 de agosto de 2025 recibimos nota donde el señor Nombre01 hacia una serie de cuestionamiento sobre la empresa Terra Eventos, incluido los problemas de contaminación sónica (folios 0263-0279), documento que se le contestó mediante el oficio N0 CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, indicándole que se habían hecho múltiples intentos de medición sónica, específicamente en el punto 2 inciso b), sin embargo, no fue posible realizarlas ya sea porque no había ruido o él no se había manifestado para coordinar. Además, se le aclararon varios puntos relacionados con invasión a la propiedad privada, pérdida de privacidad, peligro de incendio, olores molestos y estibaje de estructuras (0280- 0282). El 23 de octubre de 2025 recibimos documento titulado petición administrativa para ejecución de orden sanitaria incumplida (folio 0283-0299) mediante el cual Licdo Miguel Herrera González, representante del Sr Nombre01, señala varias irregularidades con respecto al funcionamiento de la empresa, incluido los problemas de ruido. Cada uno de los puntos señalados en documento fueron evacuados mediante el documento CARTA MS-DRRCS-ARSM-645-2025, incluido el aspecto de contaminación sónica (apartado D) Dicho documento de respuesta fue enviado por correo el 30 de octubre 2025. (folio 0300 al 0304) El 6 de enero de 2026 mediante correo electrónico, el señor Loría vuelve a manifestar ruidos molestos provenientes de la empresa Terra Eventos, así como presencia de tanque de lodos sépticos (folio 0325), por lo que se programó inspección el 13 de enero de 2026. Ese día no se pudo realizar medición sónica porque no había ruidos, además, no se observó a personas realizando lavados de maquinaria o haciendo actividades que generaran ruido, tampoco había en el lugar camiones con lodos sépticos, ni se observaron aguas a nivel del suelo o se percibieron olores molestos. (folios 0330- 0334) Esto se le informo al denunciante mediante correo electrónico (folio 0336). Debido a todo lo expuesto, queda demostrado que esta Autoridad Sanitaria no ha sido omisa en el cumplimiento de deberes y se ha abocado a la atención de cada una de las inconformidades señaladas durante el proceso de atención de la denuncia y dado respuesta a las peticiones realizadas por el administrado. …”. (el resaltado es del original) Resulta imperativo aclarar que el Ministerio de Salud no otorga permisos de operación o patentes comerciales para establecimientos comerciales, lo que el ministerio otorga son permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento u autorizaciones sanitarias, siendo de comprender que lo que define estos permisos y/o autorizaciones es precisamente las condiciones físico sanitarias del inmueble que permitan el funcionamiento del mismo, todo ello en concordancia con lo dispuesto en los artículos 222, 298, 323, 324 y 328 de la Ley No. 5395 del 30 de octubre de 1973 "Ley General de Salud" es obligación de toda persona física o jurídica que desarrolle una actividad comercial, industrial y de servicios contar con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, lo cual en el caso concreto del establecimiento comercial “Terra Eventos”, cuenta con permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. Como puede apreciarse se ha brindado como corresponde atención a la situación denunciada, no se ha logrado identificar por parte de las autoridades de este Ministerio, que las actividades que se realizan en la actividad comercial produzcan contaminación al ambiente por ruido u otro, se han girado los actos administrativos que han correspondido y se ha atendido lo ordenado, todo lo cual se ha comunicado al denunciante, donde el Ministerio únicamente puede avocarse en continuar atendiendo cada situación que el aquí recurrente plantee, y realizar de ser necesario, las comprobaciones respectivas (mediciones de ruido) que permitan poder determinar que efectivamente se produce el ruido que se denuncia, lo cual no ha sido constatado a pesar de haber realizado las mediciones de ruido correspondientes”.

