← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 17035-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 15/05/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo and ordered MINAE's Dirección de Agua to execute the demolition of the illegal streambed structure within three months—using substituted administrative execution if the obligor fails to comply—and ordered the Municipality of Atenas to provide institutional cooperation for the measure's execution.La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el amparo y ordenó a la Dirección de Agua del MINAE materializar la demolición de la obra ilegal en la quebrada El Rastro dentro de tres meses, activando la ejecución sustitutiva si el obligado incumple, y a la Municipalidad de Atenas colaborar interinstitucionalmente con dicha ejecución.
SummaryResumen
A property owner neighboring Quebrada El Rastro in Atenas filed an amparo against the Municipality of Atenas and MINAE for institutional failure to act against illegal works built by a third party within a public-domain streambed. MINAE's Dirección de Agua had issued a permit for placement of medium rocks, but the permittee instead built a mesh-and-cement wall approximately 15 meters long that throttled the channel and diverted water toward the complainant's property. After an inspection on March 25, 2026, the Dirección de Agua confirmed illegality and ordered demolition within 8 business days but did not enforce its own order. The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo and ordered MINAE's water directorate to execute the demolition within three months—using substituted administrative execution if necessary—and the Municipality to provide institutional cooperation. The ruling develops the precautionary, prevention, in dubio pro natura, and non-regression principles, and incorporates IACHR OC-32/25 on the climate emergency.Un vecino colindante con la quebrada El Rastro en Atenas interpuso recurso de amparo contra la Municipalidad de Atenas y el MINAE alegando omisión institucional frente a obras ilegales realizadas por un tercero dentro del cauce de dominio público. La Dirección de Agua había otorgado permiso para colocación de rocas medianas, pero el particular construyó un muro de malla y cemento de aproximadamente 15 metros que estrangulaba el cauce y desviaba el flujo hacia la propiedad del recurrente. Tras inspección del 25 de marzo de 2026, la Dirección de Agua confirmó la ilegalidad y ordenó demolición en 8 días hábiles, pero no ejecutó la medida. La Sala Constitucional declaró el amparo con lugar y ordenó que la Dirección de Agua materialice la demolición en 3 meses —incluida la ejecución sustitutiva si el obligado incumple— y que la Municipalidad preste colaboración interinstitucional. La sentencia desarrolla los principios precautorio, preventivo, in dubio pro natura y no regresión ambiental, e incorpora la OC-32/25 de la Corte IDH sobre cambio climático.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In that regard, the Court finds that when there is a material intervention within a public-domain streambed, the legally required state action cannot be exhausted by merely receiving complaints, issuing official communications, or referring the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Such actions may be necessary, but they are insufficient when the competent technical authority has already confirmed that the work performed does not correspond to what was authorized, that it was carried out without the corresponding permit as constructed, and that it negatively affects the hydraulic dynamics of the streambed. From this perspective, it is not constitutionally admissible for the Dirección de Agua to simply assert that it filed a criminal complaint or informed other authorities. The criminal process may establish personal liability for possible environmental crimes, but it does not substitute the immediate administrative duty to restore the streambed, prevent further damage, and halt a material situation that the Dirección de Agua itself qualified as illegal and harmful to flow dynamics. An environmental amparo demands a useful, prompt, and effective response, not merely formal action. For all the foregoing, the amparo is hereby granted. The Dirección de Agua of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is ordered to verify compliance with the demolition order issued against Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., and in the event of non-compliance, to immediately activate the administrative enforcement mechanisms provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, including substituted execution at the obligor's expense, subject to the corresponding prior notices being served or, where technically warranted, motivating urgency.En ese sentido, la Sala estima que tratándose de una intervención material dentro de un cauce de dominio público, la actuación estatal exigible no puede agotarse en la recepción de denuncias, la emisión de oficios o el traslado de los hechos al Ministerio Público. Tales actuaciones pueden ser necesarias, pero no son suficientes cuando la propia autoridad técnica competente ya ha constatado que la obra ejecutada no corresponde a lo autorizado, que fue realizada sin el permiso correspondiente en los términos construidos, y que incide negativamente sobre la dinámica hidráulica del cauce. Desde esta perspectiva, no resulta constitucionalmente admisible que la Dirección de Agua se limite a afirmar que presentó una denuncia penal o que puso los hechos en conocimiento de otras autoridades. La vía penal puede determinar responsabilidades personales por la eventual comisión de delitos ambientales, pero no sustituye el deber administrativo inmediato de restablecer el cauce, prevenir daños mayores y hacer cesar una situación material que la propia Dirección de Agua calificó como ilegal y perjudicial para la dinámica de flujo. El amparo ambiental exige una respuesta útil, pronta y efectiva, no una actuación meramente formal. Por todo lo anterior, procede declarar con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a la Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía que verifique el cumplimiento de la orden de demolición dictada contra Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A y en caso de incumplimiento, active de inmediato los mecanismos de ejecución administrativa previstos en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, incluida la ejecución sustitutiva, con cargo al obligado, previo cumplimiento de las intimaciones correspondientes o motivando la urgencia si técnicamente procediere.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El amparo ambiental exige una respuesta útil, pronta y efectiva, no una actuación meramente formal. La protección del artículo 50 constitucional tiene una dimensión preventiva, correctiva y restauradora, especialmente cuando se trata de bienes de dominio público y de riesgos vinculados al recurso hídrico."
"An environmental amparo demands a useful, prompt, and effective response, not merely formal action. The protection afforded by Article 50 of the Constitution has a preventive, corrective, and restorative dimension, especially when public-domain assets and risks to water resources are involved."
Considerando VII
"El amparo ambiental exige una respuesta útil, pronta y efectiva, no una actuación meramente formal. La protección del artículo 50 constitucional tiene una dimensión preventiva, correctiva y restauradora, especialmente cuando se trata de bienes de dominio público y de riesgos vinculados al recurso hídrico."
Considerando VII
"Desde esta perspectiva, no resulta constitucionalmente admisible que la Dirección de Agua se limite a afirmar que presentó una denuncia penal o que puso los hechos en conocimiento de otras autoridades. La vía penal puede determinar responsabilidades personales por la eventual comisión de delitos ambientales, pero no sustituye el deber administrativo inmediato de restablecer el cauce, prevenir daños mayores y hacer cesar una situación material que la propia Dirección de Agua calificó como ilegal y perjudicial para la dinámica de flujo."
"From this perspective, it is not constitutionally admissible for the Dirección de Agua to simply assert that it filed a criminal complaint or informed other authorities. The criminal process may establish personal liability for possible environmental crimes, but it does not substitute the immediate administrative duty to restore the streambed, prevent further damage, and halt a material situation that the Dirección de Agua itself qualified as illegal and harmful to flow dynamics."
Considerando VII
"Desde esta perspectiva, no resulta constitucionalmente admisible que la Dirección de Agua se limite a afirmar que presentó una denuncia penal o que puso los hechos en conocimiento de otras autoridades. La vía penal puede determinar responsabilidades personales por la eventual comisión de delitos ambientales, pero no sustituye el deber administrativo inmediato de restablecer el cauce, prevenir daños mayores y hacer cesar una situación material que la propia Dirección de Agua calificó como ilegal y perjudicial para la dinámica de flujo."
Considerando VII
"cuando se está ante una situación que exige la aplicación del principio precautorio, los entes y órganos públicos deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación que razonablemente conlleve un riesgo grave; incluso, se encuentran obligados a suspender las actividades que se estén desarrollando."
"When confronted with a situation that requires application of the precautionary principle, public entities and agencies must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new or modification request that reasonably entails a serious risk; they are even obligated to suspend ongoing activities."
Considerando IV
"cuando se está ante una situación que exige la aplicación del principio precautorio, los entes y órganos públicos deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación que razonablemente conlleve un riesgo grave; incluso, se encuentran obligados a suspender las actividades que se estén desarrollando."
Considerando IV
"La omisión de activar oportunamente esos mecanismos perpetuaría la afectación del ambiente y dejaría sin tutela efectiva el derecho reconocido en el artículo 50 constitucional."
"Failure to timely activate those mechanisms would perpetuate the environmental harm and leave the right recognized in Article 50 of the Constitution without effective protection."
Considerando VII
"La omisión de activar oportunamente esos mecanismos perpetuaría la afectación del ambiente y dejaría sin tutela efectiva el derecho reconocido en el artículo 50 constitucional."
Considerando VII
Full documentDocumento completo
Document Review Res. Nº 2026017035 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fifteenth of May, two thousand twenty-six.
Writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) processed under expediente N° 26-010510-0007-CO, filed by [Nombre 001], national identity card (cédula de identidad) [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS AND THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA.
Background:
1.- By written submission filed with the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on March 24, 2026, the petitioner files a writ of amparo against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS AND THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA. He states that he is the owner of the property (finca) registered in the Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario), Partido de Alajuela, title number 140858, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters to the east and 25 meters to the south of the Courthouse, and that his property borders the quebrada El Rastro, which separates his property from the property registered in the Property Registry, Partido de Alajuela, title number 247646, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 175 meters to the east of the Courthouse, owned by Inversiones C y C del Oeste Sociedad Anónima. The owner has a warehouse (galerón) where a ceramics retail business operates, which he manages personally; both of the aforementioned properties border the quebrada El Rastro and each has a wall that has been in place for approximately 40 years. He states: "Second: On Friday, March 26, 2021, from early in the morning, several men came down through the property owned by the entity represented by Wilber Castro Cubero and were removing stones from the streambed of the quebrada using iron bars and placing them against the wall on that property. I called the municipality, and they sent the head of the Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) of the Municipalidad de Atenas, who came and reprimanded them, so the matter went no further. Third: On Saturday, December 16, 2023, from early in the morning, Wilber Castro once again carried out works within the quebrada, this time pouring a large quantity of rocks — some of considerable size — from the wall on his property, which together with the wire mesh can measure approximately 3 meters in height, and then sealing them with a cement mixture. Because it was the weekend, the police station was called to draw up an official record (acta) of the events, in which it is noted that several men were observed working with Wilber Castro and throwing a 'considerable' quantity of stones into the river; the record further states that they were placing supports against the wall on both sides (see record). On Monday the 18th, the municipality was informed of what had occurred; by December 20, the Department of Engineering and Construction and the Environmental Management Unit of the Municipalidad de Atenas were already aware of the situation, as the head of that department, Fabián Méndez Marín, informed my wife, Sara Vargas Elizondo, via WhatsApp on December 20, 2023, in words that read exactly as follows: 'in our personal opinion, it is within the channel (cauce)' ... (I attach a screenshot). All of this was done by Wilber without any permit whatsoever. My wife also called MINAE's Alajuela office on January 17, 2024, and was told that the following day, the 18th, they had field visits scheduled for Atenas and that they would come to inspect; they did indeed come, my wife received them and they took down her information, as well as that of the neighbor, Eduardo Ávila Rincón, so that they could serve as witnesses, since they had filed the complaint with the prosecutor's office (fiscalía). Two years and three months have now passed and they have never been called to testify, which leads me to assume that no such complaint exists. I attach photographs and videos of the works carried out on December 16, 2023. Fourth: On Saturday, March 7, 2026, also from early in the morning, Wilber Castro once again carried out works within the quebrada, this time placing wire mesh, more rocks, and a cement mixture across practically the entire channel of the quebrada; he constructed an embankment (talud) with all of these materials and a considerable slope, completely redirecting the channel toward the wall of my property (I attach photographs showing the placement of wire mesh). By Monday, March 9, I notified the municipality, and as of this date they have not come to inspect. Wilber Castro holds a permit granted by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE, based on a request made by the representative of the Department of Engineering and Construction of the Municipalidad de Atenas, Fabián Méndez Marín, even though Fabián Méndez Marín was aware of the illegal conduct engaged in by Wilber Castro when he carried out works in the channel without the required permit; he should have denied the request, grounding his action in the duty of probity (principio de probidad) and placing the public interest above private interest. The aforementioned permit was processed under the electronic in-channel works file, number: 1445-O; the second encroachment took place on December 16, 2023, and the date of the request is January 22, 2024 — that is, one month after the events occurred. In that request (official memorandum (oficio) mat-cconst-0172024; see expediente 1445 of the in-channel works file of the Water Directorate, attached hereto), Fabián Méndez states that he carried out a field inspection and describes the wall, but never indicates that the channel was already substantially encroached upon. This may have led the engineer who issued the technical endorsement (aval técnico) into error, in the event that the latter did not carry out any inspection of his own; the request also states that the municipality has knowledge of the works mentioned, referring — as can be inferred from the text — solely to the original works, i.e., the construction of the wall itself, and not to those carried out by Wilber Castro. Furthermore, the said request states, in the relevant part: '... the following minimum requirements must be met: 1. Technical endorsement from the Water Directorate authority of MINAE. 2. The Environmental Management Unit of the Municipalidad de Atenas must be fully informed of the process in all its aspects ...' As for the technical endorsement from MINAE's Water Directorate, I was informed by the Legal Department of that institution that it was issued by Engineer Ignacio Campos; in the said technical report (see da-uhtpcosr-0103-2024, which appears in expediente: 1445-o, attached hereto), under the section corresponding to the justification for the works, the following is stated: '... upon request from the Municipalidad de Atenas ...', and there the irresponsibility is perpetuated in a matter so delicate that a large portion of the population is put at risk, since this quebrada is a watercourse that runs through various parts of the center of Atenas, extending across several sectors of the urban area. It is worth noting that a bridge passes just a few meters from the obstruction, and its opening is very narrow, which may cause flooding upstream that could endanger people's lives. Fifth. Given all of the foregoing, I sent an email to the Water Directorate explaining the situation and requesting an urgent inspection, and asking that it be verified whether the works carried out by Wilber Castro were consistent with what had been authorized under the permit; in the reply email it was indicated that they had filed the correspondence and forwarded it to expediente 1445-O to be handled by Ignacio Campos — who was precisely the professional who issued the technical endorsement for Wilber Castro's in-channel works permit. (I attach the email.) Sixth: all of the entities involved pass responsibility to one another, and to date we have not received an objective response to the problem described herein. And to further illustrate the ineptitude of certain entities: on March 18, 2026, in the morning, two officials from MINAE's Alajuela office arrived; one of them spoke with my wife and all he told her was that they had already gone to speak with the man and that he has a permit, to which she asked whether they were aware of the scope of the permit in relation to the works carried out, and he replied that she would then need to contact the Water Directorate. It is clear that they had not read the permit. My wife told them that there was then nothing more to discuss; they never indicated any desire to proceed with an inspection. In any event, if they visited Wilber Castro, they should have inspected from his side of the property; the situation can also be seen from the bridge, which is very close by. Currently no water is flowing through the channel; it has accumulated upstream due to the obstruction. The stagnant water emits foul odors and also constitutes a breeding ground for the dengue-transmitting mosquito, which endangers the health and lives of people, especially infants, children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing medical conditions; it is worth noting that approximately 100 meters away there is a child daycare center and 200 meters away is the local care home for the elderly. Seventh. Moreover, how is it possible that, upon being asked by email to issue a certificate (constancia) including the inspections carried out and all activities undertaken, the Environmental Management Unit of the municipality does not even mention the matter (I attach the email and the official memorandum)? In this way they completely abdicate their responsibility in the case, which leads me to suspect that no records are being kept — a very regrettable state of affairs in public administration. The complaint was known to them, regardless of the channel through which it was communicated. Furthermore, the entities named as respondents herein must establish and maintain effective coordination among themselves, since these matters relate to public-domain assets (bienes de dominio público) whose care and management require the joint collaboration of the competent entities. In official memorandum MAT-GA-0014-2026, issued by Jeudy Ortiz and attached hereto, specifically under item three with the subtitle 'On municipal participation,' that individual affirms that municipal participation is limited to institutional coordination functions, attending to citizen complaints, and the eventual communication of facts to the competent authorities — but with no responsibility of its own. At least in the case at hand, the coordination and communication that has been attempted has come about solely because I brought the situation to the attention of the various entities, prompted by this latest encroachment on the quebrada's channel; prior to that, there had been no effort on the part of the competent entities to find a solution — disregarding the public interest. In light of all of the foregoing, I pose the following question: Is it the municipality's function to issue permit requests to other entities when there is an unresolved illegality? (The act of December 16, 2023, was and remains entirely and absolutely illegal, because Wilber Castro did not hold the corresponding permit.) Had the Environmental Management Unit of the municipality notified MINAE's Alajuela office, and that office in turn notified the Water Directorate — as I have already indicated — given that these involve public-domain assets, given that this is a matter of public interest, and given that the works were carried out illegally because Wilber Castro lacked the corresponding permit, we would not be facing this problem today, since the municipal request would have had no effect or the matter would have been handled more responsibly. Eighth. The quebrada El Rastro carries a considerable volume of water during the rainy season, and the obstruction of its channel with the deposited materials therefore represents a significant risk to the population of the area, as it increases the likelihood of floods and overflows that could affect homes, roads, and people's lives. It is not acceptable to wait and see what happens, because the matter is urgent. No one is opposed to the man securing his wall, but he should do so in compliance with the regulations governing that matter, responsibly, and with consideration for other people. Furthermore, that portion of the wall on this man's property is covered at its base and beyond by stones, wire mesh, and cement poured from above down into the channel; the work does not conform to any technical standards, the cement mixture does not adhere properly due to a lack of compaction, and since it is covered from its base it is impossible to carry out regular inspections to verify the condition of its foundations, with the result that a collapse of the wall — which, according to the aforementioned municipal request, stands 2.5 meters high — may occur. Wilber Castro, having committed a clear abuse of the permit granted, has created a situation of imminent risk on the site. Faced with the exhaustion and wear caused by this uncertainty — not a legal uncertainty, because the laws exist and are there to regulate and protect, but rather uncertainty arising from their non-enforcement — I could have chosen to do nothing and let things run their course, but I do not want to be another person who carries that burden on their conscience." On the basis of the allegations set out above, the petitioner considers that fundamental rights have been violated. He requests that the writ be granted.
2.- By order of the Presiding Justice issued at 08:55 hours on April 16, 2026, the present writ of amparo was admitted for processing.
3.- MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES AND ROY ARIAS ROJAS, respectively mayor (alcalde) and president of the Municipal Council (Concejo), both of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, report under oath as follows: "… The writ filed by [Nombre 001] seeks to attribute to the Municipalidad de Atenas alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from the execution of works in the public-domain channel known as the quebrada El Rastro, as well as from an alleged municipal omission in the supervision, correction, and sanctioning of those works; however, this approach distorts the proper scope of a writ of amparo, which seeks to have this Chamber examine, evaluate, and resolve questions of legality or technical illegality of in-channel works. This Chamber must bear in mind that the writ is grounded on alleged construction excesses and hydraulic or environmental impacts that, upon verification, could give rise to administrative liability for the improper conduct of authorities with material and legal competence other than the municipality; the petitioner's allegations clearly exceed the protective function of the amparo, whose purpose is not to substitute for ordinary legal channels or to settle complex technical disputes. As demonstrated by the evidence presented, the Municipalidad de Atenas did not grant any in-channel works permit, nor did it authorize any intervention in the public-domain channel; on this matter, official memorandum MAT-CCONST-017-2024, issued by the Department of Engineering and Construction, constitutes solely a municipal technical opinion regarding the absence of any need for a municipal construction license, and does not constitute an authorizing act for in-channel works; the scope of the document does not supply or substitute the required permits, does not generate vested rights (derechos subjetivos) in favor of the applicant, and expressly conditions any intervention that the applicant may wish to carry out upon obtaining the technical endorsement and permit from MINAE's Water Directorate; thus, there is no municipal administrative act that authorized the works in question or that can be deemed arbitrary or injurious to fundamental rights. Contrary to what the petitioning party alleges, the Municipality did act within its competency framework, diligently and in accordance with the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), by attending to the requests and citizen complaints submitted, carrying out preliminary verifications — which had no sanctioning character, as it lacks the substantive jurisdiction (competencia material) to sanction. The Municipalidad de Atenas has formally referred the facts to MINAE's Water Directorate by means of official memorandum MAT-GA-015-2026, requesting a specialized technical inspection and assessment; this action is consistent with the duty of inter-institutional coordination and the reasonable handling of complaints, and there is no constitutional obligation to assume competencies that the law assigns to others, pursuant to Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.º 276, as well as the Decreto Ejecutivo governing the functions of MINAE's Water Directorate — regulations expressly cited in permit DA-0833-2024 itself, which clearly establishes that: Watercourse channels are public-domain assets of the State, so that the authorization, supervision, modification, and eventual sanctioning of interventions in channels falls exclusively within the competence of MINAE, through the Water Directorate. Requiring the Municipalidad de Atenas to supervise, sanction, or modify in-channel works would mean compelling it to act outside the principle of legality, which is constitutionally impermissible. Following the municipality's referral of the facts, MINAE's Water Directorate carried out a technical inspection of the site and determined that the works executed did not conform to the permit granted, whereupon a full demolition order was issued for the in-channel works; this failure to comply with the order of the competent authority must be processed in the corresponding criminal court (sede penal), and to that end the Ministry of Environment has filed the complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), which is responsible for advancing the proceedings in a timely manner. These actions demonstrate that the public institutional framework functioned in accordance with the law and that no omission remains that would warrant constitutional protection against the municipality. The present writ is manifestly inadmissible insofar as it seeks to substitute the administrative process and administrative-contentious jurisdiction in order to obtain complex technical rulings before the constitutional court; it further seeks to have constitutional responsibility imposed for a competency that the law does not assign to the municipality. This Chamber has repeatedly held that the writ of amparo is not a parallel legality proceeding nor a mechanism for correcting the actions of other competent authorities when those authorities act within the ordinary procedures established by the legal order." 4.- By written submission filed with the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on April 20, 2026, the petitioner states as follows: "… First: That on March 16, 2026, the matter was brought to the attention of the Municipal Council through the corresponding district representative (síndica), which ordered it to be transferred to the administration for the issuance of a technical report. Second: That, pursuant to a municipal resolution (acuerdo municipal), a period of ten business days was granted for the issuance of the said report; however, as of this date no ruling has been issued by the administration. In view of the foregoing, and given the absence of any information regarding the issuance of the said reports, this Chamber is hereby informed of the described situation for its assessment within the present proceedings. Third: That on March 25, 2026, an inspection was carried out by the Water Directorate of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, without any official report or result of that action having been communicated as of this date. EVIDENCE FOR BETTER RESOLUTION. Fourth: A photograph dated February 23, 2024 is submitted as evidence for better resolution, in which no substantial variations are observed in the conditions of the channel relative to the situation documented following the intervention of December 16, 2023, with deposited materials remaining present therein. The foregoing is relevant considering that, as stated in the municipal request dated January 22, 2024, a field inspection had been carried out for that purpose." 5.- MARJORIE MEJÍAS VILLEGAS, in her capacity as Secretary of the Municipal Council of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, reports under oath as follows: "… By means of this official memorandum, we wish to notify you that based on the writ of amparo filed by [Nombre 001], ID# [Valor 003], in connection with the alleged facts — as owner of property located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters to the east and 25 meters to the south of the Courthouse, whose property borders the quebrada El Rastro — this Secretary of the Municipal Council, in response thereto, states the following:
1. That on May 20, 2024, at 1:37 p.m., an email note was received from Marcela Villareal, district representative (Síndica propietaria) for Atenas, requesting that it be included in her participation in the Ordinary Council Session, under item VIII, Report of District Representatives, on the agenda; the participation note and images are attached. See folios #01 to 03.
2. That on May 20, 2024, at Ordinary Session No. 04, held in the council chambers of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article VIII, Report of District Representatives, Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, made requests relating to the quebrada El Rastro, presented the images, and the corresponding resolutions were adopted. See folio 04.
3. That on May 30, 2024, by means of official memorandum MAT-CM-288-2024-1, PROBLEMÁTICA EN EL PUENTE DEL SUBIBAJA, QUEBRADA EL RASTRO, the resolution adopted was forwarded to the Municipal Administration by email on Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 10:34 a.m. See folios 05 to 07.
4. That on March 16, 2026, at 8:22 a.m., an email note was received from Marcela Villareal, district representative for Atenas, requesting that it be included in her participation in the Ordinary Council Session, under item VIII, Report of District Representatives, on the agenda; the participation note and images are attached. See folios 08 to 12.
5. That on March 16, 2026, at Ordinary Session No. 149, held in the council chambers of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article VIII, Report of District Representatives, Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, made requests relating to the quebrada El Rastro, presented the images, and the corresponding resolutions were adopted. See folios 13 to 14.
6. That by means of official memorandum MAT-CM-270-2026-1, forwarded by email dated March 23, 2026, at 3:19 p.m., the corresponding resolution was transmitted. See folios 15 to 18.
7. That by email dated Monday, April 16, 2026, at 2:31 p.m., the Municipal Administration transmitted the response to official memorandum MAT-CM-270-2026, with the following attachments: MAT-GA-014-2026 ATENCIÓN AL CUIDADANO GESTIÓN SOBRE INTERVENCIÓN CAUCE QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; DA-0833-2024 EXP 1445-O PERMISO OBRA CAUCE.pdf; MAT-GA-023-2026 ATENCIÓN DE ACUERDO MAT-CM-270-2026 Y OFICIO MAT-DA-0245-2026 QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-GA-0152026 REMISIÓN DE DENUNCIA Y SOLICITUD DE VERIFICACIÓN TÉCNICA DE OBRAS EN CAUCE – QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-DA-0280-2026. See folios 19 to 33.