7.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,

Considerando:

I.- Objeto del recurso. El recurrente señala que su representado es vecino colindante de un inmueble propiedad de la empresa Terra Equipos S.Nombre03., ubicado en una zona residencial del cantón de Mora, en el cual se desarrollan actividades de carácter industrial con conocimiento de la municipalidad recurrida. Indica que dicha autoridad otorgó licencia comercial bajo el supuesto de que la actividad correspondía al alquiler y venta de equipos de construcción y exhibición de estructuras metalizadas, pese a que el inmueble se encuentra en una zona donde el plan regulador prohíbe expresamente actividades industriales. Asimismo, refiere que, con posterioridad al otorgamiento de la licencia, la empresa modificó sustancialmente su giro, realizando actividades como almacenamiento masivo de materiales, carga y descarga de estructuras metálicas, lavado de equipos e inodoros portátiles, manejo de camiones que transportan desechos sépticos, operación de maquinaria pesada y tránsito constante de vehículos de carga, generando ruido excesivo, vibraciones y malos olores en horarios incompatibles con el uso residencial. Además, aduce que estas actividades afectan de manera directa la tranquilidad, el descanso y la calidad de vida del tutelado, quien es una persona adulta mayor, así como de su núcleo familiar, debido a la intensidad y continuidad de las molestias. Señala que, pese a haber acudido ante la Municipalidad de Mora y el Ministerio de Salud, aportando prueba técnica y sanitaria, no se han adoptado medidas efectivas para corregir la situación. En ese sentido, indica que el 4 de diciembre de 2025 se presentó un informe técnico-jurídico ante el alcalde, en el que se denunciaron irregularidades en el otorgamiento de la patente, los impactos por ruido, tránsito pesado, riesgos y afectación a la privacidad, solicitándose la realización de estudios técnicos y la protección de los derechos de los vecinos. Señala que, si bien se indicó que dicho informe fue incorporado a un procedimiento administrativo, este se mantiene en una fase preliminar indefinida, sin resolución ni adopción de medidas concretas. Finalmente, sostiene que la omisión prolongada de la autoridad recurrida ha permitido la continuidad de actividades incompatibles con el uso de suelo, vulnerando sus derechos fundamentales y los de los habitantes del sector, por lo que solicita que se declare con lugar el recurso con las consecuencias de ley.

II.- Cuestión preliminar. De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto –por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido– debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia No. 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas del 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa –con algunas excepciones– aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos, pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o por las leyes sectoriales relativas a los procedimientos administrativos especiales, tanto para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– como para conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en este caso se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia por contaminación sónica, la cual, presuntamente, no ha sido resuelta dentro de un plazo razonable por parte del ministerio recurrido. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.

III.- Sobre la coadyuvancia. La coadyuvancia es una forma de intervención adhesiva que ocurre cuando una persona actúa en un proceso uniéndose a las pretensiones de alguna de las partes principales. En virtud de lo anterior, aquella persona que ostente un interés directo en el resultado del proceso está legitimada para actuar como coadyuvante, aun cuando, al no ser la parte recurrente o la recurrida, no resultará directamente afectada por lo que se resuelva en la sentencia. La coadyuvancia es, pues, la vía procesal para permitirle prestar su ayuda (coadyuvar) a la parte con interés coincidente para facilitar el triunfo de su pretensión, y no se trata de una parte independiente ni de un litisconsorte, sino tan solo de un adherente sin legitimación procesal para demandar en un mismo proceso. Sobre este particular, el artículo 34 de la Ley de esta Jurisdicción dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 34. El recurso se dirigirá contra el servidor o el titular del órgano que aparezca como presunto autor del agravio. Si uno u otro hubiesen actuado en cumplimiento de órdenes o instrucciones impartidas por un superior, o con su autorización o aprobación, se tendrá por establecido el amparo contra ambos, sin perjuicio de lo que se decida en sentencia. De ignorarse la identidad del servidor, el recurso se tendrá por establecido contra el jerarca.

Se tendrá también como parte al tercero que derivare derechos subjetivos de la norma o del acto que cause el proceso de amparo.

Además, quien tuviere un interés legítimo en el resultado del recurso podrá apersonarse e intervenir en él como coadyuvante del actor o del demandado”. (El resaltado con subrayado no es del original).

De esta manera, la eficacia del pronunciamiento no podrá alcanzar a la parte coadyuvante de manera directa e inmediata, ni tampoco podrá afectarla la condición de cosa juzgada del fallo –aunque en materia de amparo pueda favorecerle la eficacia de lo resuelto, debido al carácter erga omnes que tiene la jurisprudencia y precedentes de la jurisdicción constitucional (artículo 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional–. En este caso, la Sala procede a admitir la coadyuvancia presentada por Manfred Jorge Loría Camacho, en los términos del artículo 34 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, toda vez que manifiesta ostentar un interés directo en el resultado del proceso en su condición de vecino colindante del inmueble donde se desarrollan las actividades denunciadas, alegando una afectación en condiciones sustancialmente coincidentes con las expuestas por la parte recurrente.

IV.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque la parte recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:

• 1)El 11 de marzo de 2024, el amparado presentó denuncia ante el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora por problemas de ruido, estructuras de gran altura colocadas junto a la tapia de su propiedad y actividades de taller que, a su juicio, no estaban comprendidas dentro de los permisos otorgados a la empresa denunciada Terra Equipos (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 2) El 18 de marzo de 2024, personal del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora realizó inspección ocular en la vivienda del recurrente, fue atendido por Nombre07, no percibió ruidos provenientes de taller ni golpes de metales, observó estructuras metálicas estibadas por encima de la tapia con eventual riesgo de caída al predio colindante y constató que el establecimiento denunciado se encontraba cerrado, por lo que se reprogramó inspección en el local comercial para el 08 de abril de 2024 (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 3) El 08 de abril de 2024, personal del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora realizaron una inspección en el establecimiento denunciado, en la cual se verificó almacenamiento de estructuras metálicas para venta y exhibición conforme con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, no se comprobó actividad de taller ni labores de reparación de estructuras, no se percibió ruido y sí se confirmó el estibaje de estructuras por encima de la tapia colindante con la propiedad del denunciante (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 4)El 09 de abril de 2024, el promovente fue informado por correo electrónico de las actuaciones realizadas por el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora con motivo de su denuncia (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 5)El 22 de abril de 2024, la empresa denunciada fue notificada de la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, mediante la cual se le ordenó colocar detectores de humo, ubicar rotulación de emergencia, mantener dispensadores con jabón líquido y toallas desechables, contar con botiquín de primeros auxilios y abstenerse de estibar estructuras por encima de la tapia para evitar riesgo de caídas (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 6) El 21 de mayo de 2024, la empresa Terra Equipos presentó escrito de contestación a la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, comunicando el cumplimiento de lo ordenado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 7) El 28 de mayo de 2024, personal del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verificó el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-069-2024, comprobó el acatamiento total de varios extremos, constató cumplimiento parcial en cuanto al estibaje de estructuras por encima de la tapia, no percibió ruidos provenientes de la empresa y sí observó gran almacenamiento de estructuras metálicas (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 8) El 30 de mayo de 2024, el amparado fue informado por correo electrónico de las actuaciones realizadas por el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora y del seguimiento dado a la orden sanitaria emitida contra la empresa denunciada (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 9) El 04 de junio de 2024, la empresa denunciada fue notificada de la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, mediante la cual se le instruyó ampliar el permiso de funcionamiento para incluir el almacenamiento de estructuras y presentar, en el plazo de quince días hábiles, una propuesta técnica de almacenamiento y estibaje validada por profesional competente, con determinación de alturas máximas y retiros respecto de las colindancias (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 10) El 04 de junio de 2024, el recurrente manifestó la continuación de ruidos y el avance lento en el reacomodo de estructuras dentro del establecimiento denunciado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital) 11) El 11 de junio de 2024, el accionante fue informado de que, durante la inspección de verificación, se constató que las estibas del lado colindante con su propiedad estaban separadas a más de un metro y que las más cercanas a la vivienda no superaban la altura de la tapia, y se le indicó que la eventual infracción por ruido solo podía determinarse mediante prueba de sonometría programada en la fecha y hora que él propusiera (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 12)El 20 y 25 de junio de 2024, el promovente reiteró sus manifestaciones sobre cercanía de estructuras a la tapia, riesgo derivado de materiales colocados en racks, preocupación por la estructura del techo, ruido e ingreso de material, y el Área Rectora de Salud le solicitó nuevamente indicar fecha y hora para programar la medición sónica (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 13)El 24 y 25 de junio de 2024, la empresa denunciada presentó propuesta técnica para cumplir con la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, con cronograma de junio a setiembre de 2024 para el movimiento y reacomodo de estructuras, propuesta que fue revisada y refrendada por el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora, junto con la ampliación municipal de uso de suelo para almacenamiento de estructuras, circunstancia que fue comunicada al tutelado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 14)El 16 de julio de 2024, personal del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora inspeccionó nuevamente el establecimiento y constató que los techos se encontraban en buen estado de conservación, sin partes rotas, desprendidas o inestables, razón por la cual se recomendó solicitar apoyo técnico especializado para una valoración estructural complementaria por parte de un ingeniero civil (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 15)El 22 y 24 de julio de 2024, el amparado fue informado de las actuaciones realizadas respecto de la estructura del techo y, además, la empresa Terra Eventos presentó documentación para ampliar su permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, emitiéndose el certificado CS-ARS-MP-PSF-214-2024 al haberse acreditado la ampliación del uso de suelo municipal para almacenamiento de estructuras (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 16)El 05, 07, 19 y 20 de agosto de 2024, el recurrente consultó por la visita del ingeniero civil, denunció problemas relacionados con el lavado de letrinas y volvió a plantear la necesidad de una medición sónica, mientras que el Área Rectora de Salud le indicó la fecha prevista para la inspección, realizó visita para verificar los hechos denunciados y generó el informe técnico correspondiente, comunicándole posteriormente lo actuado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 17)El 22 y 28 de agosto de 2024, los ingenieros Allan Bolaños Benavides y Óscar Arroyo Barahona concluyeron que la estructura del establecimiento no presentaba peligro inminente en su estabilidad y esa circunstancia fue comunicada al promovente por correo electrónico (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 18)El 19, 20 y 23 de setiembre de 2024, el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora verificó el seguimiento de la propuesta técnica de reacomodo de estructuras, constató el cumplimiento de la mayoría de sus puntos, dejó pendiente únicamente la colocación de rotulación y los registros de revisiones semanales, informó de ello al accionante y programó medición sónica para el 23 de setiembre de 2024 a las 2:00 p.m., diligencia que no pudo realizarse por ausencia de ruido proveniente de la empresa denunciada (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 19)El 07 de octubre de 2024, personal del Área Rectora de Salud de Mora realizó un nuevo intento de medición sónica, el cual tampoco pudo concretarse por ausencia de ruidos generados por la empresa denunciada (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 20)El 03, 05, 09 y 19 de diciembre de 2024, el tutelado fue informado de nuevas posibilidades para realizar medición sónica, una de ellas no pudo ejecutarse por falta de ruido, otra no se realizó porque el propio denunciante malinterpretó el correo remitido y debió asistir a una cita médica, y finalmente, ante un correo del señor Loría reportando ruidos, personal del Área Rectora de Salud desatendió labores de oficina para efectuar la medición, obteniendo un resultado de 48.4 dB(A), correspondiente a ruido ambiente más fuente generadora activa, nivel que no superó el máximo de 65 dB(A) permitido para zona residencial por el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido N.° 39428-S (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 21)El 07, 08 y 09 de enero de 2025, el recurrente recibió el resultado de la sonometría practicada en diciembre de 2024 y, además, el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora comprobó que la empresa denunciada había cumplido los puntos que se encontraban pendientes de la orden sanitaria CS-ARS-MP-114-2024, circunstancia que también le fue comunicada por correo electrónico (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 22)El 17 y 18 de febrero de 2025, el amparado manifestó nuevamente la existencia de ruidos provenientes de la empresa denunciada y el Área Rectora de Salud le solicitó confirmar horarios para coordinar medición sónica, advirtiéndole que el equipo debía pedirse a otra área rectora debido a que el suyo se encontraba en calibración, sin que conste respuesta posterior del denunciante (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 23)El 10 y 19 de marzo de 2025, el promovente, por medio de su entonces abogada, denunció nuevamente contaminación sónica y el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora se apersonó a la vivienda de los afectados para realizar medición, diligencia que no se pudo concretar por ausencia de ruido (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 24)El 26 de marzo, 15 de mayo, 05 y 09 de junio de 2025, el Área Rectora de Salud procuró coordinar nuevas mediciones sónicas con el afectado, no obtuvo respuesta a varios de esos intentos y, cuando el señor Loría volvió a manifestar persistencia de ruidos, se le indicó que no procedía notificar a la empresa por contaminación sónica debido a que la medición realizada en diciembre de 2024 no superó los límites permitidos y no se habían comprobado los problemas denunciados, ofreciéndosele además la realización de nueva medición el 16 de junio de 2025, sin que conste respuesta (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 25)El 01, 02, 03 y 08 de julio de 2025, el tutelado denunció la presencia de un camión con lodos sépticos en la empresa Terra Eventos, el Área Rectora de Salud programó inspección para el día siguiente, realizó visita al lugar y constató que desde el exterior no se percibían ruidos, que no era posible practicar medición sónica por ausencia de sonido, que dentro del establecimiento únicamente operaba un montacargas acomodando estructuras, que no se realizaban trabajos mecánicos, que no había camiones con lodos sépticos, ni vertidos de aguas residuales o lodos, ni olores molestos, y posteriormente informó estos hallazgos al recurrente por correo electrónico (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 26)El 06 de agosto de 2025, el recurrente presentó escrito con diversos cuestionamientos sobre la empresa Terra Eventos, incluidos los relativos a contaminación sónica, invasión a la propiedad privada, pérdida de privacidad, peligro de incendio, olores molestos y estibaje de estructuras, gestión que fue contestada mediante el oficio CARTA MS-DRRSCS-ARSM-0474-2025, en el cual se aclaró que se habían realizado múltiples intentos de medición sónica sin que hubiera sido posible concretarlos por ausencia de ruido o por falta de coordinación con el afectado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 27)El 23 y 30 de octubre de 2025, el representante del señor Nombre01 presentó petición administrativa para la ejecución de una orden sanitaria que estimaba incumplida y el Área Rectora de Salud de Mora evacuó por escrito cada uno de los puntos planteados, incluido el relacionado con la contaminación sónica (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 28)El 06 y 13 de enero de 2026, el amparado denunció nuevamente ruidos molestos y la presencia de un tanque de lodos sépticos en la empresa Terra Eventos, por lo que el Área Rectora de Salud programó inspección y, al realizarla, no pudo efectuar medición sónica por ausencia de ruidos, no observó personas lavando maquinaria ni realizando actividades que generaran ruido, no encontró camiones con lodos sépticos, no detectó aguas en el suelo ni percibió olores molestos, resultados que fueron comunicados posteriormente al denunciante por correo electrónico (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).
• 29)El 26 de marzo de 2026, el establecimiento comercial Terra Eventos contaba con permiso sanitario de funcionamiento otorgado por el Ministerio de Salud, incluyendo la ampliación respectiva para el almacenamiento de estructuras (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).