8. That on April 20, 2026, at Ordinary Session No. 156, held in the council chambers of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article IV, Correspondence, Item 14, Subject: REM. RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-2702026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS. See folios 34 to 37.
9. That on April 17, 2026, by means of official memorandum MAT-CM-337-2026-1, REMISION RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-270-2026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, the corresponding notifications were forwarded by email on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at 2:03 p.m. See folios 38 to 46." 6.- DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, in his capacity as Acting Director of Water of the MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA, reports under oath as follows: "… ON THE MERITS: That by means of resolution DA-0833-2024, issued by the Water Directorate in administrative expediente 1445-O, a Public-Domain In-Channel Works Permit was granted in favor of Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., at the location claimed by the petitioner, for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the foot of the existing wall infrastructure, so that the hydraulic force of the quebrada El Rastro would no longer continue to strike or undermine the concrete infrastructure directly. That on March 12, 2026, the Directorate was made aware of the complaint submitted to the Directorate official, which was incorporated into expediente 1445-O and had been filed by the petitioner, the same complaint that was subsequently forwarded by the Municipalidad de Atenas by means of official memorandum MAT-GA-0015-2026 dated March 17, 2026 (GESTION 08662026). That in response to the complaint regarding the works carried out, a site visit was conducted on March 25, 2026 by officials from the Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles of the Water Directorate, in the presence of Sara Vargas Elizondo representing the complainants, municipal engineer Jeudy Ortiz Murillo, and Wilbert Castro Cubero, representative of Inversiones CYC del Oeste S.A. and owner of the property where the works were carried out, resulting in the official memorandum prepared by the Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles of the Water Directorate, DA-UHTPCOSR0195-2026 dated April 20, 2026, the relevant portions of which are transcribed below: (" ) Upon comparing what was authorized in resolution DA-0833-2024 with what was found in the field during the site inspection, it was determined that the in-channel works carried out on the site were not constructed in accordance with what was authorized in Resolution DA-0833-2024 of expediente 1445-O, and therefore constitute illegal in-channel works. From a technical standpoint, the works constructed represent an impact on the flow dynamics of the public-domain channel, as they negatively affect the direction of flow by extending from the bank to cover part of the streambed; unlike a protection using medium-sized rocks that increases roughness and reduces flow velocity, the concrete works constructed have lower roughness and favor erosive velocities that could affect areas downstream or the opposite bank. Furthermore, their dimensions and characteristics reduce the hydraulic cross-section of the channel (…)." "For the foregoing reasons, INVERSIONES CYC DEL OESTE S.A, with legal entity ID number (cédula jurídica) 3-101-539756, is hereby ordered to carry out the complete demolition of the wire mesh and cement wall in-channel works constructed on the site on the left bank of the quebrada El Rastro, this being due to the fact that (sic) a permit was held for this in-channel work given that it was not what was authorized in expediente 1445-O. For the demolition of these in-channel works, a non-extendable period of 8 business days is granted; failing that, once the deadline has passed and if what was requested has not been carried out, the State may pursue the corresponding criminal actions." As can be observed, in this case the Water Directorate has acted diligently in attending to the complaint; however, the petitioner filed the writ of amparo on March 24 without allowing a reasonable period for the field visit that had been scheduled to address the complaint, which — as stated — took place on March 25, 2026, this being further compounded by the Holy Week vacation period decreed by the government; accordingly, this Directorate has acted in accordance with the applicable regulations, diligently attending to the complaint as has been demonstrated. Likewise, given the situation identified, by means of official memorandum DA-UHTPCOSR-0196-2026 dated April 20, 2026, the complaint has been transferred to the prosecutor's office of Atenas for the appropriate action, and the Municipalidad de Atenas was informed by means of official memorandum DA-UHTPCOSR-0197-2026 dated April 20, 2026, of the handling of the complaint; those official memoranda were further clarified by means of DA-UHTPCOSR-0204-2026 and DA-UHTPCOSR-0206-2026, respectively." 7.- The legal requirements have been observed in the procedures followed.
Drafted by Justice Hess Herrera; and,
Considering:
I.- PRELIMINARY CLARIFICATION. Before analyzing the merits of the matter, it must be clarified that, beginning with ruling number 2008-02545 issued at 08:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has — with certain exceptions — referred to the administrative-contentious jurisdiction those matters in which the question is whether or not the public administration has complied with the reasonably established deadlines for resolving requests submitted by members of the public (administrados) in light of the provisions of Article 41 of the Political Constitution.
Precisely, in the sub lite, an exceptional situation is at issue, as there is a complaint regarding works carried out within the watercourse (cauce) of the Quebrada El Rastro, involving the placement of stones, wire mesh, and cement, which allegedly obstructed and diverted the watercourse toward the petitioner's property—a complaint that has allegedly not been resolved within a reasonable time, thereby endangering the petitioner's safety and potentially affecting the flow dynamics of the public-domain watercourse. Given the nature of the subject matter addressed by this proceeding, this Court will assess any potential delays in the resolution of the complaint filed. With that point clarified, the Court proceeds to resolve the specific situation presented in this writ of amparo (amparo).
II.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE WRIT. The petitioner alleges that a neighbor carried out works within the watercourse of the Quebrada El Rastro, placing stones, wire mesh, and cement, which allegedly obstructed and diverted the watercourse toward his property. He points to a lack of effective action and coordination between the Municipalidad de Atenas and MINAE, despite multiple complaints and inspections. He contends that the situation creates a risk of flooding, foul odors, stagnant water, and a danger to public health.
III.- PROVEN FACTS. The following facts are considered duly established as relevant to the decision in this matter:
REGARDING THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS:
REGARDING THE WATER DIRECTORATE OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY:
IV.- ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
Regarding the prevention and precautionary principles, in judgment no. 2021024807 of 9:20 hours on November 5, 2021, this Court stated:
"In this regard, legal scholars have noted that the prevention principle (principio preventivo) demands that, when there is certainty of possible environmental harm, the affecting activity must be prohibited, restricted, or conditioned on compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when risks are clearly defined and identified as at least probable; likewise, the principle is applicable when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, yet there are sufficient grounds to foresee potential negative impacts. On the other hand, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) holds that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. It follows that this principle operates from a position of reasonable scientific uncertainty combined with the threat of grave and irreversible environmental harm. In general terms, a relevant distinction between the prevention principle and the precautionary principle lies in the degree of knowledge and certainty regarding the risks posed by an activity or works. While the former requires such certainty, the latter reflects a state of doubt arising from scientific information or technical studies (…)" (emphasis in original).
The precautionary principle must be understood precisely as set forth in Principle XV of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." That is, it is not a matter of requiring scientific studies to achieve "absolute certainty" as to the harmlessness of an activity to the environment (in principle, total certainty is rarely achievable), but rather that even if the risk of grave or irreversible harm to the environment is not fully established, such uncertainty can never justify or excuse the postponement of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In this regard, it should be noted, on one hand, that the threat involved must be plausible and must entail a serious danger—not merely any type of threat—and, on the other, that the measure requires the efficient and effective use of the resources employed. In this sense, even though the precautionary principle is linked to a certain level of scientific uncertainty, this does not mean it may be invoked without limitation on the argument that any activity could cause environmental harm—which would defeat its purpose—but rather that a certain degree of identification of the risks of grave or irreversible harm must exist, the determination of which varies according to the specific circumstances of each case. Thus, when a situation arises that requires application of the precautionary principle, public bodies and agencies must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new or modification request that reasonably entails a serious risk; they are even obligated to suspend activities currently underway. At the same time, they must adopt, with efficiency and effectiveness, all measures required for the preservation of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
The aforementioned principle is likewise enshrined in a hard law legal source, as Principle 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—ratified by Costa Rica through law no. 7414 of June 13, 1994, and by all OAS member states—provides:
"3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.
To that end, such policies and measures should take into account the different socioeconomic contexts, be comprehensive, include all relevant sources, sinks, and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, and cover all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out in cooperation among the interested Parties" (emphasis added).
The precautionary principle (principio precautorio) is also set forth in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (contaminantes orgánicos persistentes), which has been ratified by 32 Member States of the OAS, including Costa Rica — see ley nro. 8538 of August 23, 2006 — and which reads:
"ARTICLE 1 Objective Bearing in mind the precautionary approach as set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (…)." Likewise, this principle is set forth in the Convention on Biological Diversity (Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica), ratified by 34 Member States of the OAS, including Costa Rica, through ley nro. 7416 of June 30, 1994, whose preamble provides: "(…) Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack at source the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity (diversidad biológica). Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat (…)." In keeping with the aforementioned legislation in force in the country, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos) also referred to the precautionary principle in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017:
"180. (…) Accordingly, this Court understands that States must act in conformity with the precautionary principle, for the purpose of protecting the right to life and to personal integrity, in cases where there are plausible indicators that an activity could cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty. Therefore, States must act with due caution to prevent possible harm. Indeed, in the context of the protection of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court considers that States must act in conformity with the precautionary principle, and therefore, even in the absence of scientific certainty, must adopt measures that are 'effective' in preventing serious or irreversible harm" (emphasis added).
Subsequent to that decision, and by means of a judgment, in Indigenous Communities Members of the lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, the Corte IDH ruled on February 6, 2020, as follows: "the right to a healthy environment (derecho a un ambiente sano) 'must be considered included among the rights [...] protected by Article 26 of the American Convention,' given the obligation of States to achieve the 'integral development' of their peoples, which arises from Articles 30, 31, 33 and 34 of the Charter." Of great significance, it must be emphasized that in this ruling the Corte IDH refers to Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 in order to develop the content and scope of that right, by virtue of which the legal considerations of the latter have logically come to acquire the binding legal force characteristic of a judgment. In this regard, the international judicial body reiterates "that the right to a healthy environment 'constitutes a universal interest' and 'is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,' and that 'as an autonomous right [...] it protects the components of the [...] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons. The aim is to protect nature,' not only for its 'utility' or 'effects' with respect to human beings, 'but for its importance to other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.' The foregoing does not, of course, preclude other human rights from being violated as a consequence of environmental damage." Precisely, in developing the conceptualization of the right to the environment, the Corte IDH clearly details the state obligations in the face of possible environmental harm, such as the duty of prevention, the precautionary principle, the obligation of cooperation, and access to information.
In sum, the application of the precautionary principle means that where there are indicators suggesting that a given activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, the absence of absolute scientific certainty or evidence does not relieve the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent a violation of the environment.
Regarding the prevention principle (principio preventivo), in the first UN report on the state of international environmental law (derecho ambiental internacional), document A/73/419 of November 30, 2018, prepared by the Secretary-General in fulfillment of the General Assembly resolution of May 10, 2018 (nro. A/72/L.51), it is conceptualized as a normative guideline of customary international law "confirmed by the relevant practice in many environment-related treaties and the principal codification projects." Now, while the aforementioned report emphasizes the prevention of transboundary harm (daño transfronterizo), this general principle of law — as duly recorded in the document '95 Environmental Legal Principles for an Ecologically Sustainable Development' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Ibero-American Judicial Summit–2018 and by the Corte Plena in Article XIX of session nro. 28-2020 of May 25, 2020) — has a much broader scope, inasmuch as, as a hermeneutical guide, it leads to the understanding that "the causes and sources of environmental problems shall be addressed on a priority and integrated basis, seeking to prevent the negative effects that may be produced on the environment. The prevention criterion shall then prevail over any other criterion in the public and private management of the environment and natural resources." This makes complete sense, since it is consistent with the duty to prevent the occurrence of environmental harm rather than being limited to ruling on the remediation of harmful consequences that have already been verified, including ordering the cessation of the harmful effects.
This principle is reflected, among other provisions, in Articles 194.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by Costa Rica through ley nro. 7291) and 5 and Annex II of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (ratified through ley nro. 8059), as well as in constitutional case law (see judgments nros. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, and 2018016383 of 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2018, among many others) and in inter-American case law, for example in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017, paragraphs 127 to 174 and subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 242, and in the judgment of November 24, 2022, Baraona Bray v. Chile. In that latter case, the Corte IDH expressly states:
"208. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the specific area of the environment, it must be emphasized that the principle of prevention of environmental harm forms part of customary international law and entails the obligation of States to carry out the necessary measures ex ante the occurrence of environmental harm, bearing in mind that, due to its particular characteristics, once such harm has occurred it will frequently not be possible to restore the previously existing situation. By virtue of the duty of prevention, the Court has noted that 'States are obligated to use all means at their disposal in order to avoid activities that take place under their jurisdiction from causing significant damage to the [...] environment.'200 This obligation must be fulfilled under a standard of due diligence, which must be appropriate and proportional to the degree of risk of environmental harm.201 On the other hand, while it is not possible to provide a detailed enumeration of all the measures that States could take in order to fulfill this duty, some may be identified with respect to potentially harmful activities: i) regulate; ii) supervise and monitor; iii) require and approve environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental); iv) establish contingency plans; and v) mitigate in cases of environmental harm.202" For its part, the in dubio pro natura principle means, according to the 'World Declaration of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the Environmental Rule of Law,' that "in case of doubt, all proceedings before courts, administrative bodies, and other decision-makers shall be resolved in a manner that favors the protection and conservation of the environment, giving preference to the least harmful alternatives. Actions shall not be undertaken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived therefrom" (see Principle V).
In that regard, according to the document '95 Environmental Legal Principles for an Ecologically Sustainable Development' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Ibero-American Judicial Summit–2018 and by the Corte Plena in Article XIX of session nro. 28-2020 of May 25, 2020), "Every operator of environmental norms shall always keep in mind the pro natura principle, pursuant to which risks shall be avoided, collective general interests shall prevail over individual ones, the preservation of the environment shall be favored, and in case of doubt the interpretation that most broadly protects the environment shall be preferred." The in dubio pro natura principle, therefore, does not depend on whether there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm — as is the case with the precautionary principle — but rather implies a "general rule of conduct governing the relationship between the State — and society as a whole — and the environment, applicable to all areas of decision-making in which there exists a risk of impact on the environment, and that obliges us to avoid opting for conduct that may cause harm to the environment when other options exist" (Olivares and Lucero, 2018).
On the other hand, in judgment nro. 2012013367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, this Constitutional Tribunal referred to the principles of progressivity (progresividad) and non-regression (no regresión) in environmental matters in the following terms:
"V. On the principles of progressivity and non-regression of environmental protection. The principle of progressivity (principio de progresividad) of human rights has been recognized by International Human Rights Law; among other international instruments, it is set forth in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 1 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under these provisions, the State assumes the obligation to progressively increase, to the extent of its possibilities and development, the levels of protection of human rights, with special consideration for those rights that, like the right to the environment (Art. 11 of the Protocol), require multiple positive actions by the State for their protection and full enjoyment by all those entitled thereto. From the principle of progressivity of human rights and the principle of non-retroactivity of rules to the detriment of acquired rights and consolidated legal situations — as set forth in Article 34 of the Constitution (Carta Magna) — the principle of non-regression (no regresividad) or irreversibility of the benefits or level of protection achieved is derived. The principle stands as a substantive guarantee of rights — in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment — by virtue of which the State is obligated not to adopt measures, policies, or legal norms that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the level of protection of rights already achieved. This principle does not imply absolute irreversibility, since all States face national circumstances — of an economic, political, social, or natural nature — that negatively affect the gains achieved up to that point and require the level of protection to be reconsidered downward. In such cases, constitutional law and the principles under examination require the reduction in levels of protection to be justified in light of the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality. In this regard, the Sala Constitucional has expressed in its case law, with respect to the right to health: '…pursuant to the PRINCIPLE OF NON-REGRESSION, it is prohibited to take measures that diminish the protection of fundamental rights. Thus, if the Costa Rican State, in the interest of protecting the right to health and the right to life, has a policy of openness to access to medicines, it cannot — much less by means of an International Treaty — reduce such access and make it more restrictive, under the pretext of protecting trade. (Judgment of the Sala Constitucional No. 9469-07). With respect to the right to the environment, it stated: "The foregoing constitutes an evolutionary interpretation of the protection of the environment in accordance with Constitutional Law, which does not admit regression to its detriment." (Judgment of the Sala Constitucional No. 18702-10).' (Emphasis not in the original). (In the same sense, judgments 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745, and 2019-017397)." Thus, in accordance with the principle of progressivity, the State assumes the obligation to increase, to the extent possible, the levels of protection of human rights, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For its part, the application of the non-regression principle consists of a guarantee that obliges the State to refrain from adopting measures, policies, or norms that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the degree of protection of fundamental rights already achieved, and where applicable, requires that the corresponding compensatory measures be weighed.
Finally, this Tribunal explained the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental) in the following terms:
"With respect to the environment — the object of the fundamental right described — our Constitution additionally requires that it be 'healthy.' The requirement of being 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements — 'healthy' and 'balanced' — the need for sustainable and lasting development follows; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now then, through the concepts of 'environment,' 'healthy,' and 'ecologically balanced,' the constitutional norm has introduced science and technology into environmental decisions — whether legislative or administrative — such that, pursuant to Articles 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, state actions in environmental matters must be grounded in, and may not contradict, the unequivocal rules of science and technology, with a view to achieving the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, moreover, a 'greater well-being for all the country's inhabitants.' As regards the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technology, the Sala has termed this the principle of objectification of environmental protection: 'Regarding the objectification of environmental protection (…) this is a principle that cannot in any way be confused with the foregoing [precautionary principle or "principle of prudent avoidance"], since, as derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, it translates into the need to support decision-making in this area with technical studies — both with respect to individual acts and to provisions of a general nature, whether legal or regulatory — from which derives the requirement of adherence to science and technology, thereby conditioning the discretion of the Administration in this area. Accordingly, based on the results derived from such technical studies — such as environmental impact assessments — if an objective technical criterion evidences the probability of clear harm to the environment, natural resources, or human health, the proposed project, work, or activity is required to be rejected; and in the case of "reasonable doubt," it is required to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.' (Judgment of the Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)" (emphasis added). (Resolution nro. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012).
V.- ON THE ADVISORY OPINION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS LEGAL-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN COSTA RICA. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its recent Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of May 29, 2025, entitled "Climate Emergency and Human Rights," on climate change and human rights, consolidated an evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to which the climate crisis constitutes a real, present, and growing threat to the effective exercise of multiple fundamental rights, including life, health, personal integrity, access to water, food, adequate housing, and the right to a healthy environment.
It is reaffirmed that extreme climate events, ecosystem degradation, loss of biodiversity, and increased socio-environmental risks cannot be analyzed solely as technical matters or public policy issues, but rather as matters subject to constitutional and conventional judicial review, insofar as they implicate state obligations of respect, guarantee, and prevention with respect to the human rights recognized by the inter-American system.
That the Court established that State parties have reinforced positive duties of mitigation, adaptation, prevention of significant environmental harm, regulation of polluting activities, corporate supervision, and protection of vulnerable populations, in accordance with the principles of precaution, prevention, progressivity, intergenerational equity (equidad intergeneracional), and environmental non-regression.
Additionally, the Advisory Opinion develops the pro natura principle, particularly from paragraphs 216 and 279 to 286, pursuant to which, where there are several legally possible interpretations, preference must be given to the one that affords the greatest protection to nature, to ecosystems, and to the human rights connected to environmental equilibrium. This hermeneutical criterion imposes upon public authorities and judicial bodies a reinforced duty to interpret and apply domestic and international norms in a manner favorable to the conservation, restoration, and functional continuity of ecosystems, particularly in contexts of scientific uncertainty, risk of serious or irreversible harm, and decision-making with significant climate effects.
That it was likewise recognized that the state response to climate change requires transparent institutional processes that are technically grounded and oriented toward the effective participation of citizens, so that public decisions with environmental impact enjoy sufficient democratic legitimacy and legal oversight.
The Advisory Opinion emphasizes that States must guarantee timely access to relevant information on climate risks, pollutant emissions, cumulative impacts, territorial vulnerability, environmental planning, and adaptation measures, as an indispensable prerequisite for the effective protection of the rights at stake.
Likewise, the Court highlighted the need for effective administrative and judicial remedies against state acts or omissions that favor environmental deterioration, regulatory insufficiency, or failure to fulfill climate obligations, thereby strengthening access to justice in environmental matters.
For the Republic of Costa Rica, this Advisory Opinion is of particular relevance, as it is a State Party to the American Convention with a recognized constitutional tradition in ecological matters, particularly from Article 50 of the Constitución Política, which recognizes the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In the national context, this means that every decision relating to energy projects, urban expansion, public infrastructure, exploitation of natural resources, land-use planning, water management, coastal development, or activities with climate impact must also be assessed in light of the state duty of prevention of environmental and climate harm.
That this obligation encompasses the need to adopt public decisions based on scientific evidence, sufficient technical studies, assessment of cumulative impacts, and consideration of present and future effects on human communities and strategic ecosystems.
The Advisory Opinion likewise reinforces the historical case law of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia of Costa Rica, which has recognized the environment as a justiciable fundamental right. Consequently, constitutional review may be projected with greater intensity toward climate justice, making it possible to examine state omissions, regulatory insufficiency, or conduct incompatible with reasonable standards of environmental protection.
Particular attention is warranted by the inter-American emphasis on groups in a situation of vulnerability, such as indigenous peoples, coastal communities, children, older adults, and populations exposed to flooding, droughts, or territorial erosion, with respect to whom the state duty of adaptation and protection takes on a reinforced dimension.
This is of special relevance for Costa Rica, given its geographic characteristics, its ecological richness, the significance of its coastal zones, the protection of its forests and river basins, and the differentiated exposure of various territories to extreme climate events.
Said Advisory Opinion represents a normative benchmark of great relevance that strengthens the protection of the environment, broadens the judicial enforceability of state climate action, and reaffirms that the defense of ecological equilibrium constitutes an inseparable dimension of the social, democratic, and ecological State governed by the rule of law.
VI.- ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INTER-ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION. Coordination, insofar as it ensures administrative efficiency and effectiveness, is a virtual or implicit constitutional principle that permeates the entire administrative legal order and is binding upon all public entities. This coordination may be inter-organic (interorgánica) — among the various bodies comprising a public entity that are not subject to a hierarchical relationship — or inter-subjective (intersubjetiva), that is, among public entities, each with its own legal personality, budget, autonomy, and specific competencies. The administrative or other degree of autonomy enjoyed by public entities obliges them to coordinate their actions, since by virtue of their inter-organic nature they cannot be mutually subject to hierarchical relationships. Inter-administrative coordination (coordinación administrativa) aims to avoid duplication and omissions in the exercise of the administrative functions of each public entity — that is, to ensure they are performed rationally and in an orderly manner — and is achieved through the establishment of fluid and permanent levels or channels of information-sharing among public entities, all of which may be accomplished through meetings, reports, or the creation of formal coordination bodies. In environmental matters, this principle takes on a differentiated character, as illustrated by what this Tribunal stated in Judgment No. 2012-008892 of 4:03 p.m. on June 27, 2012:
"(…) 'III.- Coordination among public agencies must ensure the protection of the environment. On various occasions, constitutional case law has indicated that the protection of the environment is a task that falls equally upon all — that is, there exists an obligation for the State — as a whole — to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid levels of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or improper use of natural resources that endanger the health of those administered. In this task, the term "public institution" must be understood to encompass both the Central Administration — Ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which, by reason of subject matter, bear broad participation and responsibility with respect to environmental conservation and preservation, and which act, for the most part, through their specialized bodies in the field, such as the Directorate General of Wildlife, the Forestry Directorate, and SETENA; as well as decentralized institutions, such as the National Housing and Urban Planning Institute, the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers; a task in which, of course, municipalities bear great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction. It might therefore be thought that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management, which is not the case, since, in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and nature, the duplication of national and local efforts, and the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various departments of the Executive Branch and decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, so as to be able to carry out the functions assigned to them. This Sala previously — and quite clearly — addressed the principle of coordination of public agencies with municipalities in the performance of common functions — which must obviously be extended to the relationship carried out in this important function between the institutions of the Central Administration and the decentralized entities — and reference is made to what was stated on that occasion (judgment number 5445-99, of two-thirty in the afternoon of the fourteenth of July of nineteen ninety-nine):
'Such that coordination is the ordering of the relations among these various independent activities, which takes charge of such concurrence upon a single object or entity, in order to make it useful to a global public plan, without suppressing the mutual independence of the acting subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship among the decentralized institutions, nor between the State itself and the municipalities, it is not possible to impose certain conduct upon them, which gives rise to the indispensable institutional "concert," in the strict sense, whereby the autonomous and independent centers of action reach agreement on that preventive and global framework, within which each one fulfills a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others.
"Thus, the relationships between municipalities and other public entities may only be conducted on a footing of equality, giving rise to agreed-upon forms of coordination, to the exclusion of any coercive arrangement that would detract from their autonomy — one that would allow corporate entities to be subjected to a coordination scheme without or against their consent; but which does allow for the necessary subordination of those entities to the State and in the State's interest (through the 'administrative oversight' ['tutela administrativa'] of the State, and specifically in the exercise of the function of reviewing legality that is the State's responsibility, along with general supervisory powers over the entire sector)." "On the other hand, failures to fulfill the duty to protect the environment and to comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional significance, because the Administration's inaction in this area may cause harm to the environment and to natural resources — sometimes of similar or greater consequence than harm resulting from administrative actions — such as the authorization of regulatory land-use plans (planes reguladores) or construction works without the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) having been approved by SETENA, or the failure to supervise and oversee the implementation of management plans for protected areas by the Wildlife Division of MINAE, or allowing businesses to operate without the health permits required for the treatment of black water or wastewater (Acueductos y Alcantarillados and the Ministry of Health), or failing to enforce sound-level controls at bars, karaokes, and nightclubs (municipalities and the Ministry of Health), among others (see in this regard ruling number 2006-005159 of thirteen hours four minutes of the seventh of April of two thousand six)." "In other words, what matters is the technical cooperation that the various entities can provide one another, the technical inputs each can contribute, and respect for each entity's sphere of competence; all in order to ensure, beyond any doubt, that the impact of the projects under review is not negative, and thereby to guarantee the sustainable management of water resources and the full right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as enshrined in the constitutional provision. Thus, the precautionary principle — which seeks to prevent or suspend any activity that may negatively affect such management — requires the Administration, first, to notify the affected and interested parties and the institutions that may be involved, so that they may present their respective arguments and technical criteria, and to ensure the effective participation of the competent bodies in the field in the interest of protecting and preserving the environment and the water resource. And second, it requires that the Administration take into account the warnings issued by an institution legally empowered to protect the water resource regarding the risk of contamination (…)." VII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the specific case at hand, the facts established as proven show that the dispute is not limited to a simple administrative disagreement over the scope of a streambed work permit (permiso de obra en cauce), but rather involves the possible direct impairment of a public domain asset — the stream (quebrada) El Rastro — as well as the potential threat to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. That provision not only sets forth every person's right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also imposes on the State the positive duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve it. Furthermore, it grants every person standing to denounce acts that infringe that right and to seek redress for the resulting harm.
In that regard, the Chamber finds that, in the case of a physical intervention within a public-domain streambed (cauce), the required State action cannot be limited to receiving complaints, issuing memoranda, or forwarding the facts to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Such actions may be necessary, but they are not sufficient when the competent technical authority itself has already determined that the work carried out does not correspond to what was authorized, that it was performed without the corresponding permit in the form in which it was actually built, and that it adversely affects the hydraulic dynamics (dinámica hidráulica) of the streambed. According to the established facts, the Dirección de Agua learned of the complaint, conducted an inspection on 25 March 2026, concluded on 20 April 2026 that the constructed work did not correspond to what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024, classified it as illegal, and ordered the complete demolition of the wire-mesh and cement wall within a non-extendable period of eight business days.
It must be recalled that public-domain waters, as well as the beds of public-domain watercourses, belong to the Nation. The Water Act (Ley de Aguas) provides that, among other assets, the beds of public-domain watercourses are national property. Likewise, Reglamento Ejecutivo N.º 44410-MINAE recognizes that MINAE is the national governing body with primary authority over water, and that this function is exercised through its technical body, the Dirección de Agua, particularly with respect to applications for and permits relating to streambed works. Consequently, once the existence of an unauthorized work within the streambed has been technically established, the Dirección de Agua is not merely empowered but obligated to adopt real, effective, and timely measures to restore environmental legality and protect the affected public domain asset (bien demanial).
The file further shows that the work originally authorized did not consist of the construction of a wire-mesh and cement wall, but rather of artisanal maintenance of an existing wall and the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the structure. By contrast, the Dirección de Agua's inspection determined that a wire mesh had been placed on the left bank of the quebrada El Rastro, with rocks and cement on top, extending approximately fifteen meters, which constricts the streambed, prevents the free flow of water, reduces the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica), and may generate erosive velocities causing damage to third parties' land. That technical finding is of particular constitutional significance, as it transforms the matter into a concrete and present threat to the environment, to the public streambed, and potentially to the safety of those who live or pass through the area.
From this perspective, it is constitutionally unacceptable for the Dirección de Agua to limit itself to asserting that it filed a criminal complaint or brought the facts to the attention of other authorities. The criminal route may establish personal liability for the possible commission of environmental crimes, but it does not substitute for the immediate administrative duty to restore the streambed, prevent further damage, and bring to an end a physical situation that the Dirección de Agua itself characterized as illegal and harmful to the flow dynamics. An environmental writ of amparo (amparo ambiental) demands a useful, prompt, and effective response — not merely a formal one. The protection afforded by Article 50 of the Constitution has a preventive, corrective, and restorative dimension, especially when it concerns public domain assets and risks linked to water resources.
The General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) provides the legal instruments needed to give effect to that order. Article 146 provides that the Administration has the power to enforce its own efficacious, valid, or voidable administrative acts by itself, without resorting to the courts, even against the will or resistance of the party bound to comply. Likewise, Article 149 establishes substitutive execution (ejecución sustitutiva) as a means of administrative enforcement, applicable where the obligation can be fulfilled by a third party in lieu of the obligor, with costs charged to the latter. The demolition of an illegal wire-mesh, cement, and rock structure within a public streambed is precisely an obligation that can be carried out by a third party — technical staff, a contractor, an institutional work crew, or municipal support — and it is therefore legally appropriate to resort to that mechanism if the obligor does not comply voluntarily.
That said, administrative enforcement must be carried out in accordance with the principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. Article 150 of the General Law on Public Administration requires that enforcement not occur prior to proper notification of the principal act and that, except in cases of urgency, it be preceded by two consecutive formal notices (intimaciones), with clear indication of the compliance requirement, the applicable coercive measure, and a reasonable period within which to carry out the order. This means that the Dirección de Agua is not authorized to act in an improvised or arbitrary manner; but it is legally empowered and constitutionally obligated to move from the formal demolition order to the actual enforcement of that measure if the private party fails to comply.
In the case under examination, that physical enforcement must include, at a minimum: verification that the period granted to the regulated party has expired; issuance of the corresponding formal notices — unless urgency is technically justified on grounds of environmental or safety risk; preparation of a technical removal plan; definition of the demolition method; proper management of the resulting debris; adoption of measures to prevent further damage to the streambed; and documentation of the enforcement through official records, photographs, georeferencing, and technical reports. If the obligor or third parties resist, the Administration may request the assistance of the National Police (Fuerza Pública), within strictly necessary limits, as the General Law on Public Administration contemplates police assistance in compelling compliance with administrative acts and prohibits violent resistance to the enforcement of an administrative act.
The duty of interinstitutional coordination must also not be overlooked. The Municipalidad de Atenas is not the primary technical authority for authorizing, supervising, or determining non-compliance with streambed works, as that competence belongs to the Dirección de Agua. However, this does not mean that the municipality may disengage from the situation when it involves a streambed located within its canton, with possible effects on local interests, area residents, community safety, and the environment. Article 169 of the Political Constitution assigns to the Municipal Government the administration of the local interests and services of the canton. Moreover, administrative law recognizes the principle of institutional and interinstitutional coordination, under which public entities and bodies must act in a coordinated manner with one another, exchanging information and providing cooperation in resolving matters brought to their attention.
Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the Municipalidad de Atenas must cooperate with the Dirección de Agua, within the framework of its competencies, material capacities, and institutional availability, so that the demolition order does not remain a mere formal declaration. Such cooperation may include logistical support, municipal environmental management oversight, road or community coordination, assistance in removing materials, provision of municipal machinery if technically necessary and legally viable, and any other reasonable action that would allow the measure to be enforced without aggravating the environmental damage or endangering persons. This cooperation does not displace the primary competence of the Dirección de Agua, but it does give effect to the constitutional duty of cooperation among public administrations in the face of an environmental threat localized within the canton.
Consequently, given that the Dirección de Agua has already determined that the work constricts the streambed, reduces the hydraulic cross-section, limits the free flow of water, and may cause harm to third parties, the constitutionally adequate response cannot be institutional passivity or indefinite waiting for the outcome of a criminal complaint. The Administration has sufficient powers to enforce its own acts, to use substitutive execution, to coordinate with other institutions, to recover costs from the violator, and to adopt the technical measures necessary to restore the public-domain streambed. Failure to timely activate those mechanisms would perpetuate the harm to the environment and leave without effective protection the right recognized in Article 50 of the Constitution.
For all of the foregoing, the writ must be granted. The Dirección de Agua of MINAE is ordered to verify compliance with the demolition order issued against Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A. and, in the event of non-compliance, to immediately activate the administrative enforcement mechanisms provided for in the General Law on Public Administration, including substitutive execution at the obligor's expense, after fulfilling the corresponding formal notices or upon technically justified grounds of urgency. It shall likewise coordinate with the Municipalidad de Atenas, the Fuerza Pública, and the other competent institutions regarding the physical demolition, the removal of the debris, and the adoption of the restoration or stabilization measures necessary to ensure the free flow of water and to prevent additional damage to the streambed of the quebrada El Rastro.
Equally, the Municipalidad de Atenas is ordered to, without assuming the technical competencies that belong to the Dirección de Agua, provide the interinstitutional cooperation necessary for the effective enforcement of the measure, including, where necessary and technically feasible, support with machinery, personnel, municipal logistics, or local environmental management, all under the technical direction of the competent authority in matters of streambeds. This ensures an effective, coordinated, and proportionate response to the reported harm, protects the hydraulic public domain, and restores enjoyment of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
VIII.- NOTE OF MAGISTRATE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ, REGARDING PROMPT AND COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE. I have supported this Court's position that when a litigant (justiciable) alleges a violation of the right to prompt and complete justice in administrative proceedings, the legal dispute should be heard by the Administrative Contentious Courts and not by this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, the Law Regulating the Right of Petition (Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición), it has been established that that right is amenable to judicial protection through the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) provided for in Article 32 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (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 require this Court to modify its line of jurisprudence, which, pursuant to Article 7 of its governing Law, is exclusively responsible for defining its own jurisdiction. Accordingly, except for those constitutional disputes that have been recognized by this very Chamber as exceptional cases that may properly be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional writ of amparo, in all other cases — and for the reasons this Court has stated (ruling No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on 22 February 2008) — the competent bodies are the judges of the administrative contentious jurisdiction, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding statutory provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal order.
IX.- NOTE OF MAGISTRATE SALAZAR ALVARADO. As a matter of principle, I believe that cases relating to the Administration's action or inaction in connection with the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure work should be dismissed, because such omission constitutes a matter of legality whose discussion belongs to the ordinary courts, before which the interested party may more broadly argue his or her objections. However, when such administrative conduct — whether active or omissive — gives rise to a violation of other fundamental rights protected in this constitutional jurisdiction, or affects groups considered vulnerable, I do hear the merits of the matter, as that situation constitutes an exception to my general position in this area, as is the case here, in which the petitioner alleges having filed complaints before the Municipalidad de Atenas and MINAE regarding the alteration and obstruction of the quebrada El Rastro; yet those complaints have not been addressed, thereby endangering the physical safety of community residents.
X.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE. The parties are cautioned that any paper documents, as well as any objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device that were submitted, must be retrieved from the courthouse within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from notification of this ruling. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within that period will be destroyed, in accordance with the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) at session No. 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Judicial Gazette (Boletín Judicial) No. 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) at session No. 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The writ is granted. DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, in his capacity as Acting Director of the Dirección de Agua of MINAE, or whoever holds that position in his place, is ordered that within a period of THREE MONTHS counted from notification of this ruling, the demolition ordered by official document No. DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026 be carried out, the proper removal of the resulting debris be ensured, and the technical measures necessary to restore the streambed be adopted, ensuring the free flow of water and the prevention of additional damage, all of which must be reported to this Court within the same period. Likewise, MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES and ROY ARIAS ROJAS, in their respective capacities as mayor and president of the Municipal Council (Concejo), both of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, or whoever holds those positions in their place, are ordered to IMMEDIATELY coordinate with the officials of the Dirección de Agua of MINAE — within their competencies and capabilities — the interinstitutional cooperation necessary for the effective enforcement of said demolition. The respondent authorities are warned that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, a sentence of imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on whoever receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in a writ of amparo, and fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely penalized by another provision. The State and the Municipalidad de Atenas are condemned 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. Magistrate Castillo Víquez appends a note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado appends a note. Notify. - 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 -- Telephone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. south of the Perpetuo Socorro church).
Res. Nº 2026017035 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the fifteenth of May of two thousand twenty-six.
Writ of amparo processed under file No. 26-010510-0007-CO, filed by [Nombre 001], national identity document (cédula de identidad) [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS AND THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA.
Background:
1.- By written submission added to the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System (Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales) of this Chamber on 24 March 2026, the petitioner files a writ of amparo against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS AND THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the property registered in the Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario), Partido de Alajuela, registration number (matrícula) 140858, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters to the east and 25 to the south of the Courts of Justice, and that his property borders the quebrada El Rastro, which separates his property from the property registered in the Property Registry, Partido de Alajuela, matrícula 247646, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 175 meters to the east of the Courts of Justice, owned by Inversiones C y C del Oeste Sociedad Anónima. The owner has a warehouse (galeron) in which a ceramic tile sales business operates, which he manages personally; the two aforementioned properties both border the quebrada El Rastro and have a wall that has been in place for approximately 40 years.
He/she states that *"Second: on Friday, March 26, 2021, from the early morning hours, through the farm that is the property of the represented party of Mr. Wilber Castro Cubero, several men came down and were extracting rocks from the floor of the stream (quebrada) using iron pry bars (macanas) and placing them along the wall of said property. I called the municipality and they sent the officer in charge of the Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) of the Municipalidad de Atenas, who came to the site and reprimanded them, so the situation did not escalate any further. Third: on Saturday, December 16, 2023, from the early morning hours, Mr. Wilber Castro again carried out works inside the stream, this time dumping from the wall of his property — which, together with the wire mesh (malla), may measure approximately 3 meters in height — a large quantity of rocks, some of considerable size, which he then sealed with a cement mixture. Because it was a weekend, the Police Station (Delegación Policial) was called to prepare an official record (acta) of the events, in which it is stated that several men were observed working with Mr. Wilber Castro and throwing a "considerable" quantity of rocks into the river; it is further stated that the structural support work was being done on the large wall (paredón) on both sides (see record). On Monday the 18th, the municipality was informed of the events that had occurred; by December 20, the Department of Engineering and Construction and the Environmental Management Unit of the Municipalidad de Atenas were already aware of the situation, since the head of that department, Mr. Fabián Méndez Marín, had informed my wife, Sara Vargas Elizondo, via WhatsApp on December 20, 2023, stating verbatim: "in our personal opinion, it is within the channel (cauce)"... (I submit a screenshot). All of this was done by Mr. Wilber without any permit whatsoever. My wife also called the MINAE office in Alajuela on January 17, 2024, and was told that the following day, the 18th, they had scheduled inspection tours (giras) to Atenas and would come to inspect; they did in fact arrive, my wife received them and they collected information from both her and the neighbor, Mr. Eduardo Ávila Rincón, to serve as witnesses, since they had filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office (fiscalía). Two years and three months have now passed and they have never been called to testify, which leads me to conclude that no such complaint exists. I submit photographs and videos of the works carried out on December 16, 2023. Fourth: on March 7, 2026, likewise, early on a Saturday morning, Mr. Wilber Castro again carried out works inside the stream, this time placing wire mesh, more rocks, and a cement mixture throughout practically the entire channel of the stream, constructing an embankment (talud) with all of these materials with a considerable slope, completely diverting the channel toward the wall of my property (I submit photographs showing the placement of the wire mesh). By Monday, March 9, I notified the municipality, and as of the current date they have not come to inspect — notwithstanding that Mr. Wilber Castro holds a permit issued by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE, based on a request made by the representative of the Department of Engineering and Construction of the Municipalidad de Atenas, Mr. Fabián Méndez Marín; even though this official was aware of the unlawful conduct committed by Mr. Wilber Castro in carrying out works in the channel without the required permit, he should have denied the request, grounding his conduct in the principle of probity and placing the public interest above private interests. The aforementioned permit was processed under the electronic in-channel works file, number: 1445-O. The second encroachment occurred on December 16, 2023, and the date of the request is January 22, 2024 — that is, one month after the events took place. In said request (oficiomat-cconst-0172024, see expediente 1445 of in-channel works of the Dirección de Aguas, which is hereby submitted), Mr. Fabián Méndez states that he conducted a field inspection and describes the wall, but never indicates that the channel had already been significantly encroached upon. This may have misled the engineer who issued the technical endorsement (aval técnico), in the event that the latter did not conduct any independent inspection. It is also noted that the municipality had knowledge of the works referred to — referring, as can be inferred from the text, solely to the original works, namely the construction of the retaining wall as such, and not to the works carried out by Mr. Wilber Castro. Furthermore, the aforementioned request states, in the relevant part: ..."must comply at a minimum with the following requirements: 1 — Technical endorsement from the Water Directorate authority of MINAE.
2- The Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) of the Municipality of Atenas must be aware of the proceedings in all their particulars … "with respect to the technical endorsement (aval técnico) from MINAE's Water Directorate, as I was informed by the Legal Department of that entity, it was issued by Engineer Ignacio Campos; in that technical report (see da-uhtpcosr-0103-2024, which appears in file: 1445-O, and is hereby submitted), under the section corresponding to the justification of the work, the following is stated: '…by requirement of the Municipality of Atenas…'; therein lies the irresponsibility in a matter so delicate, one that puts a large portion of the population at risk, since this stream (quebrada) is a watercourse that crosses various parts of the center of Atenas, extending through several sectors of the urban area. It should be noted that just a few meters from the obstruction there is a bridge whose opening is very narrow, which may cause overflow upstream that endangers the lives of people.
Fifth. In view of all the foregoing, I sent an email to the Water Directorate explaining the situation and requesting an urgent inspection, and asking that it be verified whether the works carried out by Mr. Wilber Castro coincided with what was authorized under the permit; in the reply to the email, it is indicated that they have filed the correspondence and forwarded it to file 1445-O to be handled by Ignacio Campos, who was precisely the professional who issued the technical endorsement for obtaining Mr. Wilber Castro's permit for in-channel construction work (permiso de obra en cauce). (I am hereby submitting the email.)
Sixth: all the entities involved pass the responsibility from one to another, and to date we have received no objective response to the problem set forth herein. And to make the incompetence of some of these entities even more evident, on March 18, 2026, in the morning hours, two officials from MINAE's Alajuela office appeared; one of them spoke with my wife and the only thing he told her was that they had already gone to speak with the gentleman and that he has a permit, to which she asked whether they were aware of the scope of the permit in relation to the work actually carried out, and he replied that she would then need to address herself to the Water Directorate. It appears they had not read the permit. My wife told him there was then nothing more to discuss. They never said they wished to conduct an inspection; in any case, if they visited Mr. Wilber, they should have carried out the inspection from the side of his property — it can also be observed from the bridge, since it is very close by. At present, no water is flowing through the waterway channel (cauce); it has accumulated on the upstream side due to the obstruction. The stagnant water emits foul odors and moreover constitutes a breeding ground for the mosquito that transmits dengue fever, which endangers the health and lives of people — especially infants, children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing medical conditions. It should be emphasized that approximately 100 meters away there is a daycare center (guardería infantil) and 200 meters away is the local nursing home (hogar de ancianos).
Seventh. Furthermore, how is it possible that the Environmental Management Unit of the municipality was asked — via email — to issue a certificate (constancia) listing all the inspections carried out and all activities undertaken, and they do not even make any mention whatsoever of the matter (I am hereby submitting the email and the official communication)? In this way they completely wash their hands of their responsibility in the case, which leads me to suspect that no record is being kept — a most regrettable occurrence in the public service. The complaint was within their knowledge, regardless of the channel through which it was transmitted. Furthermore, the entities named as respondents herein must establish and maintain effective coordination with one another, given that these matters pertain to public domain property (bienes de dominio público), whose care and management require the joint collaboration of the competent entities. In official communication MAT-GA-0014-2026, issued by Mr. Jeudy Ortiz — which is hereby submitted — specifically in item three under the subtitle: "On municipal participation," that gentleman states that municipal participation is limited to functions of institutional coordination, the handling of citizen complaints, and the eventual reporting of facts to the competent authorities — but bearing no responsibility. At least in the case at hand, whatever coordination and communication has been attempted has been driven by my own disclosure of the situation to the various entities, prompted by this latest encroachment on the stream channel; prior to that, there was no action whatsoever aimed at providing a solution on the part of the competent entities, disregarding the public interest. In light of all of this, I take the liberty of asking: _ Is it the municipality's function to issue requirements for obtaining permits from other entities when there is an unresolved illegality?
(the act of December 16, 2023, was and remains entirely and absolutely unlawful, because Mr. Wilber Castro did not hold the corresponding permit.) Had the Municipal Environmental Management Unit notified the MINAE office in Alajuela, and that office in turn the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua), as I have already indicated — given that these are public-domain assets (bienes de dominio público), that the matter is one of public interest, and that the works were carried out illegally because Mr. Wilber did not hold the corresponding permit — we would not today be facing this problem, since the municipal compliance order (requerimiento municipal) would either not have taken effect or the matter would have been handled more responsibly. Eighth. The quebrada El Rastro carries a considerable flow of water during the rainy season; accordingly, the obstruction of its watercourse (cauce) by the deposited materials poses a significant risk to the population of the area, increasing the likelihood of flooding and overflow that could affect homes and roads and endanger people's lives. It is not acceptable to wait and see what happens, because the matter is urgent; no one objects to the gentleman reinforcing his retaining wall, but he must do so in compliance with the regulations governing that subject, responsibly, and with consideration for others. Furthermore, that portion of the wall on this gentleman's property is covered at its base and beyond — by rocks, wire mesh, and concrete poured from above into the channel — work that conforms to no technical standard; the concrete mixture does not bond properly due to lack of compaction, and being covered from its base makes routine inspection of the foundation condition impossible, creating the risk of a wall collapse. According to the above-cited municipal compliance order, the wall stands 2.5 meters tall. Mr. Wilber Castro, having committed a clear abuse of the permit granted to him, created a situation of imminent risk at the site. Faced with the exhaustion and wear generated by this uncertainty — not a legal uncertainty, because the laws exist and are there to bring order and provide protection, but rather an uncertainty arising from their non-enforcement — I could have chosen to do nothing and let things run their course, but I do not wish to be one more person who carries a guilty conscience." On the basis of the arguments presented, the petitioner considers that fundamental rights have been violated. He requests that the action be declared granted (con lugar).
**2.-** By order of the presiding justice at 08:55 hours on April 16, 2026, the present amparo (constitutional protection action) was admitted for processing.