III.- Hecho no probado. No se estima debidamente demostrado el siguiente hecho de relevancia para esta resolución:

Único: Que exista un acto administrativo final o pronunciamiento definitivo por parte del Ministerio de Salud que haya declarado la existencia de contaminación sónica en el establecimiento denunciado (véanse los informes de las autoridades recurridas y la prueba aportada al expediente digital).

IV.- Análisis por el fondo. En primer lugar, cabe destacar que este Tribunal ha resuelto que la contaminación sónica producida por ruido tiene impacto en los derechos fundamentales de las personas. Respecto a esta temática, en la sentencia n.°2025-009098 de las 09:50 horas del 25 de marzo de 2025, se indicó lo siguiente:

“IV.- Sobre el caso concreto. De la relación del artículo 24 con el 28 de nuestra Constitución Política, el principio de libertad que rige para las personas tiene como uno de sus límites el no perjudicar a terceros, y por eso la protección de su ámbito de intimidad y consecuentemente de la tranquilidad propia de ese ámbito. El ruido perturba la tranquilidad, máxime si se trata del lugar en donde se reside. Además, en atención a otras normas constitucionales como el artículo 50, que consagra el derecho al ambiente, y el artículo 21, del que se ha derivado el derecho a la salud, corresponde que el Estado garantice un ambiente exento de contaminación sónica. Por esas razones, con respecto a las actividades de karaokes, música en vivo y similares, la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal ha sido clara en enfatizar la necesidad de respetar los derechos de las personas vecinas”.