**3.-** MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES and ROY ARIAS ROJAS, in their respective capacities as mayor (alcalde) and president of the Municipal Council of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, provide the following sworn statement: "… The action filed by Mr. [Nombre 001] seeks to attribute to the Municipalidad de Atenas alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from the execution of works in the public-domain watercourse known as quebrada El Rastro, as well as from an alleged municipal omission in the oversight, correction, and sanctioning of said works; however, such a framing distorts the proper scope of the amparo remedy, as it seeks to have this Court examine, evaluate, and resolve questions of legality or technical illegality concerning a work carried out in a watercourse. This Court should bear in mind that the action is premised on alleged construction excesses and hydraulic or environmental impacts that, once confirmed, could give rise to administrative liability attributable to the incorrect conduct of authorities with substantive and legal competence distinct from the Municipality. The petitioner's arguments manifestly exceed the protective function of the amparo, whose purpose is not to substitute ordinary legal channels nor to adjudicate complex technical disputes. As demonstrated by the evidence presented, the Municipalidad de Atenas did not grant a permit for works in a watercourse, nor did it authorize any intervention in the public-domain watercourse. On this matter, official communication MAT-CCONST-017-2024, issued by the Department of Engineering and Construction, constitutes solely a municipal technical opinion indicating that no municipal building permit (licencia constructiva municipal) is required; it does not constitute an authorizing act for works in a watercourse. The scope of that document neither supplements nor replaces the necessary permits; it does not generate subjective rights in favor of the private party; and it expressly conditions any intervention the interested party wishes to carry out upon obtaining the technical endorsement and permit from the MINAE Water Directorate. Accordingly, there is no municipal administrative act that authorized the works in question, nor any that could be considered arbitrary or prejudicial to fundamental rights. Contrary to what the petitioner alleges, the Municipality did act within its competential framework, diligently and in conformity with the principle of legality, by responding to the citizen complaints and requests submitted and conducting preliminary verifications of a non-sanctioning nature, given its lack of substantive jurisdiction. The Municipalidad de Atenas has formally referred the matter to the MINAE Water Directorate by means of official communication MAT-GA-015-2026, requesting a specialized technical inspection and assessment. This action fulfills the duty of inter-institutional coordination and constitutes a reasonable response to the complaints, without there existing any constitutional obligation to assume competences that are legally vested in other bodies, in accordance with Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.º 276, as well as the Executive Decree governing the functions of the MINAE Water Directorate — regulations expressly cited in permit DA-0833-2024 itself, which clearly states that: Watercourses are public-domain assets of the State; accordingly, the authorization, oversight, modification, and any eventual sanctioning of interventions in watercourses falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of MINAE, through the Water Directorate. Requiring the Municipalidad de Atenas to oversee, sanction, or modify works in a watercourse would compel it to act outside the principle of legality, which is constitutionally impermissible." *Following the municipal referral of the facts, MINAE's Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) conducted a technical site inspection (inspección técnica del sitio) and determined that the works executed did not conform to the permit that had been granted. Accordingly, a complete demolition order was issued for the in-channel construction (obra en cauce). Non-compliance with an order issued by the competent authority must be processed before the corresponding criminal jurisdiction (sede penal); to that end, the Ministry of Environment has filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), and it falls within that office's competence to advance the proceedings in a timely manner. These actions demonstrate that public institutions functioned in accordance with the law and that no omission subsists that would warrant constitutional protection at the municipal level. The present writ is manifestly inadmissible insofar as it seeks to substitute the administrative channel (vía administrativa) and the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa) in order to obtain complex technical rulings in the constitutional forum, and further seeks to impute, in the constitutional forum, liability for a jurisdiction that the law does not assign to it. The Sala Constitucional has repeatedly held that the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) is neither a parallel forum of legality nor a mechanism for correcting the conduct of different competent authorities when those authorities act within the ordinary procedures established by the legal order."* **4.-** By written submission filed with the Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales of this Chamber on 20 de abril de 2026, the petitioner states the following: *"… **First:** That on 16 de marzo de 2026, the matter was brought to the attention of the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) through the corresponding district representative (síndica), which directed that it be transferred to the administration for the issuance of a technical report (informe técnico). **Second:** That, pursuant to a municipal resolution, a period of ten business days was granted for the issuance of said report; however, to date no statement has been issued by the administration. In light of the foregoing, and given the absence of any information regarding the issuance of the indicated reports, this Chamber is informed of the situation described, for its consideration within the present proceedings. **Third:** That on 25 de marzo de 2026, an inspection was carried out by the Water Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and to date no official report or result of that action has been communicated. EVIDENCE FOR THE COURT'S BETTER CONSIDERATION (PRUEBA PARA MEJOR RESOLVER). **Fourth:** A photograph dated 23 de febrero de 2024 is submitted as evidence for the court's better consideration, in which no substantial changes in the conditions of the watercourse are observed compared to the situation documented following the intervention of 16 de diciembre de 2023, with deposited materials continuing to be present therein. The foregoing is relevant in light of the fact that, as indicated in the municipal notice of 22 de enero de 2024, a field inspection had been carried out for that purpose."* **5.-** MARJORIE MEJÍAS VILLEGAS, in her capacity as Secretary of the Council of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, reports under oath as follows: *"… By means of this official communication, we hereby notify you that, based on the writ of amparo filed by Mr. [Nombre 001], I.D. # [Valor 003], concerning the alleged facts — he being the owner of property located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters to the east and 25 to the south of the Courts of Justice, and whose property borders the quebrada el Rastro — this Secretary of the Municipal Council, in response thereto, sets forth the following: 1. That on 20 de mayo 2024, via email at 1:37 p.m., a note was received from Ms. Marcela Villareal, titular district representative (Sindica propietaria) of Atenas, requesting that it be included in her participation in the Ordinary Council Session (Sesión Ordinaria), under item VIII, Report of District Representatives (Informe de Síndicos) of the Agenda; the participation note and images are attached. See folios # 01 to 03. 2. That on 20 de mayo del 2024, at Ordinary Council Session N 04, held in the council chambers of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article VIII, Report of District Representatives, Ms. Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, presented requests related to the quebrada el Rastro, and a presentation of images was made; the corresponding resolutions were adopted. See folio 04. 3. That on 30 de mayo del 2024, by means of official communication MAT-CM-288-2024-1, PROBLEMÁTICA EN EL PUENTE DEL SUBIBAJA, QUEBRADA EL RASTRO, the resolution adopted was forwarded to the Municipal Administration by email on Thursday, 30 de mayo de 2024, at 10:34 a.m. See folios 05 to 07. 4. That on 16 de marzo 2026, via email at 8:22 a.m., a note was received from Ms. Marcela Villareal, titular district representative of Atenas, requesting that it be included in her participation in the Ordinary Council Session, under item VIII, Report of District Representatives of the Agenda; the participation note and images are attached. See folios 08 to 12. 5. That on 16 de marzo del 2026, at Ordinary Council Session N 149, held in the council chambers of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article VIII, Report of District Representatives, Ms. Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, presented requests related to the quebrada el Rastro, and a presentation of images was made; the corresponding resolutions were adopted. See folios 13 to 14. 6. That by means of official communication MAT-CM-270-2026-1, an email dated 23 de marzo de 2026 at 3:19 p.m. was forwarded, transmitting the corresponding resolution. See folios 15 to 18. 7. That by means of an email dated Monday, 16 de abril de 2026, at 2:31 p.m., the Municipal Administration forwarded its response to official communication MAT-CM-270-2026, with the following attachments: MAT-GA-014-2026 ATENCIÓN AL CIUDADANO GESTIÓN SOBRE INTERVENCIÓN CAUCE QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; DA-0833-2024 EXP 1445-O PERMISO OBRA CAUCE.pdf; MAT-GA-023-2026 ATENCIÓN DE ACUERDO MAT-CM-270-2026 Y OFICIO MAT-DA-0245-2026 QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-GA-015-2026 REMISIÓN DE DENUNCIA Y SOLICITUD DE VERIFICACIÓN TÉCNICA DE OBRAS EN CAUCE – QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-DA-0280-2026. See folios 19 to 33. 8.* That on April 20, 2026, at Ordinary Session No. 156, held in the session hall of the Municipalidad de Atenas, under Article IV Correspondence, Item 14, Subject: TRANSMITTAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION MAT-CM-2702026, REFERRAL OF REQUESTS BY MARCELA VILLAREAL — SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, See folio 34 to 37. 9. That on April 17, 2026, through official communication (oficio) MAT-CM-337-2026-1, TRANSMITTAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION MAT-CM-270-2026, REFERRAL OF REQUESTS BY MARCELA VILLAREAL — SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, the corresponding notifications were forwarded by email on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at 2:03 p.m. See folio 38 to 46." **6.-** DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, in his capacity as Acting Director (A.I.) of Water of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, testifies under oath as follows: "… ON THE MERITS: That through resolution DA-0833-2024, issued by the Dirección de Agua in administrative file (expediente administrativo) 1445-O, a Permit for Works in a Public-Domain Watercourse (Permiso de Obra en Cauce de Dominio Público) was granted in favor of Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., at the location claimed by the appellant, for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the existing infrastructure wall, so that the hydraulic force of the watercourse (cauce) of quebrada El Rastro would not continue striking or, as the case may be, directly undermining the concrete infrastructure. That on March 12, 2026, the Dirección became aware of the complaint filed with the office of the Dirección, which was incorporated into file 1445-O and had been submitted by the appellant, and which was subsequently forwarded by the Municipalidad de Atenas through official communication MAT-GA-0015-2026 dated March 17, 2026 (GESTION 08662026). That in response to the complaint regarding the works carried out, a site visit was conducted on March 25, 2026, by officials from the Tárcoles Hydrological Unit (Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles) of the Dirección de Agua, in the presence of Sara Vargas Elizondo representing the complainants, municipal Engineer Jeudy Ortiz Murillo, and Wilbert Castro Cubero, representative of Inversiones CYC del Oeste S.A. and owner of the property where the works were performed, resulting in the preparation of official communication DA-UHTPCOSR0195-2026 of April 20, 2026, by the Tárcoles Hydrological Unit of the Dirección de Agua, the relevant portions of which are transcribed below: ( " ) Upon comparing what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024 with what was found in the field during the site inspection, it was determined that the in-channel work (obra en cauce) carried out at the location was not constructed in accordance with what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024 of file 1445-O, and therefore constitutes an illegal in-channel work. From a technical standpoint, the constructed work represents an impact on the flow dynamics (dinámica de flujo) of the public-domain watercourse, as it negatively affects the direction of flow by extending from the bank to cover part of the riverbed; unlike a protection using medium-sized rocks — which increase roughness and reduce flow velocity — the concrete work as built has lower roughness and promotes erosive velocities that could affect downstream areas or the opposite bank. Furthermore, its dimensions and characteristics reduce the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica) of the watercourse (…)" "For the foregoing reasons, INVERSIONES CYC DEL OESTE S.A., with legal entity ID number 3-101-539756, is ordered to carry out the complete demolition of the in-channel wire-mesh and concrete wall structure built at the site on the left bank of quebrada El Rastro, this being because [sic] no permit was obtained for this in-channel work, as it was not what was authorized under file 1445-O. For the purpose of carrying out the demolition of this in-channel work, a non-extendable period of 8 business days is granted; failing compliance within that period, the State may pursue the corresponding criminal proceedings." As can be observed, in this case the Dirección de Agua has acted diligently in responding to the complaint; however, the appellant filed the amparo (recurso de Amparo) on March 24 without allowing a reasonable period for the conduct of the scheduled field visit in response to the complaint — a visit which, as noted, took place on March 25, 2026 — this being further compounded by the Holy Week (Semana Mayor) vacation period decreed by the government. Accordingly, this Dirección has acted in accordance with the applicable regulations and has responded to the complaint diligently, as has been demonstrated. Likewise, in light of the situation evidenced through official communication DA-UHTPCOSR-0196-2026 of April 20, 2026, the complaint has been referred to the prosecutor's office (fiscalía) of Atenas for whatever action may be appropriate, and the Municipalidad de Atenas has been informed through official communication DA-UHTPCOSR-0197-2026 of April 20, 2026 of the status of the complaint; both communications have been clarified through DA-UHTPCOSR-0204-2026 and DA-UHTPCOSR-0206-2026, respectively." **7.-** The applicable legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings conducted.
Drafted by Magistrate **Hess Herrera**; and, **Considering:** **I.- PRELIMINARY CLARIFICATION.** Before analyzing the merits of the matter, it must be clarified that, beginning with judgment No. 2008-02545 of 08:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred to the administrative-contentious 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 reasonably established deadlines for resolving requests submitted by members of the public (administrados), in light of the provisions of article 41 of the Constitución Política. Specifically, in the *sub lite*, an exceptional case is presented, as this involves a complaint regarding works within the channel of quebrada El Rastro, involving the placement of stones, wire mesh, and cement, which allegedly obstructed and diverted the watercourse toward the appellant's property, and which has purportedly not been resolved within a reasonable time, thereby putting the appellant's safety at risk and potentially impacting the flow dynamics of the public-domain watercourse.
In view of the nature of the subject matter addressed by the proceeding, this Court will assess any possible delays in the resolution of the complaint filed. Having clarified that point, the Court proceeds to resolve the specific situation raised in this writ of amparo (amparo).
**II.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL.** The petitioner alleges that a neighbor carried out works within the channel (cauce) of Quebrada El Rastro, placing stones, wire mesh, and cement, which would have obstructed and diverted the channel toward the petitioner's property. The petitioner points to a lack of effective action and coordination between the Municipalidad de Atenas and MINAE, despite multiple complaints and inspections. The petitioner asserts that the situation creates a risk of flooding, foul odors, stagnant water, and danger to public health.
**III.- PROVEN FACTS.** The following facts are deemed duly established as relevant to the decision in this matter:
- **REGARDING THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS:** **a)** On **20 May 2024**, at **13:37 hours**, Ms. **Marcela Villareal**, principal district councillor (síndica propietaria) for Atenas, sent an email to the Secretariat of the Municipal Council requesting that a note and photographs be included under the District Councillors' Report (Informe de Síndicos) section (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**b)** On **20 May 2024**, at **ordinary session No. 04**, district councillor Marcela Villareal presented requests related to Quebrada El Rastro, photographs were shown, and the corresponding resolutions were adopted (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**c)** On **30 May 2024**, through official memorandum (oficio) **MAT-CM-288-2024-1**, the resolution concerning the problem at the Subibaja bridge on Quebrada El Rastro was transmitted to the Municipal Administration (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**d)** On **16 March 2026**, at **08:22 hours**, district councillor Marcela Villareal sent a new note and photographs to be considered under the District Councillors' Report section (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**e)** On **16 March 2026**, at **ordinary session No. 149**, district councillor Marcela Villareal submitted requests related to Quebrada El Rastro, photographs were presented, and resolutions were adopted (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**f)** On **17 March 2026**, through official memorandum **No. MAT-GA-0015-2026**, the following was set forth: *"… To the Directors of the Water Directorate, Tárcoles Hydrographic Unit, Ministry of Environment and Energy. We extend our cordial greetings. City of Atenas, 17 March 2026 MAT-GA-0015-2026 By means of this communication, the Municipalidad de Atenas, through its Environmental Management Unit, brings to your attention a citizen complaint related to alleged interventions in the public-domain channel (cauce de dominio público) known as Quebrada El Rastro, specifically on the property of the company Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., represented by Mr. Wilberth Castro Cubero. According to the complainant, works would have been carried out that could potentially exceed the scope of the in-channel construction permit (permiso de obra en cauce) granted through resolution DA0833-2024, particularly regarding the placement of materials, modification of the hydraulic flow, and construction of structures within the channel. In light of the foregoing, and considering that your Directorate holds exclusive jurisdiction over the authorization, oversight, and control of interventions in public-domain channels, we respectfully request that a technical on-site inspection be considered at the indicated location, in order to verify the nature, scope, and current status of the works carried out. This communication is submitted in accordance with the principle of inter-institutional coordination and in safeguard of the public interest, with the purpose of clarifying the facts based on specialized technical criteria and within the current legal framework. We remain attentive to any additional requirements and to the results of the actions you may undertake"* (see sworn report and attached evidence).
**g)** On **23 March 2026**, through official memorandum **MAT-CM-270-2026-1**, the corresponding municipal resolution was transmitted, which reads as follows: *"… To Mr. Máximo Chaves Ovares, Municipal Mayor, Municipalidad de Atenas. To Ms. Marcela Villareal, District Councillor for Atenas, Municipal Council. Atenas, 23 March 2026 MAT-CM-270-2026-1 SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF PETITIONS FROM MARCELA VILLAREAL — DISTRICT COUNCILLOR FOR ATENAS. Dear Sirs and Madams: Hereby transmitted is the Resolution adopted by the Municipal Council of Atenas at Ordinary Session N°149, held on 16 March 2026, in the Session Chamber of the Municipalidad de Atenas, which reads as follows: ARTICLE VIII — DISTRICT COUNCILLORS' REPORT. The President gives the floor to Ms. Marcela Villareal, District Councillor for Atenas. Ms. Marcela Villareal, District Councillor for Atenas, says good evening to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor (Vicealcaldesa), fellow council members (regidores), fellow district councillors, and the general public. This is a petition I am presenting, concerning an ongoing situation at the stream (quebrada) of Río Rastro, at the entrance to Route 27, next to a ceramics shop. Several neighbors are concerned because, starting in 2021, work began in which stones were removed from the riverbed and placed at the foot of the wall of the aforementioned property, using crowbars (macanas). It is noted that the relevant report was filed with the municipality, the case was inspected, and the activity was halted. Again in 2023, the river was once more encroached upon, with large-sized rocks and cement being dumped on weekends; municipal officials once again conducted a visit and confirmed that there was an unauthorized encroachment on the channel of Río El Rastro without a permit.* This year again, working on weekends, the construction of this wall to divert the river channel (cauce del río) continued, and it has been confirmed that a permit exists only for medium-sized rocks; however, it appears that this permit was abused, since in addition to large rocks, cement and wire mesh were used to complete a wall that apparently benefits only the interested party. This river runs approximately three kilometers through the center of Atenas, where several houses are located nearby. Now part of this water is stagnant, producing strong odors, and what concerns the neighbors most is the little space that remains for the water to flow freely as it should — especially with the rainy season already approaching. An inspection is requested from the appropriate department to visit and produce an objective report on this situation; the municipality has an obligation to ensure the protection and conservation of water bodies such as rivers and streams (ríos y quebradas) for the well-being of the community. Well, as you can see in the photos — perhaps it is not very clear — but truly the river channel is now like a thin thread passing through there, because the entire wall has taken over a large portion of where the water used to run. That entire wall was built there for protection, so I do see quite significant encroachment (invasión) on the river — to such an extent that, that is why I am saying, it would be good for a proper inspection to be carried out. Good evening and thank you very much.
The President states that, before giving the floor to colleague Isaac Ortiz, he would like to express that, due to a conflict of interest on his part, colleague Lucrecia — Lucrecia Arguello — and colleague Sebastián Víquez will substitute for him. Ms. Lucrecia Arguello, Acting President, states: Don Isaac, before adopting the resolution. Mr. Isaac Ortiz, Proprietary Council Member (Regidor Propietario), states: no, only to suggest that in these resolutions involving the síndicos we set 10 business days (días hábiles) for a prompt response, since — as was mentioned — in doña Mayela's case the rains are about to begin, and in doña Marcela's case, if it rains now, being a stream (quebrada), it also brings its own complications, so 10 business days from when the resolution is adopted.
Resolution (Acuerdo) #107: IT IS RESOLVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE (SÍNDICA) MARCELA VILLARREAL, AND TO REFER THEM TO THE ADMINISTRATION SO THAT, TOGETHER WITH THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS, THEY PROCEED TO INSPECT AND ANALYZE THE SITUATION AND THEREBY PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FILED REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE IN QUEBRADA EL RASTRO. THE ADMINISTRATION IS GIVEN 10 DAYS TO CONDUCT THIS INSPECTION AND PROVIDE THE CORRESPONDING RESPONSES. DEFINITIVELY APPROVED WITH 5 VOTES IN FAVOR. FINAL. WITH WAIVER OF COMMITTEE PROCEDURE." (see sworn report and attached evidence).
FINDING FIRST. That the Municipal Council resolved to refer to the Administration the complaint related to the situation at Quebrada El Rastro, so that the relevant departments would proceed to inspect, analyze, and provide a response within the allotted timeframe.
SECOND. That the statements presented before the Council indicate alleged interventions in the waterway, including the placement of materials, an apparent reduction in the hydraulic space (espacio hidráulico), and possible interference with the free flow of water.
THIRD. That on file in the administrative record of MINAE's Directorate of Water is resolution DA-0833-2024, through which a permit for construction works in a public-domain waterway (cauce de dominio público) was granted to Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A. for the repair of a retaining wall (muro de contención) at Quebrada El Rastro and the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the wall, with a validity of two years.
FOURTH. That this Unit, through official letter MAT-GA-014-2026, formally addressed the citizen complaint related to this case, establishing that the authority to authorize, oversee, and determine any non-compliance with works on public-domain waterways lies with MINAE's Directorate of Water.
FIFTH. That, additionally, through official letter MAT-GA-015-2026, this Municipality formally notified MINAE's Directorate of Water, Tárcoles Hydrographic Unit (Unidad Hidrográfica Tárcoles), of the citizen complaint and requested that a specialized technical verification be carried out regarding the nature, scope, and current status of the works executed, particularly in light of indications of possible excesses beyond the permit granted.
WHEREAS I. That pursuant to articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.° 276 (Water Act), public-domain waterways are state property, and their authorization, regulation, oversight, and control fall under the Ministry of Environment and Energy through the Directorate of Water. This delineation of jurisdiction was already recorded by this Unit in official letter MAT-GA-014-2026.
II.That resolution DA-0833-2024 constitutes a valid and effective administrative act that defined the technical and legal scope of the authorized intervention — specifically for the repair of the retaining wall and the placement of medium-sized rocks — and therefore any eventual excesses, deviations, or non-compliance must be determined by the very authority that granted the permit, and not by this Municipality.
III.That the municipal actions taken in this case have consisted of receiving the complaint, conducting a preliminary administrative review, issuing an institutional opinion, and formally referring the case to the competent sectoral authority, in observance of the principle of legality and the duty of inter-institutional coordination.
IV.That, consequently, it is neither technically nor legally appropriate for this Unit to issue a definitive declaration regarding the existence of environmental damage, waterway encroachment, non-compliance with the permit, or administrative liability on the part of the permit holder, until the Directorate of Water has carried out its verification and issued a formal finding.
Por tanto: On the basis of Agreement MAT-CM-270-2026, Office MAT-DA-0245-2026, Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.° 276, and the principle of administrative legality: FIRST: It is reported that the situation complained of concerning the stream (quebrada) El Rastro was addressed by this Unit through technical-administrative analysis and formal institutional management, within the scope of municipal competence. SECOND: It is placed on record that permit DA-0833-2024, issued by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE, exists with respect to the site in question; said permit authorizes a specific intervention on the retaining wall (muro de contención) and the placement of medium-sized rocks in the watercourse (cauce). THIRD: It is specified that the determination of whether the works carried out conform to the permit granted, as well as the possible existence of harm to the watercourse or environmental damage, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Water Directorate, the competent authority for technical verification, oversight, and the adoption of legally appropriate measures. FOURTH: It is placed on record that this Municipality, in safeguarding the public interest and in response to the complaint filed, has already formally transmitted the facts to the competent authority through office MAT-GA-015-2026, requesting a specialized technical inspection and an assessment of the actual scope of the works carried out. FIFTH: Any attribution of direct responsibility to this Administration with regard to the authorization, design, technical direction, or material oversight of the works carried out in the watercourse is expressly rejected, as these are matters legally reserved to the competent sectoral authority. SIXTH: The municipal resolution is deemed attended to insofar as it falls within the competence of this Unit, without prejudice to such institutional follow-up as may be appropriate once the Water Directorate issues the results of the requested verification …" (see sworn report and attached evidence).
the Chairperson closes the session at eight thirty-three p.m. on April 20, 2026." (see sworn report and attached evidence).
- **REGARDING THE DIRECCIÓN DE AGUA OF THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA:** a) By means of resolution (resolución) **DA-0833-2024**, issued within administrative file (expediente administrativo) **1445-O**, the Dirección de Agua granted **Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A.** a permit for an in-channel structure (obra en cauce) in the public-domain waterway (cauce de dominio público) of the quebrada El Rastro, for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the existing infrastructure wall (see sworn report and attached evidence).
IV.- ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
Regarding the **preventive and precautionary principles** (principios preventivo y precautorio), in ruling no. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, this Chamber specified:
"*In this regard, specialized doctrine has noted **that the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible environmental harm, the offending activity must be prohibited, restricted, or conditioned upon compliance with certain requirements**. In general, this principle applies when risks are clearly defined and identified as at least probable; likewise, this principle proves useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, yet there are sufficient elements to foresee potential negative impacts. On the other hand, **the precautionary principle holds that, when there is a risk of serious and irreversible harm, the absence of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation**. **From the foregoing, it is clear that this principle rests on a reasonable degree of scientific uncertainty together with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental harm.** In general terms, a key difference between the preventive and precautionary principles lies in the level of knowledge and certainty regarding the risks that an activity or project may produce. Whereas the former requires such certainty, the latter reflects a state of doubt arising from scientific information or technical studies* (…)" (emphasis added).
Indeed, the precautionary principle must be understood as set forth in Principle XV of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: "*When there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation*." In other words, it is not a matter of requiring scientific studies to reach 'absolute certainty' about the harmlessness of an activity to the environment (in principle, complete certainty is rarely achievable); rather, even when the risk of serious or irreversible environmental harm is not fully established, such uncertainty can never justify or excuse the postponement of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In this regard, it should be noted, on the one hand, that not just any type of threat is at issue — it must plausibly involve a serious risk — and, on the other, that any measure requires an effective and efficient use of the resources employed. In the sense described, even though the precautionary principle is tied to a certain degree of scientific uncertainty, this does not mean it may be applied without restriction on the argument that any activity could cause environmental harm — which would undermine its very purpose — but rather that it is necessary to have some degree of identification of the risks of serious or irreversible harm that could be generated, the determination of which varies according to the particular circumstances of each specific case. Thus, when faced with a situation requiring application of the precautionary principle, public entities and bodies must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new request or request for modification that would reasonably entail a serious risk; they are further required to suspend any activities currently underway. At the same time, they must efficiently and effectively adopt all measures required for the preservation of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
The aforementioned principle is likewise recognized in a source of *hard law*, since Principle 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — ratified by Costa Rica through law no. 7414 of June 13, 1994, and by all member states of the OAS — provides:
"*3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. **Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures**, **taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost**. To this end, such policies and measures should take into account different socioeconomic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and comprise all economic sectors.* *"Efforts to address climate change may be undertaken in cooperation among the interested Parties"* (emphasis added).
The precautionary principle (principio precautorio) is also set forth in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which has been ratified by 32 Member States of the OAS, including Costa Rica — see ley nro. 8538 of August 23, 2006 — and which reads:
*"**ARTICLE 1 Objective** Mindful of the precautionary principle enshrined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (…)".* Likewise, that principle is also contemplated in the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by 34 OAS Member States, including Costa Rica, through ley nro. 7416 of June 30, 1994, whose preamble provides: "(…) *Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent, and attack at their source the causes of reduction or loss of biological diversity. Noting also that, where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of unambiguous scientific evidence must not be invoked as a reason for postponing measures aimed at avoiding or minimizing such a threat* (…)".
Consistently with the aforementioned legislation in force in the country, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also addressed the precautionary principle in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017:
*"180. (…)* Por tanto*, this Court understands that **States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle**, for the purpose of protecting the right to life and to personal integrity, **in cases where there are plausible indicators that an activity could cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty**. Por tanto, States must act with due caution to prevent possible harm. Indeed, in the context of protecting the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court considers that States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle, and for this reason, **even in the absence of scientific certainty, must adopt measures that are "effective" in preventing serious or irreversible harm**"* (emphasis added).