Obsérvese del precedente parcialmente citado, que la Sala Constitucional ha señalado que la contaminación sónica constituye una forma de agresión ambiental que incide directamente en la salud y en la tranquilidad de las personas, de modo que, cuando se supera el umbral permitido, el Estado queda obligado a desplegar una actuación efectiva y verificable para prevenir, corregir y, en su caso, hacer cesar la fuente de contaminación.

En el presente asunto, no se advierte que la autoridad sanitaria recurrida haya incurrido en una lesión sustantiva de los derechos fundamentales del tutelado en lo relativo a la contaminación sónica, pues la secuencia de actuaciones desplegadas evidencia que, desde la denuncia presentada el 11 de marzo de 2024, el Área Rectora de Salud activó mecanismos de verificación en sitio, realizando inspecciones iniciales, girando órdenes sanitarias y efectuando visitas de seguimiento para constatar las condiciones del establecimiento denunciado. En esa línea, se practicaron inspecciones en marzo, abril y mayo de 2024, en las que, si bien se identificaron otras situaciones sanitarias —como el almacenamiento de estructuras y condiciones de seguridad—, no se logró percibir ruido en los momentos de verificación, lo que obligó a reprogramar diligencias y mantener el seguimiento administrativo.

Ahora bien, en cuanto a las mediciones sonoras propiamente dichas, se desprende que la autoridad intentó realizarlas en múltiples oportunidades durante 2024 —incluyendo setiembre, octubre y diciembre— sin que estas pudieran concretarse, ya sea porque al momento de la inspección no se generaban ruidos o por circunstancias de coordinación con el propio denunciante, lo cual resulta determinante, en tanto la medición técnica depende de la efectiva presencia del fenómeno denunciado. Asimismo, cuando finalmente se logró efectuar una medición en diciembre de 2024, en presencia de actividad en el sitio, el resultado obtenido fue de 48.4 dB(A), valor que se ubica por debajo del límite permitido para zona residencial, lo cual impide afirmar la existencia de una infracción a la normativa aplicable.

Por otra parte, durante el año 2025 la autoridad sanitaria continuó atendiendo las manifestaciones del tutelado, procurando nuevas mediciones en febrero, marzo y meses posteriores, sin que estas pudieran concretarse en varias ocasiones por ausencia de ruido al momento de la visita o por falta de coordinación, e incluso realizando nuevas inspecciones en julio de ese año, en las que nuevamente no se percibieron niveles sonoros que permitieran efectuar una medición válida. De esta forma, lejos de evidenciarse una conducta pasiva, se constata una actuación reiterada, progresiva y técnicamente orientada a verificar la denuncia, en la que la ausencia de resultados concluyentes obedece a la imposibilidad fáctica de captar el fenómeno en los momentos de medición y no a una omisión administrativa.

De ahí que, al no haberse acreditado mediante medición técnica alguna la superación de los niveles de ruido permitidos, ni constar una inactividad de la autoridad sanitaria en la verificación de la denuncia, no es posible tener por configurada una vulneración a los derechos fundamentales del tutelado en el plano material de la contaminación sónica.

Ahora bien, lo que sí resulta lesivo de sus derechos fundamentales es que, pese a que desde el 11 de marzo de 2024 el tutelado ha denunciado, entre otras cosas, la problemática de ruido, lo cierto es que a la fecha de interposición del recurso no se evidencia la emisión de un acto final que resuelva de manera expresa, clara y definitiva dicha gestión. En efecto, aunque la autoridad sanitaria ha desplegado diversas actuaciones de verificación y seguimiento, estas se han mantenido en un plano estrictamente material y preparatorio, sin que se traduzcan en una decisión conclusiva que determine si existe o no una infracción y, en su caso, que disponga las medidas correspondientes. En esa medida, la ausencia de un pronunciamiento final impide tener por satisfecha la obligación de resolver de forma pronta y expresa las gestiones planteadas por los administrados, pues no basta con realizar diligencias de comprobación si estas no culminan en un acto que defina la situación jurídica sometida a conocimiento de la Administración. Por ende, la prolongación de la gestión en un estado indefinido, sin una resolución que ponga término al asunto, configura una vulneración al derecho a una pronta resolución administrativa consagrado en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política.

En consecuencia, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso, en lo que respecta a este extremo del recurso.

V.- En cuanto a los reproches dirigidos contra la Municipalidad de Mora, debe indicarse, en primer término, que el extremo relativo a la alegada contaminación sónica ya fue abordado en el considerando anterior, en el cual se determinó que la verificación, medición y control de los niveles de ruido corresponde al Ministerio de Salud, en su condición de autoridad técnica competente en la materia. En esa medida, no resulta procedente trasladar a la Municipalidad la responsabilidad por una supuesta afectación derivada de niveles sonoros, cuando dicha entidad no ostenta competencia para su medición ni para la adopción de las medidas sanitarias correspondientes, de modo que no puede imputársele, en ese ámbito, una omisión con relevancia constitucional.

Por otra parte, en lo que respecta a los demás alegatos formulados por la parte recurrente –relativos al otorgamiento de la licencia comercial, la conformidad del uso de suelo, la eventual modificación de la actividad autorizada y la suficiencia de las labores de fiscalización municipal– se advierte que estos se enmarcan en una discusión propia del ámbito de la legalidad ordinaria. En efecto, tales cuestionamientos implican determinar si las actuaciones administrativas del gobierno local se ajustan o no a la normativa urbanística aplicable, al plan regulador vigente y a las condiciones específicas bajo las cuales fue otorgada la patente comercial, lo cual exige un análisis técnico y probatorio que excede el objeto del proceso de amparo.

En ese sentido, no le corresponde a esta jurisdicción constitucional fungir como una instancia revisora de la legalidad de los actos administrativos emitidos por la Municipalidad, ni sustituir a la Administración activa en la valoración de aspectos técnicos vinculados con el uso del suelo, el otorgamiento de licencias o el ejercicio de potestades de fiscalización, máxime cuando el ordenamiento jurídico prevé vías ordinarias idóneas para controvertir este tipo de actuaciones. De ahí que, al no evidenciarse una conducta arbitraria u omisiva con incidencia directa en derechos fundamentales, sino más bien una disconformidad con la actuación administrativa desplegada, los reclamos formulados en este extremo devienen improcedentes en la vía del amparo.

VI.- Nota del Magistrado Castillo Víquez, en cuanto a la justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales. A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia. Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.

VII.- Nota del magistrado Salazar Alvarado. En asuntos ambientales, es también criterio del suscrito, de que, si ya ha habido intervención de la Administración Pública, considero que su conocimiento y resolución corresponde a la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa. No obstante, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto cuando están de por medio otros derechos de las personas afectadas por el foco de contaminación, entre ellos, la salud, la calidad de vida y el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano y libre de contaminación (artículo 50, de la Constitución Política), tal y como sucede en este caso, en el que la parte recurrente presentó una denuncia por el funcionamiento irregular de un establecimiento con contaminación ambiental y sónica, que involucra el derecho a un ambiente sano y el derecho a la salud, que alega la parte recurrente no ha sido resuelta en forma definitiva, con violación del derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y de un nivel digno de calidad de vida.

VIII.- Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de treinta días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en Sesión No. 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la Sesión No. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar el recurso, únicamente por la violación a un derecho a una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. En consecuencia, se ordena a Mary Denisse Munive Angermüller, en su condición de ministra de Salud, o a quien ocupe dicho cargo, que gestione lo necesario del ámbito de su competencia, para que, en un plazo máximo de DOS MESES, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se resuelva en forma definitiva la denuncia planteada por el amparado desde el 11 de marzo de 2024. Se apercibe a la parte recurrida que, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Mora, se declara sin lugar el recurso. El magistrado Castillo Víquez pone nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado consigna nota. Notifíquese.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 