Subsequent to that decision, and by means of a judgment, in *Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) vs. Argentina*, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled on February 6, 2020 as follows: *"the right to a healthy environment 'must be considered as included among the rights [...] protected by Article 26 of the American Convention,' given the obligation of States to achieve the 'integral development' of their peoples, which arises from Articles 30, 31, 33, and 34 of the Charter."* Of great significance, it must be underscored that, in this ruling, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights refers to advisory opinion nro. OC-23/17 for the purpose of developing the content and scope of that right, as a result of which the legal considerations of the latter have logically come to attain the binding legal force proper to a judgment. In this regard, the international judicial body reiterates *"that the right to a healthy environment 'constitutes a universal interest' and 'is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,' and that 'as an autonomous right [...] it protects the components of the [...] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers, and others, as legal interests in themselves, **even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature**,' not only for its 'utility' or 'effects' with respect to human beings, 'but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom we share the planet.' This does not preclude, of course, other human rights from being violated as a consequence of environmental damage (daños ambientales)."* Indeed, in the development of the conceptualization of the right to the environment, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clearly details States' obligations in the face of possible environmental damage, such as the duty of prevention (deber de prevención), the precautionary principle, the obligation of cooperation (obligación de cooperación), and access to information (acceso a la información).
In sum, the application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) implies that when there are indicators that a certain activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, the lack of absolute scientific certainty or evidence on the matter does not exempt the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent a violation of the environment.
Regarding the preventive principle (principio preventivo), in the first UN report on the state of international environmental law, document A/73/419 of 30 November 2018, prepared by its Secretary-General in fulfillment of the General Assembly resolution of 10 May 2018 (no. A/72/L.51), it is characterized as a normative standard of customary international law (derecho internacional consuetudinario) *"confirmed by relevant practice in many environmental treaties and the main codification projects."* Now, while the aforementioned report emphasizes the prevention of transboundary harm (daño transfronterizo), this general principle of law, as correctly noted in the document '95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 and by the Corte Plena in article XIX of session no. 28-2020 of 25 May 2020), has a much broader scope, insofar as, serving as a hermeneutical guide, it leads to the conclusion that *"the causes and sources of environmental problems shall be addressed on a priority and integrated basis, aiming to prevent the negative effects that may be produced on the environment. The criterion of prevention shall then prevail over any other criterion in the public and private management of the environment and natural resources."* This makes complete sense, as it is consistent with the duty to prevent the occurrence of environmental harm, rather than limiting oneself to ruling on the repair of already confirmed harmful consequences, including by ordering the cessation of damaging effects.
This principle is reflected, among other provisions, in articles 194.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by Costa Rica under law no. 7291) and 5 and Anexo II of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (ratified under law no. 8059), as well as in constitutional case law (see decisions nos. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on 5 November 2021 and 2018016383 of 5:00 p.m. on 28 September 2018, among many others) and in conventional law, for example, in advisory opinion no. OC-23/17 of 15 November 2017, paragraphs 127 to 174 and subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 242, and the judgment of 24 November 2022, Baraona Bray vs. Chile. Specifically, in the latter, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte IDH) expressly states:
> *"208. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in specific environmental matters, it must be emphasized that the principle of prevention of environmental harm forms part of customary international law, and entails the obligation of States to carry out the measures necessary ex ante the occurrence of environmental harm, bearing in mind that, due to its particular characteristics, it will frequently not be possible, once such harm has occurred, to restore the prior situation. By virtue of the duty of prevention, the Court has stated that "States are obligated to use all means at their disposal in order to avoid activities carried out under their jurisdiction causing significant damage to the [...] environment"*200*. This obligation must be fulfilled under a standard of due diligence, which must be appropriate and proportional to the degree of risk of environmental harm*201*. Moreover, while it is not possible to provide a detailed enumeration of all the measures that States could take in order to fulfill this duty, some measures related to potentially harmful activities may be identified: i) regulate; ii) supervise and monitor; iii) require and approve environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental); iv) establish contingency plans; and v) mitigate in cases of occurrence of environmental harm*202*."* For its part, the ***in dubio pro natura*** **principle** means, according to the 'World Declaration of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (UICN) on the Rule of Law in Environmental Matters,' that *"in case of doubt, all proceedings before courts, administrative bodies, and other decision-makers shall be resolved in a manner that favors the protection and conservation of the environment, giving preference to the least harmful alternatives. Actions shall not be undertaken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived therefrom"* (see principle V).
In this regard, according to the document '95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 and by the Corte Plena in article XIX of session no.
28-2020 del 25 de mayo de 2020), "Every operator of environmental norms must always bear in mind the pro natura principle (principio pro naturaleza), pursuant to which risks shall be avoided, collective general interests shall take precedence over individual ones, preservation of the environment shall be favored, and in cases of doubt the interpretation that most broadly protects the surroundings shall be preferred." The *in dubio pro natura* principle, then, does not depend on there being a risk of serious or irreversible harm—as is the case with the precautionary principle (principio precautorio)—but rather entails a "general rule of conduct governing the relationship between the State—and society at large—and the environment, applicable to all decision-making domains in which there exists a risk of harm to the environment, and which obliges us to avoid choosing courses of action that could cause damage to the environment when other options exist" (Olivares y Lucero, 2018).
Furthermore, in ruling no. 2012013367 of 11:33 hours on September 21, 2012, this Constitutional Tribunal addressed the **principles of progressivity (progresividad) and non-regression (no regresión) in environmental matters** as follows:
"*V. On the principles of progressivity and non-regression of environmental protection.* The principle of progressivity of human rights has been recognized by International Human Rights Law; among other international instruments, it is found in articles 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, articles 1 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under these norms, the State assumes the obligation to progressively increase, to the extent of its capabilities and development, the levels of protection of human rights, with special consideration for those rights that, like the right to the environment (art. 11 of the Protocol), require multiple positive actions by the State for their protection and full enjoyment by all their holders. From the principle of progressivity of human rights and the principle of non-retroactivity of legal norms to the detriment of acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, enshrined in numeral 34 of the Constitution, derives the principle of non-regression or irreversibility of the benefits or protection achieved. This principle stands as a substantive guarantee of rights—in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—by virtue of which the State is compelled not to adopt measures, policies, or approve legal norms that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the level of rights protection already attained. This principle does not entail absolute irreversibility, since all States face national circumstances of an economic, political, social, or natural nature that negatively impact the achievements made up to that point and require reconsidering downward the new level of protection. In such cases, Constitutional Law and the principles under examination require justifying, in light of the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, any reduction in the levels of protection. In this regard, the Sala Constitucional has expressed in its jurisprudence, with respect to the right to health: "…pursuant to THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REGRESSION, it is prohibited to take measures that diminish the protection of fundamental rights. Thus, if the Costa Rican State, in order to protect the right to health and the right to life, has a policy of open access to medicines, it cannot—and much less through an International Treaty—reduce such access and make it more restricted, under the pretext of protecting trade. (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 9469-07). Regarding the right to the environment, it stated: 'The foregoing constitutes an evolutionary interpretation in the protection of the environment pursuant to Constitutional Law, which does not admit a regression to its detriment.' (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 18702-10)." (Emphasis not in the original). (In the same vein, rulings 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745 and 2019-017397)." Thus, in accordance with the principle of progressivity, the State assumes the obligation to increase, to the extent possible, the levels of protection of human rights, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For its part, the application of the principle of non-regression consists of a guarantee that constrains the State from adopting measures, policies, or norms that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the degree of protection of fundamental rights already attained, and that, when applicable, the corresponding compensatory measures must be weighed.
Finally, this Tribunal explained the **principle of objectification of environmental protection** (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental) in the following terms:
"With respect to the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth above, our Constitution additionally requires that it be 'healthy.' The requirement of being 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements: 'healthy' and 'balanced' Now, by employing the concepts of "environment" (*ambiente*), "healthy" (*sano*), and "ecologically balanced" (*ecológicamente equilibrado*), the constitutional provision introduced science and technology into environmental decisions — whether legislative or administrative — such that, pursuant to Articles 16 of the General Law on Public Administration (*Ley General de la Administración Pública*) and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law (*Ley Orgánica del Ambiente*), state actions in environmental matters must be grounded in, and may not contradict, the unambiguous rules of science and technology, in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (*ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado*) and, moreover, "greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country." With respect to the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unambiguous rules of science and technology, the Sala Constitucional has termed this the principle of objectification of environmental protection (*principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental*): "**On the objectification of environmental protection** (…) **it is a principle that cannot in any way be confused with the foregoing [the precautionary principle (*principio precautorio*) or 'principle of prudent avoidance'], since, as derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the** Ley General de la Administración Pública, **it translates into the requirement that decision-making in this area be supported by technical studies, both in relation to individual acts and to measures of a general nature — whether statutory or regulatory —, from which arises the requirement of adherence to science and technology, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretion in this area.** Thus, based on the results derived from those technical studies — such as environmental impact studies (*estudios de impacto ambiental*) — if an objective technical finding emerges indicating the probability of evident harm to the environment, natural resources, or human health, the proposed project, work, or activity must be rejected; and in the case of a 'reasonable doubt,' decisions must be made in favor of the environment (*principio pro-natura*), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment." (Judgment of the Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)"" (emphasis added). (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 of 11:33 hours of 21 September 2012).
**V.- ON THE ADVISORY OPINION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS LEGAL-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN COSTA RICA.** The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its recent Advisory Opinion **OC-32/25 del 29 de mayo de 2025**, entitled **"Emergencia Climática y Derechos Humanos"** on climate change and human rights, consolidated an evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights, according to which the climate crisis constitutes a real, current, and growing threat to the effective exercise of multiple fundamental rights, including life, health, personal integrity, access to water, food, adequate housing, and the right to a healthy environment.
It is reaffirmed that extreme weather events, ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and the increase in socio-environmental risks cannot be analyzed solely as technical or public-policy matters, but must instead be treated as subjects subject to constitutional and conventional legal review, since they implicate state obligations of respect, guarantee, and prevention with regard to the human rights recognized by the inter-American system.
The Court established that States Parties have reinforced positive duties of mitigation, adaptation, prevention of significant environmental harm, regulation of polluting activities, corporate oversight, and protection of vulnerable populations, in accordance with the **principles of precaution, prevention, progressiveness, intergenerational equity, and environmental non-regression**.
Additionally, the Advisory Opinion develops the *pro natura* principle, particularly from paragraphs 216 and 279 through 286, according to which, when faced with several legally possible interpretations, the one that affords the greatest protection to nature, ecosystems, and human rights linked to environmental balance must be preferred. This interpretive criterion imposes on public authorities and judicial bodies a reinforced duty to interpret and apply domestic and international norms in a manner favorable to the conservation, restoration, and functional continuity of ecosystems, particularly in contexts of scientific uncertainty, risk of serious or irreversible harm, and decision-making with significant climate effects.
It was likewise recognized that the state response to climate change requires transparent institutional processes, technically grounded and oriented toward the effective participation of citizens, so that public decisions with environmental impact carry democratic legitimacy and sufficient legal oversight.
The Advisory Opinion emphasizes that States must guarantee timely access to relevant information about climate risks, polluting emissions, cumulative impacts, territorial vulnerability, environmental planning, and adaptation measures, as an indispensable prerequisite for the effective protection of the rights at stake.
Likewise, the Court highlighted the need for effective administrative and judicial remedies against state acts or omissions that favor environmental deterioration, regulatory insufficiency, or failure to fulfill climate obligations, thereby strengthening access to justice in environmental matters.
For the Republic of Costa Rica, this Advisory Opinion is of special relevance, as it is a State Party to the American Convention with a recognized constitutional tradition in ecological matters, arising in particular from Article 50 of the Constitución Política, which recognizes every person's right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In the national context, this means that every decision related to energy projects, urban expansion, public infrastructure, natural resource use, land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial), water management (gestión hídrica), coastal development, or activities with climate impact must also be evaluated in light of the state's duty to prevent environmental and climate damage.
This obligation encompasses the need to adopt public decisions based on scientific evidence, sufficient technical studies, assessment of cumulative impacts, and consideration of present and future effects on human communities and strategic ecosystems.
The Advisory Opinion equally reinforces the historic jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica, which has recognized the environment as a justiciable fundamental right. Consequently, constitutional review may be projected with greater intensity toward climate justice, allowing for examination of state omissions, regulatory insufficiency, or actions incompatible with reasonable standards of environmental protection.
Particular attention is merited by the Inter-American emphasis on groups in conditions of vulnerability, such as indigenous peoples, coastal communities, children, older adults, and populations exposed to flooding, droughts, or territorial erosion, with respect to whom the state's duty of adaptation and protection takes on a reinforced dimension.
This is of special relevance for Costa Rica, given its geographic characteristics, its ecological richness, the importance of its coastal zones, the protection of its forests and river basins (cuencas hidrográficas), and the differentiated exposure of various territories to extreme climate events.
This Advisory Opinion represents a highly relevant normative benchmark that strengthens environmental protection, broadens the judicial enforceability of state climate action, and reaffirms that the defense of ecological balance constitutes an inseparable dimension of the social, democratic, and ecological State of Law.
**VI.- REGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF INTER-ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION.** Coordination, insofar as it ensures administrative efficiency and effectiveness, is a virtual or implicit constitutional principle that permeates the entire administrative legal order and is binding upon all public entities. It may be inter-organic — between the various organs that make up a public entity and that are not subject to a hierarchical relationship — or inter-subjective, that is, between public entities, each with its own legal personality, budget, autonomy, and specific competencies. The administrative or other degree of autonomy held by public entities obliges them to coordinate their actions, since they cannot be mutually subjected to hierarchical relationships by virtue of their inter-organic nature. Administrative coordination aims to prevent duplications and omissions in the exercise of the administrative functions of each public entity — that is, to ensure that those functions are carried out rationally and in an orderly manner — and is achieved through the establishment of fluid and permanent information channels between public entities, all of which may be accomplished through meetings, reports, or the creation of formal coordination bodies. In environmental matters, this principle takes on a differentiated nuance, and what this Court stated in Sentencia No. 2012-008892 at 16:03 hours of June 27, 2012 is of relevance:
"(…) "III.- Coordination among public agencies must guarantee the protection of the environment.
On numerous occasions, constitutional jurisprudence has held that environmental protection is a task that falls equally upon everyone — that is, there is an obligation on the State — as a whole — to take the necessary measures to protect the environment in order to prevent levels of pollution, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or improper use of natural resources that would endanger public health. In performing this task, the term "public institution" must be understood to encompass both the Central Administration (Administración Central) — Ministries such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which, by virtue of their subject-matter jurisdiction, bear broad participation and responsibility with respect to the conservation and preservation of the environment, and which act, for the most part, through their specialized units, such as the General Directorate of Wildlife, the Forestry Directorate, and SETENA — as well as decentralized institutions, such as the National Institute of Housing and Urban Planning, the National Service of Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers; municipalities also bear great responsibility in this task within their territorial jurisdiction. For this reason, one might think that this multiple responsibility would produce chaos in public administration, but that is not in fact the case: in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origins and natures, the duplication of national and local efforts, and the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it becomes necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between those entities and the municipalities, so that they may carry out the functions assigned to them. This Court had previously — and in quite clear terms — addressed the principle of coordination among public agencies and municipalities in pursuit of shared objectives — which must obviously be extended to the relationship that Central Administration institutions and decentralized institutions maintain in performing this important function — and refers to what was stated on that occasion (judgment No. 5445-99, rendered at fourteen hours thirty minutes on July 14, 1999):
"Thus, coordination is the ordering of relations among these various independent activities, which takes charge of their convergence upon a single object or entity so as to make it useful for an overall public plan, without suppressing the mutual independence of the acting parties. Since there is no hierarchical relationship between the decentralized institutions — nor between the State itself — and the municipalities, it is not possible to impose specific conduct upon them; from this arises the indispensable inter-institutional «concerted action», in the strict sense, whereby the autonomous and independent centers of action reach agreement on that preventive and overall framework, in which each one plays a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others." "Thus, the relationships between municipalities and other public bodies can only take place on an equal footing, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, to the exclusion of any imperative arrangement that would undermine their autonomy — one that would subject corporate bodies to a coordination scheme without their consent or against their will. Nonetheless, the necessary subordination of these bodies to the State and in the State's interest is admissible (through the State's «tutela administrativa» and, specifically, through the function of legality review that falls within its competence, with general oversight powers over the entire sector)." "On the other hand, failures to fulfill the duty to protect the environment and to comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional significance, since the Administration's inaction in this area can produce harm to the environment and to natural resources that is sometimes of comparable or greater consequence than harm resulting from the Administration's affirmative acts; such as the authorization of regulatory plans (planes reguladores), or construction without the approval of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or the failure to monitor and supervise the implementation of management plans for protected areas by the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of MINAE, or permitting businesses to operate without the health permits required for the treatment of sewage or wastewater (Acueductos y Alcantarillados and the Ministry of Health), or failing to verify noise controls in bars, karaokes, and nightclubs (municipalities and the Ministry of Health), among others (see in this regard judgment number 2006-005159 of thirteen hours and four minutes on the seventh of April, two thousand and six)." "In other words, what is of concern is the technical cooperation that the various bodies can provide to one another, the technical elements they can contribute, and respect for each body's competences; in order to ensure, without question, that the impact of the projects being evaluated is not negative, and thereby to guarantee the sustainable management of water resources (recursos hídricos) and the full right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as enshrined in the constitutional provision. Thus, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) — which seeks to prevent or suspend any activity that could negatively affect such management — obliges the Administration, first, to notify the affected parties and interested persons, and the institutions that may be involved. This is so that they may submit the corresponding arguments and present the relevant technical criteria, and to ensure the effective participation of the competent bodies in this matter with a view to protecting and preserving the environment and water resources. And it obliges the Administration, second, to take into account the warnings issued by an institution legally empowered to protect water resources regarding the risk of contamination (…)." **VII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** In the specific case, the proven facts reveal that the dispute is not limited to a mere administrative disagreement over the scope of an in-channel works permit (permiso de obra en cauce), but rather involves the possible direct impairment of a public-domain (dominio público) property — the quebrada El Rastro — as well as the potential threat to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. That provision not only establishes every person's right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also imposes on the State a positive duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve it. Furthermore, it entitles every person to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to seek redress for the harm caused.
In that regard, the Court finds that, given that this case involves a material intervention within a public-domain watercourse (cauce), the required State action cannot be limited to receiving complaints, issuing official communications, or referring the matter to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Such actions may be necessary, but they are insufficient when the competent technical authority itself has already determined that the work carried out does not correspond to what was authorized, that it was performed without the corresponding permit in the terms as built, and that it negatively affects the hydraulic dynamics (dinámica hidráulica) of the watercourse. According to the proven facts, the Dirección de Agua was notified of the complaint, conducted an inspection on 25 March 2026, and on 20 April 2026 concluded that the structure built did not correspond to what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024, classified it as illegal, and ordered the complete demolition of the wire mesh and concrete wall within a non-extendable period of eight business days.
It must be recalled that public-domain waters, as well as the beds of public-domain watercourses, belong to the Nation. The Ley de Aguas establishes that, among other assets, the beds of public-domain watercourses are national property. Likewise, Executive Regulation N.º 44410-MINAE recognizes that MINAE is the entity vested with ownership and regulatory authority over water at the national level, and that this function is exercised through its technical body, the Dirección de Agua, particularly with respect to applications for and grants of permits for works in watercourses.
It follows that, once the existence of an unauthorized structure within the watercourse has been technically established, the Dirección de Agua is not only empowered but obligated to adopt real, effective, and timely measures to restore environmental legality and protect the affected public domain asset (bien demanial).
The case file also shows that the work originally authorized did not consist of the construction of a mesh-and-concrete wall, but rather of artisanal maintenance work on an existing wall and the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the structure. On the contrary, the inspection carried out by the Dirección de Agua determined that a mesh had been installed on the left bank of the quebrada El Rastro, with rocks and cement placed on top of it for approximately fifteen meters, which constricts the watercourse, prevents the free flow of water, reduces the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica), and may generate erosive flow velocities that affect the properties of third parties. This technical finding is of particular constitutional significance, as it transforms the matter into a concrete and present threat to the environment, to the public watercourse, and potentially to the safety of those who live in or pass through the area.
From this perspective, it is not constitutionally permissible for the Dirección de Agua to limit itself to asserting that it filed a criminal complaint or brought the facts to the attention of other authorities. The criminal process may establish individual liability for the possible commission of environmental offenses, but it does not replace the immediate administrative duty to restore the watercourse, prevent greater harm, and put an end to a physical situation that the Dirección de Agua itself characterized as illegal and detrimental to flow dynamics. The environmental amparo (amparo ambiental) demands a useful, prompt, and effective response—not merely a formal course of action. The protection afforded by Article 50 of the Constitución Política has a preventive, corrective, and restorative dimension, particularly when public domain assets and risks associated with water resources are at stake.
The General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) provides the legal instruments necessary to give effect to that order. Article 146 provides that the Administration has the power to enforce, on its own authority and without recourse to the courts, administrative acts that are effective, valid, or voidable, even against the will or resistance of the obligated party. Likewise, Article 149 establishes substituted enforcement (ejecución sustitutiva) as a means of administrative execution, applicable when an obligation can be fulfilled by a third party in place of the obligated party, with costs borne by the latter. The demolition of an illegal structure of mesh, concrete, and rocks within a public watercourse is precisely an obligation that can be fulfilled by a third party—technical personnel, a contractor, an institutional work crew, or municipal support—and it is therefore legally appropriate to resort to this mechanism if the obligated party fails to comply voluntarily.
However, administrative enforcement must be carried out in accordance with the principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. Article 150 of the General Law of Public Administration requires that enforcement not take place prior to proper notification of the underlying act, and that, except in cases of urgency, it be preceded by two consecutive formal notices (intimaciones), with a clear statement of the compliance requirement, the applicable coercive measure, and a reasonable period within which to carry out what has been ordered. This means that the Dirección de Agua is not authorized to act in an improvised or arbitrary manner; it is, however, legally empowered and constitutionally obligated to move from the formal demolition order to effective enforcement of the measure if the private party fails to comply.
In the case under examination, such physical enforcement must encompass, at minimum: verification that the period granted to the regulated party has elapsed; issuance of the corresponding formal notices—unless an environmental or safety emergency is technically documented—; preparation of a technical removal plan; determination of the demolition method; proper handling of debris; adoption of measures to prevent further impact to the watercourse; and documentation of the enforcement through official records, photographs, georeferencing (georreferenciación), and technical reports. Should the obligated party or third parties resist, the Administration may request the assistance of the Fuerza Pública, within strictly necessary limits, as the General Law of Public Administration provides for police cooperation to give effect to forced compliance and prohibits violent resistance to the enforcement of administrative acts.
Nor should the duty of inter-institutional coordination be overlooked. The Municipalidad de Atenas is not the primary technical authority with competence to authorize, oversee, or determine non-compliance with works in a watercourse—that competence belongs to the Dirección de Agua. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Municipality may ignore the situation when it involves a watercourse located within its canton (cantón), with potential impact on local interests, area residents, community safety, and the environment. Article 169 of the Constitución Política vests in the Municipal Government the administration of the local interests and services of the canton. Furthermore, administrative regulations recognize the principle of institutional and inter-institutional coordination, under which public entities and bodies must act in a coordinated manner among themselves, exchanging information and providing cooperation for the resolution of matters brought before them.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the Municipalidad de Atenas must collaborate with the Dirección de Agua, within the framework of its competencies, material capacities, and institutional availability, so that the demolition order does not remain merely a formal declaration.
Such collaboration may include logistical support, assistance with municipal environmental management, road or community coordination, assistance with the removal of materials, facilitation of municipal machinery where technically necessary and legally viable, as well as any other reasonable action that allows the measure to be carried out without aggravating the environmental damage or endangering persons. This collaboration does not displace the directive competence (competencia rectora) of the Dirección de Agua, but it does give concrete expression to the constitutional duty of cooperation among public administrations in the face of an environmental threat localized within the cantón.
Consequently, given that the Dirección de Agua has already established that the structure constricts the watercourse (cauce), reduces the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica), restricts the free flow of waters, and may cause harm to third parties, the constitutionally appropriate response cannot be institutional passivity or indefinite waiting for the outcome of a criminal complaint. The Administration has sufficient powers to enforce its own acts, to employ substitutive execution (ejecución sustitutiva), to coordinate with other institutions, to recover costs from the offending party, and to adopt the technical measures necessary to restore the public-domain (dominio público) watercourse. Failure to timely activate those mechanisms would perpetuate the environmental harm and leave without effective protection the right recognized in Article 50 of the Constitution.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the appeal is granted. The Dirección de Agua of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía is ordered to verify compliance with the demolition order issued against Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A and, in the event of non-compliance, to immediately activate the administrative enforcement mechanisms provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, including substitutive execution at the expense of the party under obligation, following issuance of the corresponding formal notices (intimaciones) or upon establishing urgency if technically warranted. It shall likewise coordinate with the Municipalidad de Atenas, the Fuerza Pública, and the other competent institutions for the physical carrying-out of the demolition, the removal of rubble, and the adoption of the restoration or stabilization measures necessary to guarantee the free flow of waters and to prevent further damage to the watercourse of the quebrada El Rastro.
Likewise, the Municipalidad de Atenas is ordered to, without assuming the technical competencies that belong to the Dirección de Agua, provide the inter-institutional collaboration (colaboración interinstitucional) necessary for the effective execution of the measure, including, if necessary and technically feasible, support with machinery, personnel, municipal logistics, or local environmental management, all under the technical direction of the authority competent in matters of watercourses. This ensures an effective, coordinated, and proportionate response to the reported harm, protects the public hydraulic domain (dominio público hidráulico), and restores enjoyment of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
**VIII.- NOTE OF JUSTICE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ, REGARDING PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.** I have supported the position of this Tribunal that when a party before the court (justiciable) alleges a violation of the right to prompt and effective justice in administrative proceedings (sede administrativa), the legal dispute must be heard by the 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 that right is amenable to judicial protection by means of the amparo petition (recurso de amparo) established by Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in connection with Article 27 of the Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the material acts 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 mean that this Tribunal must modify its line of jurisprudence, since it is this Tribunal that, pursuant to Article 7 of its Law, has the exclusive authority to define its own jurisdiction. Therefore, except for those constitutional legal disputes that have been recognized by this very Chamber as exceptional cases — which may indeed be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo guarantee proceeding (proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo) — in all other cases, and for the reasons set out by this Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), the competent bodies are the judges of the administrative courts, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal order.
**IX.- NOTE OF JUSTICE SALAZAR ALVARADO.** As a matter of general principle, I consider that cases related to the activity or inactivity of the Public Administration in the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure work must be dismissed, since that omission constitutes a matter of legality whose discussion belongs to the ordinary courts, before which the interested party may argue his or her objections more broadly. However, when such administrative conduct — whether by omission or otherwise — gives rise to a violation of other fundamental rights protected in this constitutional jurisdiction, or affects groups considered vulnerable, I do proceed to rule on the merits, as such a situation constitutes an exception to my position in this area — as is the case here, where the appealing party alleges having reported to the Municipalidad de Atenas and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía the alteration and obstruction of the Quebrada El Rastro; yet those complaints have gone unaddressed, placing in danger the safety of the community's residents.
**X.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE.** The parties are hereby notified that if any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature have been submitted, such materials must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within that period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
**Por tanto:** The writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) is granted. DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, in his capacity as ACTING DIRECTOR OF WATER OF THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA, or whoever may occupy that position in his place, is hereby ordered to ensure that, within **THREE MONTHS** counted from the notification of this judgment, the demolition ordered through official communication No. DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026 is carried out, that the proper removal of the debris is guaranteed, and that the necessary technical measures are adopted for the restoration of the watercourse (cauce), ensuring the free flow of the waters and the prevention of additional damage — all of which must be reported to this Court within the same period. Likewise, MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES and ROY ARIAS ROJAS, the mayor and the president of the Municipal Council, respectively, both of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, or whoever may occupy those positions in their place, are hereby ordered to **IMMEDIATELY** arrange with the officials of MINAE's Dirección de Agua — within their competencies and capabilities — the inter-institutional cooperation necessary for the effective execution of said demolition. The respondent authorities are hereby warned that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prison term of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on any person who receives an order issued in a writ of amparo that they must comply with or enforce, and who fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not subject to a more severe penalty. The State and the Municipalidad de Atenas are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in the enforcement of judgment before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Justice Castillo Víquez appends a note. Justice Salazar Alvarado appends a note. Notify.
- Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.
The content you submitted does not contain a Spanish legal document excerpt to translate. It consists of:
1. **Base64-encoded JPEG image data** — two very long binary-encoded image strings embedded in HTML `<img>` tags. 2. **HTML markup** — `<p>`, `<span>`, `<tr>`, `<td>` tags with style attributes. 3. **One short proper name** — "Paul Rueda L." (which would be preserved verbatim as a Costa Rican person name in any case).
There is no Spanish legal text present in this chunk.
Please paste the **plain text** of the legal document excerpt you would like translated, and I will translate it faithfully according to the instructions provided.
Luis Fdo.
Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- **EXPEDIENTE N° 26-010510-0007-CO** Telephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
**Exp: 26-010510-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2026017035** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fifteenth of May, two thousand twenty-six.** Amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) processed under case file N° **26-010510-0007-CO, filed by [Nombre 001], national identification number [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALITY OF ATENAS AND THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY.** **Statement of Facts (Resultando):** **1.-** By written filing entered into the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on March 24, 2026, the petitioner filed an amparo appeal against the **MUNICIPALITY OF ATENAS AND THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY.** He states that he is the owner of the property registered in the Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario), Alajuela registry district (Partido de Alajuela), registration number 140858, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters east and 25 meters south of the Courts of Justice, and that his property borders the El Rastro stream (quebrada), which separates his property from the property registered in the Property Registry, Alajuela registry district, registration number 247646, located in Alajuela, Atenas, 175 meters east of the Courts of Justice, owned by Inversiones C y C del Oeste Sociedad Anónima. The owner of that property has a showroom where a ceramics retail business operates, which he personally manages; both of the aforementioned properties border the El Rastro stream and have a wall that has been standing for approximately 40 years. The petitioner states that *"Second: on Friday, March 26, 2021, from early in the morning, several men came down through the property belonging to the company represented by Mr. Wilber Castro Cubero and were extracting stones from the streambed using crowbars, piling them against the wall of that property. I called the municipality and they sent the head of the Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) of the Municipality of Atenas, who came to the site and reprimanded them, so the matter went no further. Third: on Saturday, December 16, 2023, from early in the morning, Mr. Wilber Castro again carried out work within the stream, this time dumping from the wall of his property — which together with the wire fencing stands approximately 3 meters high — a large quantity of rocks, some of considerable size, which he then sealed with a cement mixture. Because it was a weekend, the Police Station (Delegación Policial) was called to draw up an official report (acta) of the events, which states that several men were observed working alongside Mr. Wilber Castro and throwing a 'considerable' quantity of rocks into the stream; it is even noted that they were bracing the support against the retaining wall on both sides (see report). On Monday the 18th, the municipality was notified of what had occurred; by December 20, the Engineering and Construction Department and the Environmental Management Unit of the Municipality of Atenas were already aware of the situation, since the head of that department, Mr. Fabián Méndez Marín, informed my wife, Sara Vargas Elizondo, via WhatsApp on December 20, 2023, stating verbatim: 'in our personal opinion it is within the streambed (cauce)'... (I attach a screenshot). All of this was done by Mr. Wilber without any permit whatsoever. My wife also called the MINAE office in Alajuela on January 17, 2024, and was told that for the following day, the 18th, they had scheduled field visits to Atenas and would arrive to conduct an inspection. Indeed they arrived; my wife received them and they recorded information from both her and the neighbor, Mr. Eduardo Ávila Rincón, to serve as witnesses, because they had filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office (fiscalía). Two years and three months have now passed since then and they have never been called to testify, which leads me to believe that no such complaint actually exists. I attach photographs and videos of the work carried out on December 16, 2023.* Fourth: on March 7, 2026, likewise in the early morning hours of a Saturday, Mr. Wilber Castro again carried out works inside the stream (quebrada), this time placing wire mesh (mallas), additional rocks, and a cement mixture throughout virtually the entire channel (cauce) of the stream. He constructed an embankment (talud) using all of these materials, with a considerable slope, thereby completely diverting the channel toward the wall of my property (I submit photographs showing the placement of the wire mesh). By Monday, March 9, I notified the municipality; to this date, they have not come to conduct an inspection. Mr. Wilber Castro holds a permit granted by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE, based on a request made by the representative of the Department of Engineering and Construction of the Municipalidad de Atenas, Mr. Fabián Méndez Marín. Even though Mr. Méndez Marín was aware of the illegality committed by Mr. Wilber Castro in carrying out works in the channel without the proper permit, he should have denied the request, grounding his conduct in the principle of probity and placing the public interest above private interest. The aforementioned permit was processed under electronic in-channel works file (expediente electrónico de obra en cauce) number: 1445-O. The second encroachment (invasión) occurred on December 16, 2023, and the date of the request is January 22, 2024—that is, one month after the events took place. In that request (oficiomat-cconst-0172024, see expediente 1445 for in-channel works of the Water Directorate, submitted herewith), Mr. Fabián Méndez states that he conducted a field inspection and describes the wall, but never indicates that the channel had already been substantially encroached upon. This could mislead the engineer who issued the technical endorsement (aval técnico), in the event that the latter did not conduct any inspection of his own. It is also noted that the municipality has knowledge of the aforementioned works, referring—as may be inferred from the text—only to the original works, namely the construction of the wall itself, and not to those carried out by Mr. Wilber Castro. Furthermore, the cited request states, in the relevant part: …"must comply at minimum with the following requirements: 1-Technical endorsement from the Water Directorate authority of MINAE. 2-The Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) of the Municipalidad de Atenas must be informed of the process in all its aspects …" As regards the technical endorsement from the Water Directorate of MINAE, I was informed by the Legal Department of that institution that it was issued by Engineer Ignacio Campos. In that technical report (see da-uhtpcosr-0103-2024, which is on file in expediente: 1445-o, submitted herewith), under the section corresponding to the justification for the works, it states: …"at the request of the Municipalidad de Atenas…" This is where the irresponsibility compounds itself in such a sensitive matter, one that places a large portion of the population at risk, since this stream is a watercourse that runs through various parts of the central area of Atenas, extending through several sectors of the urban zone. It should be noted that a bridge with a very narrow opening passes just a few meters from the obstruction, which could cause upstream flooding that would endanger people's lives.
Fifth. In light of all of the foregoing, I sent an email to the Water Directorate explaining the situation, requesting an urgent inspection, and asking that it be verified whether the works carried out by Mr. Wilber Castro were consistent with what was authorized under the permit. In the reply to that email, it was indicated that the correspondence had been filed and forwarded to expediente 1445-O to be handled by Ignacio Campos—the very professional who had issued the technical endorsement for Mr. Wilber Castro's in-channel works permit. (I submit the email.)
Sixth: all of the entities involved have passed responsibility among one another, and to this date we have not received an objective response to the problem described herein. And to further demonstrate the incompetence of certain entities: on March 18, 2026, in the morning hours, two officials from the MINAE office in Alajuela came by. One of them spoke with my wife and all he told her was that they had already gone to speak with the individual and that he holds a permit. She then asked whether they were aware of the scope of the permit in relation to the works actually carried out, to which he replied that she would then have to contact the Water Directorate. Evidently, they had not read the permit. My wife told him there was therefore nothing more to discuss; at no point did they indicate that they wished to conduct an inspection. In any event, if they had visited Mr. Wilber, they should have conducted the inspection from the side of his property—it can also be seen from the bridge, since it is very close by. Currently, water is not flowing through the channel; it has accumulated upstream due to the obstruction. The stagnant water gives off foul odors and, moreover, constitutes an ideal breeding ground for the mosquito that transmits dengue fever, posing a risk to the health and lives of people, especially infants, children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. It should be noted that approximately 100 meters away there is a child daycare center, and 200 meters away is the local nursing home.
Seventh.
on the other hand, how is it possible that the municipal Environmental Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión Ambiental) can be requested, by email, to issue a certificate documenting all the inspections carried out and all activities undertaken, and yet that office fails to make any mention whatsoever of the matter (I submit the email and the official letter as supporting documents). In this way, it completely absolves itself of its responsibility in the case, which leads me to suspect that it maintains no records at all — it is deeply regrettable that this should occur in the exercise of a public function, given that the complaint was within the office's knowledge regardless of the channel through which it was communicated. Furthermore, the respondent entities must establish and maintain effective coordination among themselves, since these matters involve assets in the public domain (bienes de dominio público), the care and management of which require the joint collaboration of the competent authorities. In official letter MAT-GA-0014-2026, issued by Mr. Jeudy Ortiz, submitted herewith, specifically in item three under the subheading "Sobre la participación municipal," that individual states that municipal participation is limited to functions of institutional coordination, handling of citizen complaints, and the possible communication of facts to the competent authorities — but with no accountability whatsoever. At least in the present case, whatever coordination and communication has been attempted was prompted solely by my disclosure of the situation to the various entities, driven by this most recent encroachment on the streambed (cauce) of the quebrada El Rastro; prior to that, no action aimed at providing a solution was taken by the competent entities, thereby disregarding the public interest entirely. In light of all of the foregoing, I venture to ask: _ Is it a function of the municipality to issue requirements for obtaining permits from other entities when an unresolved illegality exists? (The act of December 16, 2023 was and remains totally and absolutely illegal, because Mr. Wilber Castro did not hold the corresponding permit.) Had the municipal Environmental Management Unit notified the MINAE office in Alajuela, and that office in turn notified the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) — as I have already indicated — given that these are assets in the public domain, a matter of public interest, and works carried out illegally because Mr. Wilber lacked the corresponding permit, we would not be facing this problem today; the municipal requirement would have had no effect, or the matter would have been handled more responsibly. Eighth. The quebrada El Rastro carries a considerable volume of water during the rainy season, and therefore the obstruction of its streambed with the deposited materials represents a significant risk to the local population, increasing the likelihood of floods and overflow that could damage homes and roads and endanger human lives. It is not acceptable to wait and see what happens, because the matter is urgent. No one objects to the individual securing his retaining wall, but he must do so in compliance with the regulations governing such work, responsibly and with consideration for other people. Moreover, that section of the retaining wall on this individual's property is covered at its base and beyond with stones, wire mesh, and cement poured from above down onto the streambed — work that conforms to no technical standard whatsoever. The cement mixture does not bond properly due to lack of compaction, and, since the wall is covered from its base upward, regular inspection to assess the condition of its foundations is impossible, raising the risk of a wall collapse — a wall that, according to the aforementioned municipal requirement, stands 2.5 meters tall. Mr. Wilber Castro, having committed a clear abuse of the permit granted to him, created a situation of imminent risk at the site. Faced with the exhaustion and wear brought on by this uncertainty — not a legal uncertainty, since laws exist and are there to bring order and protect, but rather the uncertainty of their non-enforcement — I could have chosen to do nothing and let things run their course; however, I do not want to be one more person who carries the burden of that decision on their conscience." Based on the foregoing arguments, the petitioner considers that fundamental rights have been violated. The petitioner requests that the writ be declared meritorious.
**2.-** By presidential order issued at 08:55 a.m. on April 16, 2026, the present writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) was admitted for processing.
**3.-** MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES AND ROY ARIAS ROJAS, in their respective capacities as mayor and president of the Municipal Council, both of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, report under oath as follows: "… The writ filed by Mr. [Nombre 001] seeks to attribute to the Municipalidad de Atenas alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from the execution of works in the public-domain streambed known as quebrada El Rastro, as well as an alleged municipal omission in the oversight, correction, and sanctioning of said works. However, such a framing misrepresents the proper scope of the amparo, as it seeks to have this Chamber examine, assess, and resolve questions of the legality or technical illegality of works carried out in a streambed. This Chamber should bear in mind that the writ is premised on alleged construction excesses and hydraulic or environmental impacts that, once confirmed, could generate administrative liability stemming from the improper conduct of authorities that are materially and legally competent — authorities other than the Municipality. The petitioner's arguments manifestly exceed the protective function of the amparo, whose purpose is neither to substitute ordinary legal channels nor to resolve complex technical disputes.
*"As demonstrated by the evidence submitted, the Municipalidad de Atenas did not grant a permit for works in a public-domain watercourse (cauce de dominio público), nor did it authorize any intervention in the public-domain watercourse. On this matter, official memorandum MAT-CCONST-017-2024, issued by the Department of Engineering and Construction, constitutes solely a municipal technical opinion regarding the absence of a need for a municipal construction license (licencia constructiva municipal), and not an authorizing act for works in a watercourse. The document's scope neither replaces nor substitutes for the required permits, does not generate individual rights (derechos subjetivos) in favor of the regulated party (administrado), and expressly conditions any intervention that the interested party may wish to carry out upon obtaining the technical approval (aval técnico) and permit from the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE. Therefore, no municipal administrative act exists that enabled the questioned works, nor one that could be deemed arbitrary or injurious to fundamental rights. Contrary to what the appellant alleges, the Municipality did act within its competency framework, diligently and in accordance with the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), in handling the citizens' requests and complaints filed, carrying out preliminary verifications without any sanctioning character, given its lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (competencia material). The Municipalidad de Atenas has formally referred the facts to the Water Directorate of MINAE by means of official memorandum MAT-GA-015-2026, requesting a specialized technical inspection and assessment. This action responds to the duty of inter-institutional coordination and to the reasonable handling of complaints, without there being any constitutional obligation to assume legally external competencies, in accordance with Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.º 276, as well as with the Executive Decree governing the functions of the Water Directorate of MINAE — regulations expressly cited in permit DA-0833-2024 itself, which clearly establishes that: Watercourses are State public-domain assets, and therefore the authorization, oversight, modification, and eventual sanctioning of interventions in watercourses falls exclusively to MINAE through the Water Directorate. Requiring the Municipalidad de Atenas to oversee, sanction, or modify works in a watercourse would compel it to act outside the principle of legality, which is constitutionally impermissible. Following the Municipality's referral of the facts, the Water Directorate of MINAE conducted a technical site inspection and determined that the works carried out did not conform to the permit granted, whereupon a total demolition order for the works in the watercourse was issued. This non-compliance with the order of the competent authority must be processed before the corresponding criminal courts (sede penal); to that end, the Ministry of the Environment has filed a complaint before the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), and it falls within the latter's authority to give it timely procedural impetus. These actions demonstrate that the public institutional framework operated in accordance with the law and that no omission remains that would warrant constitutional protection (tutela constitucional) at the municipal level. The present writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) is manifestly inadmissible insofar as it seeks to substitute the administrative channel (vía administrativa) and the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa) in order to obtain complex technical rulings in the constitutional forum; furthermore, it seeks to impute, in the constitutional forum, responsibility for a competency that the law does not assign to the Municipality. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has repeatedly held that the writ of amparo is neither a parallel legality forum nor a mechanism for correcting the actions of other competent authorities when those authorities act within the ordinary procedures provided by the legal order."* **4.-** By written submission entered into the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System of this Chamber on April 20, 2026, the appellant states the following: *"… **First:** That on March 16, 2026, the matter was brought to the attention of the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) through the corresponding district representative (síndica), who referred it to the administration for the issuance of a technical report (informe técnico). **Second:** That, pursuant to a municipal resolution, a period of ten business days was granted for the issuance of said report; however, to date no ruling has been issued by the administration. In light of the foregoing, and given the absence of information regarding the issuance of the indicated reports, the situation described is brought to the attention of this Chamber for its assessment within the present proceedings. **Third:** That on March 25, 2026, an inspection was carried out by the Water Directorate of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, and to date no official report or result of that action has been communicated. EVIDENCE FOR BETTER RESOLUTION (PRUEBA PARA MEJOR RESOLVER). **Fourth:** A photograph dated February 23, 2024 is submitted as evidence for better resolution, in which no substantial variations are observed in the conditions of the watercourse relative to the situation evidenced following the intervention of December 16, 2023, with deposited materials continuing to be present therein. The foregoing is relevant given that, as indicated in the municipal notice dated January 22, 2024, a field inspection (inspección de campo) had been carried out for that purpose."* **5.-** MARJORIE MEJÍAS VILLEGAS, in her capacity as Secretary of the Council of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, reports under oath as follows: *"… By means of this official memorandum, we hereby notify you that, based on the writ of amparo filed by Mr. [Nombre 001], ID# [Valor 003], regarding the alleged facts — as the owner of a property located in Alajuela, Atenas, 200 meters east and 25 meters south of the Courts of Justice, with said property bordering the quebrada el Rastro — this Secretary of the Municipal Council, in response thereto, sets forth the following: 1. That on May 20, 2024, by email, at 1:37 p.m., a note was received sent by Ms.* Marcela Villareal, primary district representative (síndica propietaria) for Atenas, to be included in her participation at the Ordinary Session of the Council, under section VIII, District Representatives' Report (Informe de Síndicos), of the Order of Business; the participation note and images are attached. See folio # 01 to 03. 2. That on May 20, 2024, at Ordinary Session No. 04, held in the council chambers of the Municipality of Atenas, under Article VIII, District Representatives' Report, Ms. Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, made requests related to the quebrada el Rastro, and the corresponding images were presented; the relevant resolutions (acuerdos) were adopted. See folio 04. 3. That on May 30, 2024, through official memorandum (oficio) MAT-CM-288-2024-1, PROBLEMÁTICA EN EL PUENTE DEL SUBIBAJA, QUEBRADA EL RASTRO, the resolution adopted was forwarded to the Municipal Administration via email on Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 10:34 a.m. See folios 05 to 07. 4. That on March 16, 2026, via email at 8:22 a.m., a note was received from Ms. Marcela Villareal, primary district representative for Atenas, to be included in her participation at the Ordinary Session of the Council, under section VIII, District Representatives' Report, of the Order of Business; the participation note and images are attached. See folios 08 to 12. 5. That on March 16, 2026, at Ordinary Session No. 149, held in the council chambers of the Municipality of Atenas, under Article VIII, District Representatives' Report, Ms. Marcela Villareal, district representative for the District of Atenas, made requests related to the quebrada el Rastro, and the corresponding images were presented; the relevant resolutions were adopted. See folio 13 to 14. 6. That through official memorandum MAT-CM-270-2026-1, an email dated March 23, 2026, at 15:19 p.m., was forwarded along with the corresponding resolution. See folio 15 to 18. 7. That through an email dated Monday, April 16, 2026, at 14:31 p.m., the Municipal Administration forwarded the response to official memorandum MAT-CM-270-2026, with the following attachments: MAT-GA-014-2026 ATENCIÓN AL CUIDADANO GESTIÓN SOBRE INTERVENCIÓN CAUCE QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; DA-0833-2024 EXP 1445-O PERMISO OBRA CAUCE.pdf; MAT-GA-023-2026 ATENCIÓN DE ACUERDO MAT-CM-270-2026 Y OFICIO MAT-DA-0245-2026 QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-GA-015-2026 REMISIÓN DE DENUNCIA Y SOLICITUD DE VERIFICACIÓN TÉCNICA DE OBRAS EN CAUCE – QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-DA-0280-2026. See folio 19 to 33. 8. That on April 20, 2026, at Ordinary Session No. 156, held in the council chambers of the Municipality of Atenas, under Article IV, Correspondence, Item 14, Subject: REM. RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-270-2026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS. See folio 34 to 37. 9. That on April 17, 2026, through official memorandum MAT-CM-337-2026-1, REMISION RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-270-2026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, was forwarded via email on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at 14.03 p.m., transmitting the corresponding notifications. See folio 38 to 46." **6.-** DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA testifies under oath in his capacity as A.I. DIRECTOR OF WATER OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, stating the following: "… ON THE MERITS: That through resolution DA-0833-2024, issued by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) in administrative docket (expediente administrativo) 1445-O, an in-channel construction permit (Permiso de Obra en Cauce) in a public-domain watercourse (cauce de dominio público) was granted in favor of Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., at the location identified by the appellant, for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the existing infrastructure wall, so that the hydraulic force of the quebrada El Rastro watercourse would not continue to strike or otherwise directly undermine the concrete infrastructure. That on March 12, 2026, the Directorate became aware of the formal complaint (denuncia) filed with the Directorate's officer, which was incorporated into docket 1445-O and had been submitted by the appellant; this same complaint was subsequently forwarded by the Municipality of Atenas through official memorandum MAT-GA-0015-2026 dated March 17, 2026 (GESTIÓN 08662026). That in response to the complaint regarding the works carried out, a site inspection was conducted on March 25, 2026, by officials of the Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles of the Water Directorate, in the presence of Ms. Sara Vargas Elizondo representing the complainants, municipal engineer Jeudy Ortiz Murillo, and Mr. Wilbert Castro Cubero, representative of Inversiones CYC del Oeste S.A. and owner of the property where the works were carried out; this resulted in official memorandum DA-UHTPCOSR0195-2026 of April 20, 2026, prepared by the Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles of the Water Directorate, the relevant portion of which is transcribed as follows: ( " ) Upon comparing what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024 with what was found in the field during the site inspection, it was determined that the in-channel work constructed at the site was not built in accordance with what was authorized in Resolution DA-0833-2024 of docket 1445-O, and therefore constitutes an illegal in-channel structure. From a technical standpoint, the constructed work represents an adverse impact on the flow dynamics of the public-domain watercourse, as it negatively affects the direction of flow by extending from the bank (margen) to cover part of the streambed (lecho); unlike a protection using medium-sized rocks, which increase roughness and reduce flow velocity, the concrete structure that was built has lower roughness and promotes erosive flow velocities that could affect downstream areas or the opposite bank. Furthermore, its dimensions and characteristics reduce the hydraulic cross-sectional area (área hidráulica) of the watercourse (…)." "For the foregoing reasons, INVERSIONES CYC DEL OESTE S.A., with corporate registration number (cédula jurídica) 3-101-539756, is hereby ordered to carry out the complete demolition of the wire-mesh-and-cement in-channel wall built at the site on the left bank of quebrada El Rastro, because a permit was had (sic) for this in-channel work given that it was not what was authorized in docket 1445-O.
"For the demolition of this structure within the watercourse (cauce), a non-extendable period of **8** business days is hereby granted; failing that, once the deadline has passed and the requested action has not been carried out, the State may pursue the corresponding criminal proceedings." As can be observed, in this case the Dirección de Agua has acted diligently in handling the complaint; however, the petitioner filed the writ of amparo (recurso de Amparo) on March 24 without a reasonable period having elapsed for the field visit that had been scheduled to address the complaint — a visit that, as noted, took place on March 25, 2026 — this combined with the government-decreed holiday period for Holy Week (Semana Mayor). Accordingly, this Dirección has acted in compliance with the regulations governing the matter and attended diligently to the complaint, as has been demonstrated. Likewise, in light of the situation documented through official communication DA-UHTPCOSR-0196-2026 of April 20, 2026, the complaint was referred to the Fiscalía de Atenas for appropriate action, and the Municipalidad de Atenas was notified through official communication DA-UHTPCOSR-0197-2026 of April 20, 2026 of the status of the complaint proceedings; these communications were subsequently clarified by DA-UHTPCOSR-0204-2026 and DA-UHTPCOSR-0206-2026, respectively." **7.-** In the proceedings followed, all legal prescriptions have been observed.
Opinion drafted by Magistrada **Hess Herrera**; and, **Considering:** **I.- PRELIMINARY CLARIFICATION.** Before analyzing the merits of the matter, it should be clarified that, since judgment number 2008-02545 of 08:55 hours on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred — with certain exceptions — to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa) those cases in which the question is whether the public administration has or has not complied with the timeframes reasonably established for resolving petitioners' requests, in light of the provisions of Article 41 of the Political Constitution. In the *sub lite*, precisely, an exceptional scenario arises, since this involves a complaint regarding works carried out within the watercourse of Quebrada El Rastro — involving the placement of stones, wire mesh, and cement — which allegedly obstructed and diverted the flow toward the petitioner's property, and which has allegedly not been resolved within a reasonable timeframe, placing the petitioner's personal safety at risk and potentially affecting the flow dynamics of the public-domain watercourse. Given the nature of the subject matter involved in this proceeding, this Chamber will assess any possible delays in the resolution of the complaint filed. With that point clarified, this Chamber proceeds to rule on the specific situation raised in this amparo.
**II.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL.** The petitioner reports that a neighbor carried out works within the watercourse of Quebrada El Rastro, placing stones, wire mesh, and cement, which allegedly obstructed and diverted the flow toward his property. He alleges a lack of effective action and coordination between the Municipalidad de Atenas and MINAE, despite multiple complaints and inspections. He asserts that the situation creates a risk of flooding, foul odors, stagnant water, and a threat to public health.
**III.- PROVEN FACTS.** The following facts are considered duly established as relevant to the decision in this matter:
- **AS REGARDS THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS:** a) On **May 20, 2024**, at **13:37 hours**, Ms. **Marcela Villareal**, elected district representative (síndica propietaria) of Atenas, sent an email to the Secretary of the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal), requesting that a note and images be included under the District Representatives' Report section (Informe de Síndicos) (see sworn statement and attached evidence).
That, additionally, through official communication MAT-GA-015-2026, this Municipality formally notified the Directorate of Water (Dirección de Agua), Tárcoles Hydrographic Unit (Unidad Hidrográfica Tárcoles), of the citizen complaint and requested the performance of a specialized technical verification regarding the nature, scope, and current status of the works carried out, particularly in light of allegations of possible excesses beyond the permit granted.
WHEREAS I. That pursuant to Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.° 276, watercourses (cauces) of public domain are State property, and their authorization, regulation, oversight, and control belong to the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the Directorate of Water. This jurisdictional delimitation was already set forth by this Unit in official communication MAT-GA-014-2026.
WHEREAS II. That resolution DA-0833-2024 constitutes a valid and effective administrative act that delimited the technical and legal scope of the authorized intervention, specifically for the repair of the retaining wall (muro de contención) and the placement of medium-sized rocks, which is why any potential excess, deviation, or non-compliance must be determined by the granting authority itself, and not by this Municipality.
WHEREAS III. That the municipal actions taken in this case have consisted of responding to the complaint, conducting a preliminary administrative review, issuing an institutional opinion, and formally referring the case to the competent sectoral authority, in observance of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) and the duty of inter-institutional coordination.
WHEREAS IV. That, consequently, it is neither technically nor legally appropriate for this Unit to issue a definitive declaration on the existence of environmental damage (daño ambiental), encroachment upon a watercourse, non-compliance with the permit, or administrative liability of the permit holder, pending verification and a formal ruling by the Directorate of Water.
THEREFORE On the basis of Agreement MAT-CM-270-2026, Official Communication MAT-DA-0245-2026, Articles 3, 69, and 70 of the Ley de Aguas N.° 276, and the principle of administrative legality:
FIRST: It is hereby reported that the situation complained of regarding the quebrada El Rastro was addressed by this Unit through technical-administrative analysis and formal institutional action, within the scope of municipal jurisdiction.
SECOND: It is hereby placed on record that permit DA-0833-2024, issued by the Directorate of Water of MINAE, exists with respect to the site in question, and authorizes a specific intervention on the retaining wall and the placement of medium-sized rocks in the watercourse.
THIRD: It is hereby clarified that the determination of whether the works carried out comply with the permit granted, as well as the possible existence of impacts on the watercourse or environmental damage, falls exclusively within the purview of the Directorate of Water, the authority competent for technical verification, oversight, and the adoption of legally appropriate measures.
FOURTH: It is hereby placed on record that this Municipality, in safeguarding the public interest and in response to the complaint filed, has already formally referred the facts to the competent authority through official communication MAT-GA-015-2026, requesting a specialized technical inspection and an assessment of the actual scope of the works carried out.
FIFTH: Any attribution of direct responsibility to this Administration with respect to the authorization, design, technical supervision, or material oversight of the works carried out in the watercourse is expressly rejected, as these are matters legally reserved to the competent sectoral authority.
SIXTH: The municipal agreement is hereby deemed addressed insofar as it falls within the competence of this Unit, without prejudice to any institutional follow-up that may be warranted once the Directorate of Water issues the results of the requested verification …" (see sworn report and attached evidence).
The proposed resolution: to acknowledge receipt of the document sent for the information of this council and the general public, and to refer the matter to Ms. Marcela Villareal, syndic (síndica) of Atenas and interested parties, for appropriate action. To inform the Mayor, council members, and syndics that, regarding this case, on Friday, April 17, a writ of amparo (Recurso de Amparo) was filed before the Council Secretary against this municipal body, upheld by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, granting a period of three business days for a response.
Are you in agreement, colleagues? Five votes in favor. Final and definitively approved. With waiver of committee referral (dispensa de trámite de comisión). Resolution #56 37: IT IS AGREED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENT SENT FOR THE INFORMATION OF THIS COUNCIL AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO MS. MARCELA VILLAREAL, SYNDIC OF ATENAS AND INTERESTED PARTIES FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION. DEFINITIVELY APPROVED WITH 5 VOTES IN FAVOR. FINAL. WITH WAIVER OF COMMITTEE REFERRAL. To inform the Mayor, council members, and syndics that, regarding this case, on Friday, April 17, a writ of amparo was filed before the Council Secretary against this municipal body, upheld by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, granting a period of three business days for a response. The President thanks the collaboration and notes that they will continue with the correspondence. With nothing further, the President closes the session at twenty hours and thirty-three minutes on April 20, 2026." (see sworn report and attached evidence).
- **REGARDING THE WATER DIRECTORATE OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY:** a) By means of resolution **DA-0833-2024**, issued within administrative file (expediente administrativo) **1445-O**, the Water Directorate granted to **Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A.** a permit for works in a public-domain watercourse (cauce de dominio público) on the **El Rastro** stream (quebrada), for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the existing infrastructure wall (see sworn report and attached evidence).
Furthermore, in the penultimate paragraph of page 4 of office DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026, INVERSIONES CYC DEL OESTE S.A., with legal entity number 3-101-539756, is ordered: *"To carry out the complete demolition of the in-channel work (obra en cauce) consisting of a mesh and cement wall built on site on the left bank of quebrada El Rastro, this being because a permit was had for this in-channel work since it was not what was authorized in expediente 1445-O."* The correct statement being that no permit existed for the constructed work. Clarification of office DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026: The expediente 1445-O reflects that what was requested and authorized was: The repair of a retaining wall (muro de contención) of 17.4 meters in length located on the bank of the channel of quebrada El Rastro. Permission was granted to carry out maintenance work in an artisanal manner, in order to conserve and preserve the existing infrastructure, given the level of deterioration that the wall currently exhibits due to its already expired service life. In addition, permission was granted for the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the wall infrastructure, so that the hydraulic force of the channel of quebrada El Rastro would not continue to strike or, alternatively, directly undermine the concrete infrastructure, through Office MAT-CCONST-0017-2024. Work constructed according to site visit of March 25, 2026. What was carried out on site according to the inspection of March 25 was the placement of a mesh on the left bank of quebrada El Rastro at the base of the existing wall, with rocks and cement placed on top for an approximate length of 15 meters at the base of the wall, which constitutes an impediment to the free flow of waters because it constricts the channel, negatively affecting the flow dynamics of the public-domain waterway (cauce de dominio público), since it alters the direction of flow by extending from the bank to cover part of the streambed. The in-channel work that was built has lower roughness and instead promotes erosive velocities that could affect areas downstream or the opposite bank. Furthermore, its dimensions and characteristics reduce the hydraulic cross-sectional area (área hidráulica) of the channel, limiting the free flow of waters. On the contrary, had the originally requested in-channel work been authorized in expediente 1445-O, since protection with medium-sized rocks serves to increase roughness and reduce flow velocity, this would translate into less erosion. Conclusion: Because the in-channel work built on site is not the work authorized in expediente 1445-O, and furthermore it reduces the hydraulic cross-sectional area of the channel of quebrada El Rastro, limiting the free flow of waters and potentially generating velocities that could affect the properties of third parties, these are the reasons for ordering the complete demolition of the in-channel mesh and cement wall structure on the left bank of this channel" (see sworn report and attached evidence).
IV.- ON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
Regarding the **preventive and precautionary principles** (principios preventivo y precautorio), in judgment no. 2021024807 of 9:20 hours of November 5, 2021, this Chamber stated:
"In this order of ideas, specialized doctrine has noted **that the preventive principle (principio preventivo) demands that, when there is certainty of possible environmental damage, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on compliance with certain requirements**. In general, this principle applies when there are clearly defined risks identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits that guarantee the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts. On the other hand, **the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) states that, when there is a danger of serious and irreversible harm, the lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective cost-efficient measures to prevent environmental degradation. From the above, it is noted that the principle starts from a reasonable scientific uncertainty combined with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental harm.** In general terms, a relevant difference between the preventive principle and the precautionary principle lies in the level of knowledge and certainty of the risks that an activity or work may cause. While in the former such certainty exists, in the latter what is evident is a state of doubt resulting from scientific information or technical studies (…)" (bold added).
Precisely, the precautionary principle must be understood as set forth in Principle XV of the Río Declaration on Environment and Development: *"When there is a danger of serious or irreversible harm, the lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective cost-efficient measures to prevent environmental degradation."* That is to say, this is not a matter of requiring scientific studies to arrive at 'absolute certainty' regarding the harmlessness of an activity vis-à-vis the environment (in principle, total certainty is rarely achievable), but rather that, even though the danger of serious or irreversible environmental harm may not be entirely established, such uncertainty can never justify or excuse the postponement of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In this regard, it should be noted, on one hand, that this does not concern just any type of threat — it must plausibly involve a serious danger — and, on the other, that the measure requires an effective and efficient use of the resources employed. In the stated sense, even though the precautionary principle is linked to a certain level of scientific uncertainty, this does not mean it can be applied without restriction on the grounds that any activity could cause environmental damage — which would undermine its very rationale — but rather it is necessary to have some degree of identification of the dangers of serious or irreversible harm that could be generated, the determination of which varies according to the particular circumstances of the specific case. Thus, when faced with a situation that requires the application of the precautionary principle, public entities and bodies must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new request or modification request that reasonably entails a serious risk; they are even obligated to suspend activities that are currently being carried out.
At the same time, they must efficiently and effectively adopt all measures required for the preservation of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
The aforementioned principle is likewise found in a hard law legal source, given that Principle 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — ratified by Costa Rica through law nro. 7414 of June 13, 1994, and by all OEA member states — provides:
*"3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. **Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost**. To this end, such policies and measures should take into account different socioeconomic contexts, be comprehensive, include all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, and cover all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out in cooperation between interested Parties"* (emphasis added).
The precautionary principle (principio precautorio) is also found in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which has been ratified by 32 OEA Member States, among them Costa Rica — see law nro. 8538 of August 23, 2006 — which reads:
*"**ARTICLE 1 Objective** Bearing in mind the precautionary principle enshrined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (…)".* Likewise, this principle is also found in the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by 34 OEA Member States, including Costa Rica, through law nro. 7416 of June 30, 1994, whose preamble provides: "(…) *Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of reduction or loss of biological diversity at source. Noting also that where there is a threat of substantial reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of unequivocal scientific evidence should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat* (…)".
In keeping with the aforementioned legislation in force in the country, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also addressed the precautionary principle in OC 23/17 of November 15, 2017:
*"180. (…) Therefore, this Court understands that **States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle**, for the purpose of protecting the right to life and to personal integrity, **in cases where there are plausible indicators that an activity could cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty**. States must therefore act with due caution to prevent possible harm. Indeed, in the context of the protection of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court considers that States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle, and therefore, **even in the absence of scientific certainty, must adopt measures that are "effective" in preventing serious or irreversible harm**"* (emphasis added).
Following that ruling, and by means of a judgment, in Indigenous Communities members of the Asociación Lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) vs. Argentina, the Corte IDEH ruled on February 6, 2020, as follows: *"the right to a healthy environment 'must be considered included among the rights [...] protected by article 26 of the American Convention,' given the obligation of States to achieve the 'integral development' of their peoples, which arises from articles 30, 31, 33 and 34 of the Charter"*. Of great significance, it must be underscored that, in this ruling, the Corte IDH refers to advisory opinion nro. OC-23/17 for the purpose of developing the content and scope of that right, as a result of which the legal considerations of the latter have logically come to acquire the binding legal force proper to a judgment.
In this regard, the international judicial body reiterates *"that the right to a healthy environment 'constitutes a universal interest' and 'is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,'"* and *that* *"as an autonomous right [...] it protects the components of the [...] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers, and others, as legal interests in their own right, ***even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons***. The aim is to protect nature,"* not only for its *"utility"* or *"effects"* with respect to human beings, *"but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom we share the planet."* The foregoing does not preclude, of course, the possibility that other human rights may be violated as a consequence of environmental harm (daños ambientales). It is precisely in developing the conceptualization of the right to a healthy environment (derecho al ambiente) that the Corte IDH clearly sets out states' obligations in the face of possible environmental harm, such as the duty of prevention (deber de prevención), the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the obligation of cooperation, and access to information.
In sum, the application of the precautionary principle implies that whenever there are indicators that a given activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, the absence of absolute scientific certainty or evidence on the matter does not relieve the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent a violation of the environment.
Regarding the prevention principle (principio preventivo), the first UN report on the state of international environmental law, document A/73/419 of 30 November 2018, prepared by the Secretary-General in fulfillment of the resolution of the General Assembly of 10 May 2018 (no. A/72/L.51), conceptualizes it as a normative standard of customary international law "confirmed by relevant practice in many treaties relating to the environment and the major codification projects." Now, while the aforementioned report emphasizes the prevention of transboundary harm, the truth is that this general principle of law, as duly recorded in the document '95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 and by the Corte Plena in article XIX of session no. 28-2020 of 25 May 2020), has a much broader scope; for, as a hermeneutical guide, it leads to the conclusion that *"the causes and sources of environmental problems shall be addressed in a prioritized and integrated manner, seeking to prevent the negative effects that may be produced on the environment. The criterion of prevention shall therefore prevail over any other consideration in the public and private management of the environment and natural resources."* The foregoing makes complete sense, as it is consistent with the duty to prevent the consummation of environmental harm, rather than being confined to deciding on remediation of already-confirmed harmful consequences—including by ordering the cessation of harmful effects.
This legal doctrine (instituto) is reflected, among other provisions, in articles 194.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by Costa Rica by law no. 7291) and 5 and Annex II of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (ratified by law no. 8059), as well as in constitutional case law (see judgments nos. 2021024807 of 9:20 hours on 5 November 2021 and 2018016383 of 17:00 hours on 28 September 2018, among many others) and in conventional jurisprudence—for example, in advisory opinion (opinión consultiva) no. OC-23/17 of 15 November 2017, paragraphs 127 through 174 and sub-paragraphs a) and b) of paragraph 242, and the judgment of 24 November 2022, Baraona Bray vs. Chile. Specifically, in the latter, the Corte IDH expressly states:
*"208. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in the specific field of environmental law, it must be noted that the principle of prevention of environmental harm forms part of customary international law and entails the obligation of States to carry out the measures that are necessary ex ante the occurrence of environmental harm, bearing in mind that, given its particular characteristics, it will frequently not be possible, once such harm has occurred, to restore the situation as it previously existed. By virtue of the duty of prevention, the Court has indicated that 'States are obligated to use all means at their disposal in order to prevent activities carried out under their jurisdiction from causing significant damage to the [...] environment'"*200. *This obligation must be fulfilled under a standard of due diligence (debida diligencia), which must be appropriate and proportional to the degree of risk of environmental harm*201.
On the other hand, while it is not possible to provide a detailed enumeration of all the measures that States could take in order to fulfill this duty, some measures relating to potentially harmful activities may be identified: i) regulate; ii) supervise and oversee; iii) require and approve environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental); iv) establish contingency plans; and v) mitigate damage in cases where environmental harm (daño ambiental) occurs202." For its part, the **_in dubio pro natura_** **principle** means, according to the 'World Declaration of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the Rule of Law in Environmental Matters,' that "in case of doubt, all proceedings before courts, administrative bodies, and other decision-makers shall be resolved in a manner that favors the protection and conservation of the environment, giving preference to the least harmful alternatives. Actions shall not be undertaken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived therefrom" (see principle V).
In that regard, according to the document '95 Environmental Legal Principles for an Ecologically Sustainable Development' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Ibero-American Judicial Summit‑2018 and by the Corte Plena in article XIX of session no. 28-2020 of May 25, 2020), "Every operator of environmental rules must always bear in mind the pro natura principle, pursuant to which risks shall be avoided, general collective interests shall take precedence over private ones, preservation of the environment shall be favored, and in case of doubt the interpretation that most broadly protects the environment shall be preferred." The _in dubio pro natura_ principle, then, does not depend on whether there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm — as is the case with the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) — but rather implies a "general rule of conduct governing the relationship of the State — and society in general — with the environment, applicable to all decision-making domains in which there is a risk of impact on the environment, and which requires us to avoid choosing courses of conduct that may cause harm to the environment when other options exist" (Olivares y Lucero, 2018).
Furthermore, in ruling no. 2012013367 of 11:33 hours on September 21, 2012, this Constitutional Tribunal addressed the **principles of progressivity (progresividad) and non-regression (no regresión) in environmental matters** as follows:
"**V. On the principles of progressivity and non-regression in environmental protection.** The principle of progressivity of human rights has been recognized by International Human Rights Law; among other international instruments, it is enshrined in articles 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, articles 1 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under these provisions, the State assumes the obligation to progressively increase, to the extent of its possibilities and development, the levels of protection of human rights, with particular attention to those rights — such as the right to the environment (art. 11 of the Protocol) — that require multiple positive actions by the State for their protection and full enjoyment by all their holders. From the principle of progressivity of human rights and from the principle of non-retroactivity of legal norms to the detriment of acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, enshrined in article 34 of the Constitution, the principle of non-regression (no regresividad) or irreversibility of benefits or protection already achieved is derived. This principle operates as a substantive guarantee of rights — in this case, of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment — by virtue of which the State is obligated not to adopt measures or policies, nor to enact legal norms that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the level of rights protection achieved up to that point. This principle does not entail absolute irreversibility, since all States face national circumstances of an economic, political, or social nature, or those caused by natural events, that negatively impact the achievements attained up to that point and compel a downward reassessment of the new level of protection. In such cases, Constitutional Law and the principles under examination require justification, in light of the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, for any reduction in protection levels. In this regard, the Sala Constitucional has expressed in its case law, with respect to the right to health: '…pursuant to the PRINCIPLE OF NON-REGRESSION, it is prohibited to take measures that diminish the protection of fundamental rights. Thus, if the Costa Rican State, in the interest of protecting the right to health and the right to life, has a policy of open access to medicines, it cannot — much less through an International Treaty — reduce such access and make it more restrictive, under the pretext of protecting trade. (Ruling of the Sala Constitucional Nº 9469-07). With regard to the right to the environment, it stated: "The foregoing constitutes an evolutionary interpretation in the protection of the environment pursuant to Constitutional Law, which does not admit any regression to its detriment." (Ruling of the Sala Constitucional Nº 18702-10)'. (Emphasis not in the original). (In the same vein, rulings 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745 and 2019-017397)." Thus, in accordance with the principle of progressivity, the State assumes the obligation to increase, to the extent possible, the levels of protection of human rights, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
For its part, the application of the principle of non-regression (principio de no regresión) constitutes a guarantee that constrains the State from adopting measures, policies, or rules that would worsen, without a reasonable and proportionate justification, the level of protection of fundamental rights already achieved, and which requires that, when the situation calls for it, the appropriate compensatory measures be weighed.
Finally, this Court explained the **principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental)** in the following terms:
*"With respect to the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Constitution further requires that it be 'healthy.' The requirement of being 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'successional capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements—'healthy' and 'ecologically balanced'—flows the need for sustainable and self-sustaining development; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now then, by employing the concepts of 'environment,' 'healthy,' and 'ecologically balanced,' the constitutional provision introduced science and technology into environmental decision-making, whether legislative or administrative, such that, pursuant to Articles 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, State actions in environmental matters must be grounded in, and cannot contradict, the unambiguous rules of science and technology, in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, 'greater well-being for all inhabitants of the country.' With respect to the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unambiguous rules of science and technology, the Court has called this the principle of objectification of environmental protection: "On* ***the objectification of environmental protection*** *(…)* ***it is a principle that cannot in any way be confused with the foregoing [precautionary principle (principio precautorio) or "principle of prudent avoidance"], inasmuch as, deriving from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, it translates into the need to support decision-making in this field with technical studies, both with respect to individual acts and to general-scope provisions—whether statutory or regulatory—from which the requirement of binding adherence to science and technology arises, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretionary authority in this area.*** *Consequently, based on the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact studies—if an objective technical criterion is identified indicating the probability of evident harm to the environment, natural resources, or human health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the event of a 'reasonable doubt,' it becomes mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (principio pro-natura), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures in order to adequately protect the environment." (Sala Constitucional Ruling Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)"* (emphasis added). (Resolution No.
2012-13367 at 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012).
**V.- ON THE ADVISORY OPINION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS LEGAL-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN COSTA RICA.** The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its recent Advisory Opinion **OC-32/25 del 29 de mayo de 2025**, titled **"Emergencia Climática y Derechos Humanos"** on climate change (cambio climático) and human rights, consolidated an evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights, under which the climate crisis constitutes a real, current, and growing threat to the effective exercise of multiple fundamental rights, including the right to life, health, personal integrity, access to water, food, adequate housing, and the right to a healthy environment.
It is reaffirmed that extreme climate events, ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and the increase in socio-environmental risks cannot be analyzed solely as technical or public-policy matters, but as matters subject to constitutional and conventional legal oversight, insofar as they implicate state obligations of respect, guarantee, and prevention with regard to the human rights recognized by the inter-American system.
The Court established that States party have reinforced positive duties of mitigation, adaptation, prevention of significant environmental harm, regulation of polluting activities, corporate oversight, and protection of vulnerable populations, in accordance with the **principles of precaution, prevention, progressivity, intergenerational equity, and environmental non-regression** (principios de precaución, prevención, progresividad, equidad intergeneracional y no regresión ambiental).
Additionally, the Advisory Opinion develops the *pro natura* principle, particularly from paragraphs 216 and 279 to 286, under which, when faced with several legally possible interpretations, preference must be given to the one that affords the greatest protection to nature, ecosystems, and the human rights linked to environmental balance. This hermeneutical criterion imposes on public authorities and judicial bodies a reinforced duty to interpret and apply domestic and international norms in a manner favorable to the conservation, restoration, and functional continuity of ecosystems, particularly in contexts of scientific uncertainty, risk of serious or irreversible harm, and decision-making with significant climate effects.
It is likewise recognized that the state's response to climate change requires transparent, technically grounded institutional processes oriented toward effective citizen participation, so that public decisions with environmental impact have sufficient democratic legitimacy and legal oversight.
The Advisory Opinion emphasizes that States must guarantee timely access to relevant information on climate risks, pollutant emissions, cumulative impacts, territorial vulnerability, environmental planning, and adaptation measures, as an indispensable prerequisite for the effective protection of the rights at stake.
The Court likewise highlighted the need for effective administrative and judicial remedies against state acts or omissions that favor environmental deterioration, regulatory insufficiency, or non-compliance with climate obligations, thereby strengthening access to justice in environmental matters.
For the Republic of Costa Rica, this Advisory Opinion is of particular relevance, as it is a State Party to the American Convention and has a recognized constitutional tradition in ecological matters, particularly stemming from Article 50 of the Constitución Política, which recognizes the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In the national context, this means that every decision relating to energy projects, urban expansion, public infrastructure, natural resource use, land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial), water management (gestión hídrica), coastal development, or activities with climate-related impact must also be assessed in light of the state's duty to prevent environmental and climate harm.
That obligation encompasses the need to adopt public decisions based on scientific evidence, sufficient technical studies, assessment of cumulative impacts, and consideration of present and future effects on human communities and strategic ecosystems.
The Advisory Opinion likewise reinforces the historic jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Chamber) of the Corte Suprema de Justicia of Costa Rica, which has recognized the environment as a justiciable fundamental right.
Accordingly, constitutional review (control constitucional) may be directed with greater intensity toward climate justice (justicia climática), enabling scrutiny of state omissions, regulatory inadequacy, or conduct incompatible with reasonable standards of environmental protection.
Particular attention is warranted with regard to the Inter-American emphasis on groups in a situation of vulnerability (condición de vulnerabilidad), such as indigenous peoples, coastal communities, children, older adults, and populations exposed to flooding, droughts, or territorial erosion, with respect to whom the State's duty of adaptation and protection takes on a reinforced dimension.
This carries particular significance for Costa Rica, given its geographic characteristics, its ecological wealth, the importance of its coastal zones, the protection of its forests and river basins (cuencas hidrográficas), as well as the differentiated exposure of various territories to extreme climate events.
That Advisory Opinion (Opinión Consultiva) represents a normative benchmark of high relevance that strengthens environmental protection, broadens the judicial enforceability of state climate action, and reaffirms that the defense of ecological balance constitutes an inseparable dimension of the social, democratic, and ecological State governed by the rule of law.
**VI.- REGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF INTER-ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION.** Inter-administrative coordination (coordinación interadministrativa), insofar as it ensures administrative efficiency and effectiveness, is a virtual or implied constitutional principle that permeates the entire administrative legal order and is binding on all public entities (entes públicos). It may be inter-organic — among the various bodies that make up a public entity and that are not subject to a hierarchical relationship — or inter-subjective, that is, among distinct public entities, each endowed with its own legal personality (personalidad jurídica), independent budget, autonomy, and specific competencies. The administrative or other degree of autonomy held by public entities requires them to coordinate their actions, since they cannot mutually be subjected to hierarchical relationships given their inter-organic nature. The purpose of administrative coordination is to prevent duplication and omissions in the exercise of the administrative functions of each public entity — that is, to ensure that those functions are performed in a rational and orderly manner — and it is achieved through the establishment of fluid and permanent channels of information among public entities, which may take the form of meetings, reports, or the creation of formal coordination bodies. In environmental matters, this principle takes on a differentiated character, as is reflected in what this Court stated in Sentencia No. 2012-008892 of 16:03 hours of June 27, 2012:
"(…) "III.- Coordination among public agencies must guarantee environmental protection. On numerous occasions, constitutional case law has indicated that environmental protection is a task that belongs equally to all — that is, the State, as a whole, is under an obligation to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to prevent levels of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources that endanger the health of those it governs. In this endeavor, the term 'public institution' must be understood to encompass both the Central Administration — Ministries such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which, by reason of their subject matter, bear broad participation and responsibility with respect to the conservation and preservation of the environment, and which act, in most cases, through their specialized agencies, such as the General Directorate of Wildlife, the Forest Directorate, and SETENA — as well as decentralized institutions, such as the National Housing and Urban Development Institute, the National Service of Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers; a task in which municipalities, of course, bear great responsibility with respect to their territorial jurisdiction. For this reason, one might think that this overlapping responsibility would create chaos in administrative management, but this is not the case, since — in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and nature, the duplication of national and local efforts, and the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved — it becomes necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between the latter and the municipalities, so that they may carry out the functions entrusted to them.
This Chamber previously — and quite clearly — addressed the principle of coordination (coordinación) among public agencies and municipalities in the pursuit of shared objectives — which must obviously extend to the relationship that institutions of the Central Administration and the decentralized entities bear in performing this important function — and for that purpose refers to what was stated on that occasion (ruling number 5445-99, handed down at fourteen hours thirty minutes on the fourteenth of July of nineteen ninety-nine):
"Thus, coordination is the ordering of relations among these various independent activities, which takes account of their convergence upon a single object or entity so as to make that convergence useful to an overarching public plan, without suppressing the mutual independence of the acting parties. Because there is no hierarchical relationship between decentralized institutions — nor the State itself — in relation to municipalities, it is not possible to impose specific conduct on the latter; this gives rise to the indispensable interinstitutional «agreement», in the strict sense, whereby the autonomous and independent centers of action reach consensus on that preventive and overarching framework, with each one fulfilling a role in light of a mission entrusted to the others. Accordingly, the relations between municipalities and other public entities may only take place on a footing of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, to the exclusion of any coercive arrangement that would undermine their autonomy by binding corporate entities to a coordination framework without their consent or against their will; although such relations do admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the State's interest (through the State's «administrative oversight» [tutela administrativa], and specifically through the function of reviewing legality that falls to the State, with general supervisory powers over the entire sector)." "Furthermore, failures to fulfill the duty to protect the environment and to comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional significance, because the Administration's inaction in this area can cause damage to the environment and natural resources that is sometimes comparable to or more serious in its consequences than damage arising from the Administration's affirmative acts — as is the case with authorizing master plans (planes reguladores), or authorizing construction without prior approval of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) by SETENA, or the failure by the Directorate General of Wildlife of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy to monitor and oversee the implementation of management plans (planes de manejo) for protected areas, or allowing businesses to operate without health permits with respect to the treatment of blackwater or wastewater (by the National Water and Sewer Authority [Acueductos y Alcantarillados, ICAA] and the Ministry of Health), or failing to enforce noise controls in bars, karaoke venues, and nightclubs (by municipalities and the Ministry of Health), among others (see in this regard ruling number 2006-005159, handed down at thirteen hours four minutes on the seventh of April of two thousand and six)." "In other words, what matter are the technical cooperation that the various entities can provide to one another, the technical inputs that each can contribute, and respect for each entity's respective area of competence; all with the aim of ensuring, beyond any doubt, that the impact of the projects under evaluation is not negative, and thereby guaranteeing the sustainable management of water resources (recursos hídricos) and the full exercise of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as enshrined in the constitutional provision. Accordingly, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) — which seeks to prevent or suspend any activity that could negatively affect such management — requires the Administration, first, to give notice to those affected and to interested parties, as well as to the institutions that may be involved. This is so that they may submit the corresponding arguments and technical criteria, and to ensure the effective participation of the competent bodies in the field in order to protect and preserve the environment and water resources. And it requires, second, that the Administration take into account any warnings issued by an institution legally empowered to protect water resources regarding the risk of contamination (…)." VII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the specific case, the proven facts show that the controversy is not limited to a simple administrative disagreement over the scope of a permit for works in a streambed (permiso de obra en cauce), but rather involves the possible direct impact on a public-domain (dominio público) asset — the quebrada El Rastro — as well as the potential threat to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. That provision not only establishes every person's right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also imposes on the State the affirmative duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve it. Furthermore, it grants every person standing to report acts that infringe upon that right and to seek redress for any harm caused.
In that regard, the Chamber finds that, given the material intervention within a public-domain watercourse channel (cauce de dominio público), the required State action cannot be limited to receiving complaints, issuing official communications, or referring the matter to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público).
Such actions may be necessary, but they are not sufficient when the competent technical authority itself has already established that the work carried out does not correspond to what was authorized, that it was performed without the required permit under the terms in which it was built, and that it negatively affects the hydraulic dynamics of the watercourse (cauce). According to the established facts, the Dirección de Agua was made aware of the complaint, conducted an inspection on 25 March 2026, concluded on 20 April 2026 that the structure that had been built did not correspond to what was authorized under resolution DA-0833-2024, classified it as illegal, and ordered the complete demolition of the wire-mesh-and-cement wall within a non-extendable period of eight business days.
It must be recalled that waters in the public domain (dominio público), as well as the beds of public-domain watercourses, belong to the Nation. The Ley de Aguas establishes that, among other assets, the beds of public-domain watercourses are national property. Likewise, Reglamento Ejecutivo N.º 44410-MINAE recognizes that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is the entity that holds title to and governs water resources at the national level, and that this function is exercised through its technical body, the Dirección de Agua, particularly with respect to applications and permits for in-channel works. Consequently, once the existence of an unauthorized structure within the watercourse has been technically established, the Dirección de Agua is not merely empowered but obligated to adopt real, effective, and timely measures to restore environmental legality and protect the affected public-domain asset (bien demanial).
The record further shows that the originally authorized work did not consist in the construction of a wire-mesh-and-cement wall, but rather in artisanal maintenance work on an existing wall and the placement of medium-sized rocks at the base of the structure. On the contrary, the Dirección de Agua's inspection determined that a wire mesh had been placed on the left bank of the quebrada El Rastro, with rocks and cement on top extending approximately fifteen meters, which constricts the watercourse, prevents the free flow of water, reduces the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica), and can generate erosive velocities causing damage to third parties' land. This technical finding is of particular constitutional relevance, as it transforms the matter into a concrete and present threat to the environment, to the public watercourse, and potentially to the safety of those who live or travel in the area.
From this perspective, it is constitutionally impermissible for the Dirección de Agua to limit itself to asserting that it filed a criminal complaint or that it brought the facts to the attention of other authorities. The criminal avenue may determine personal liability for the possible commission of environmental crimes, but it does not substitute the immediate administrative duty to restore the watercourse, prevent further damage, and bring to an end a material situation that the Dirección de Agua itself classified as illegal and harmful to flow dynamics. Environmental amparo (amparo ambiental) requires a useful, prompt, and effective response—not merely a formal act. The protection afforded by constitutional Article 50 has a preventive, corrective, and restorative dimension, especially when public-domain assets and risks related to water resources are involved.
The Ley General de la Administración Pública provides the legal instruments necessary to give effect to that order. Article 146 provides that the Administration has the power to enforce, on its own and without resorting to the courts, effective administrative acts—whether valid or voidable—even against the will or resistance of the obligated party. Similarly, Article 149 establishes substitute enforcement (ejecución sustitutiva) as a means of administrative execution, applicable when the obligation can be fulfilled by a third party in place of the obligated party, with the costs remaining at the latter's expense. The demolition of an illegal wire-mesh, cement, and rock structure within a public watercourse is precisely an obligation that can be fulfilled by a third party—technical personnel, a contractor, an institutional work crew, or municipal support—and it is therefore legally appropriate to resort to that mechanism if the obligated party fails to comply voluntarily.
That said, administrative enforcement must be carried out in accordance with the principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. Article 150 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública requires that enforcement not take place prior to proper notification of the principal act, and that, except in cases of urgency, it be preceded by two consecutive formal notices (intimaciones), with a clear statement of the compliance requirement, the applicable coercive measure, and a reasonable period within which to carry out what has been ordered. This means that the Dirección de Agua is not authorized to act in an improvised or arbitrary manner; however, it is legally empowered and constitutionally obligated to move from the formal demolition order to the effective execution of the measure if the private party fails to comply.
In the case under examination, such physical enforcement must include, at minimum: verification that the deadline granted to the regulated party has expired; issuance of the applicable formal notices—unless an urgency due to environmental or safety risk is technically justified; preparation of a technical removal plan; determination of the demolition method; proper handling of debris; adoption of measures to prevent further damage to the watercourse; and documentation of the enforcement through official records (actas), photographs, georeferencing, and technical reports. If the obligated party or third parties offer resistance, the Administration may request the assistance of the Fuerza Pública within strictly necessary limits, as the Ley General de la Administración Pública contemplates police assistance to enforce compulsory compliance and prohibits violent resistance to the execution of an administrative act.
Nor can the duty of inter-institutional coordination be overlooked. The Municipalidad de Atenas is not the primary technical authority for authorizing, overseeing, or determining non-compliance with in-channel works, as that competence belongs to the Dirección de Agua.
However, this does not mean that the Municipality may disengage from the situation when a waterway (cauce) is located within its canton, with possible effects on local interests, neighborhood residents, community safety, and the environment. Article 169 of the Political Constitution assigns to the Municipal Government the administration of the local interests and services of the canton. Furthermore, administrative regulations recognize the principle of institutional and inter-institutional coordination, pursuant to which public entities and bodies must act in a coordinated manner with one another, exchanging information and providing cooperation for the resolution of matters brought before them.
Accordingly, the Sala considers that the Municipalidad de Atenas must assist the Dirección de Agua, within the framework of its competencies, material capabilities, and institutional resources, so that the demolition order does not remain a mere formal declaration. Such collaboration may include logistical support, municipal environmental management assistance, road or community coordination, assistance in the removal of materials, provision of municipal machinery where technically necessary and legally viable, as well as any other reasonable action that allows the measure to be carried out without aggravating environmental damage or endangering persons. This collaboration does not displace the Dirección de Agua's leading competence, but it does give effect to the constitutional duty of cooperation among public administrations in the face of an environmental threat localized within the canton.
Consequently, given that the Dirección de Agua has already verified that the structure constricts the waterway, reduces the hydraulic cross-section (área hidráulica), restricts the free flow of waters, and may cause harm to third parties, the constitutionally appropriate response cannot be institutional passivity or indefinite waiting for the outcome of a criminal complaint. The Administration has sufficient powers to enforce its own acts, employ substitute execution (ejecución sustitutiva), coordinate with other institutions, recover costs from the offender, and adopt the technical measures necessary to restore the waterway to the public domain (dominio público). Failure to timely activate those mechanisms would perpetuate environmental harm and leave without effective protection the right recognized in constitutional Article 50.
For all the foregoing reasons, the writ is granted. The Dirección de Agua of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is ordered to verify compliance with the demolition order issued against Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A., and in the event of non-compliance, to immediately activate the administrative enforcement mechanisms set forth in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, including substitute execution, at the expense of the party obligated to comply, following the corresponding notices or, where technically warranted, upon establishing urgency. Likewise, it shall coordinate with the Municipalidad de Atenas, the Fuerza Pública, and all other competent institutions regarding the physical execution of the demolition, the removal of debris, and the adoption of restoration or stabilization measures necessary to guarantee the free flow of waters and prevent additional damage to the waterway of the quebrada El Rastro.
Likewise, the Municipalidad de Atenas is ordered to provide the inter-institutional collaboration necessary for the effective enforcement of the measure, without assuming the technical competencies that belong to the Dirección de Agua, including, where necessary and technically viable, support with machinery, personnel, municipal logistics, or local environmental management, all under the technical direction of the competent authority in matters of waterways. This ensures an effective, coordinated, and proportionate response to the reported harm, protects the public hydraulic domain (dominio público hidráulico), and restores the enjoyment of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
**VIII.- NOTE BY MAGISTRATE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ, REGARDING PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.** I have supported this Tribunal's position that when a party alleges a violation of the right to prompt and effective justice (justicia pronta y cumplida) in administrative proceedings, the legal dispute must be heard by the Administrative Courts (Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo) and not by this Sala. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, it has been established that this right is subject to judicial protection through the amparo remedy (recurso de amparo) provided by Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in relation to Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the Administration's material acts, administrative decisions, or responses are affecting his or her fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not require this Tribunal to modify its jurisprudential line, since it is this body that, pursuant to Article 7 of its governing Law, has the exclusive authority to define its own jurisdiction. Therefore, except for those constitutional-law disputes that this same Sala has recognized as exceptional cases — which may properly be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo guarantee proceeding — in all other cases, and for the reasons given by this Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), jurisdiction lies with the judges of the administrative courts, all of which is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Constitutional Law (values, principles, and norms), and the applicable statutory provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
**IX.- NOTE BY MAGISTRATE SALAZAR ALVARADO.** As a matter of principle, I hold that cases involving action or inaction by the Public Administration regarding the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure works should be dismissed, because such omission constitutes a question of legality, the discussion of which belongs to the ordinary courts, before which the interested party may argue its grievances more broadly. However, when such administrative conduct — whether by omission or otherwise — gives rise to a violation of other fundamental rights protected under this constitutional jurisdiction, or affects groups considered vulnerable, I do proceed to decide the case on the merits, as this situation constitutes an exception to my position on this matter. This is precisely the case here, where the petitioning party claims to have reported to the Municipalidad de Atenas and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía the alteration and obstruction of the Quebrada El Rastro; however, those reports have gone unaddressed, placing the physical safety of community residents in danger.
**X.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE.** The parties are hereby notified that if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, information-technology, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, such materials must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within that period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial número 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
**Por tanto:** The writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) is granted. DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, in his capacity as ACTING DIRECTOR OF WATER OF THE MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA, or whoever may hold that position in his place, is hereby ordered to ensure that, within a period of **THREE MONTHS** counted from notification of this judgment, the demolition ordered by official communication No. DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026 is carried out, that proper removal of the debris is guaranteed, and that the technical measures necessary for restoring the streambed (cauce) are adopted, ensuring the free flow of waters and the prevention of additional harm — all of which must be reported to this Court within the same period. Likewise, MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES and ROY ARIAS ROJAS, respectively mayor and president of the Municipal Council, both of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, or whoever may hold those positions in their place, are hereby ordered to **IMMEDIATELY** arrange — with the officials of the Dirección de Agua of MINAE, within the scope of their powers and capabilities — the inter-institutional cooperation necessary for the effective execution of said demolition. The respondent authorities are 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 issued in a writ of amparo that must be complied with or enforced, and fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely penalized elsewhere. The State and the Municipalidad de Atenas are ordered to pay the costs and damages (costas, daños y perjuicios) caused by the facts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in the enforcement proceedings before the administrative court (ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo). Magistrate Castillo Víquez files a separate note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado files a note. Notify.
- Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.
The content you submitted does not contain a Spanish legal document excerpt to translate. It consists of:
1. **Base64-encoded JPEG image data** — two very long binary-encoded image strings embedded in HTML `<img>` tags. 2. **HTML markup** — `<p>`, `<span>`, `<tr>`, `<td>` tags with style attributes. 3. **One short proper name** — "Paul Rueda L." (which would be preserved verbatim as a Costa Rican person name in any case).
There is no Spanish legal text present in this chunk.
Please paste the **plain text** of the legal document excerpt you would like translated, and I will translate it faithfully according to the instructions provided.
Luis Fdo.
Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- **EXPEDIENTE N° 26-010510-0007-CO** Telephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
Revisión del Documento Res. Nº 2026017035 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del quince de mayo de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente N° 26-010510-0007-CO, interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS Y EL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA.
Resultando:
1.- Por escrito agregado al Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales de esta Sala el 24 de marzo de 2026, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS Y EL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA. Manifiesta que es propietario de la finca inscrita en el Registro Inmobiliario, Partido de Alajuela matricula número 140858, ubicada en Alajuela, Atenas, 200 metros al este y 25 al sur de los Tribunales de Justicia y, su propiedad colinda con la quebrada El Rastro, la cual separa su propiedad de la finca inscrita en el Registro Inmobiliario, Partido de Alajuela matricula número 247646, ubicada en Alajuela, Atenas, 175 metros al este de los Tribunales de Justicia, propiedad de Inversiones C y C del Oeste Sociedad Anónima. El dueño tiene un galerón donde funciona un negocio de venta de cerámica, el cual atiende personalmente, los dos inmuebles citados colindan con la quebrada el rastro y tienen construido muro de aproximadamente 40 años. Señala que "Segundo: el día viernes 26 de marzo del año 2021, desde tempranas horas de la mañana, por la finca propiedad de la representada del señor Wilber Castro Cubero, bajaron varios señores y se encontraban sacando piedras del piso de la quebrada con macanas y las acomodaban en el muro de dicha propiedad, llamé a la municipalidad y enviaron al encargado de la oficina de la Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Atenas, el cual se apersonó y les llamó la atención, por lo que la situación no pasó a más. Tercero: el día sábado 16 de diciembre del año 2023, desde tempranas horas de la mañana, el señor Wilber Castro, vuelve a realizar trabajos dentro de la quebrada, esta vez vertiendo desde el muro de su propiedad, que junto con la malla puede medir unos 3 metros de altura, gran cantidad de rocas, algunas de tamaño considerable, sellándolas luego con mezcla de cemento. Por ser fin de semana, se llama a la Delegación Policial para que levante una acta de los hechos, en la cual se indica que se observa a varios señores trabajando con el señor Wilber Castro, y tirando una cantidad "considerada" de piedras al río, incluso se afirma que el soporte lo hacen en el paredón en ambos lados (ver acta) el lunes 18 se le hace ver a la municipalidad sobre los hechos ocurridos, para el 20 de diciembre, ya el Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcción y la Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Atenas, conocían de la situación, ya que el encargado de ese departamento, señor Fabián Méndez Marín, vía WhatsApp le indicó a mi esposa, Sara Vargas Elizondo el día 20 de diciembre del año 2023, lo que textualmente dice: "a nuestro criterio personal si está dentro del cauce"... (aporto captura de pantalla), todo esto lo hizo el señor Wilber sin permiso alguno, también mi esposa llamó a la oficina del MINAE de Alajuela, el día 17 de enero del 2024, indicándosele que para el día siguiente, sea 18, tenían giras programadas para Atenas, que llegarían a inspeccionar, en efecto llegaron, los atendió mi esposa y le tomaron los datos, tanto a ella como al vecino, señor Eduardo Ávila Rincón, para que fueran de testigos, porque ellos presentaron la denuncia ante la fiscalía, de eso han pasado ya, dos años y tres meses y nunca los han llamado a declarar, lo que me hace suponer que no existe tal denuncia, aporto fotografías y videos de los trabajos realizados el 16 de diciembre del año 2023. Cuarto: el día 7 de marzo del año 2026, igualmente, a tempranas horas de la mañana y día sábado, el señor Wilber Castro, vuelve a realizar trabajos dentro de la quebrada, esta vez, colocando mallas, más rocas y mezcla de cemento, en prácticamente todo el cauce de la quebrada, construyó un talud con todos estos materiales, con un declive considerable, desviando por completo el cauce hacia el muro de mi propiedad (aporto fotografías donde se aprecia la colocación de mallas) para el lunes 9 de marzo, pongo en aviso a la municipalidad y a la fecha no han venido a inspeccionar, siendo que el señor Wilber Castro ostenta un permiso otorgado por la Dirección de Agua del Minae, basado en requerimiento que hiciera el representante del Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcción de la Municipalidad de Atenas, señor Fabián Méndez Marín, aun conociendo este señor la ilegalidad en que había incurrido el señor Wilber Castro al realizar obras en el cauce sin el debido permiso, debió negar el requerimiento fundamentando su actuar en el principio de probidad y poniendo el interés público sobre el interés particular, el referido permiso se tramitó bajo el expediente electrónico de obra en cauce, numero: 1445-O, la segunda invasión se da el día 16 de diciembre del año 2023, y la fecha del requerimiento es del día 22 de enero del año 2024, sea, un mes después de que se dan los hechos, en dicho requerimiento (oficiomat-cconst-0172024, ver expediente 1445 de obra en cause de la dirección de aguas, el cual se aporta) el señor Fabián Méndez dice que realiza la inspección de campo y describe el muro, pero, nunca indica que el cauce ya se encuentra invadido en una buena parte. Esto puede inducir a error al ingeniero que emitió el aval técnico en caso de que este último no realizara ningún tipo de inspección, también se indica, que la municipalidad tiene conocimiento de las obras mencionadas refiriéndose, según se desprende del texto, únicamente a las obras originales, las de construcción del muro como tal, no a las ejecutadas por el señor Wilber Castro,por otra parte, el citado requerimiento dice en lo que interesa: ..."debe cumplir como mínimo con los siguientes requisitos: 1-Aval técnico por parte de la autoridad de Dirección de Agua del Minae. 2-la Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Atenas debe conocer el proceso en todos sus extremos … " en cuanto al aval técnico de la Dirección de Agua del Minae, según me informaron en el Departamento Legal de esa entidad, lo emitió el Ingeniero: Ignacio Campos, en dicho informe técnico (ver da-uhtpcosr-0103-2024, el cual consta en expediente: 1445-o, el cual se aporta) en el apartado correspondiente a la justificación de la obra, se indica: ..."por requerimiento de la Municipalidad de Atenas...", ahí se arrastra la irresponsabilidad en un asunto tan delicado donde se pone en riesgo a una buena parte de la población, ya que esta quebrada es un curso de agua que atraviesa diversas partes del área del centro de Atenas, extendiéndose por varios sectores de la zona urbana, cabe destacar, que a pocos metros de la obstrucción pasa un puente, cuyo diámetro es muy reducido, lo que puede ocasionar que aguas arriba se den desbordamientos que pongan en peligro la vida de las personas. Quinto. Ante todo lo anteriormente apuntado, envié un correo a la Dirección de Agua, explicando la situación y solicitando una inspección urgente, y que se corroborara si las obras realizadas por el señor Wilber castro, coincidían con lo permitido en el permiso, en la contestación del correo, se indica, que han archivado la correspondencia y que la han remitido al expediente 1445-O para que sea atendido por Ignacio Campos, quien fue precisamente el profesional que emitió el aval técnico para la obtención del permiso de obra en cauce del señor Wilber Castro. (aporto correo electrónico) Sexto: todas las entidades involucradas se pasan la responsabilidad unas a otras, y a la fecha no hemos obtenido una respuesta objetiva a la problemática aquí expuesta. y para que quede aún más en evidencia la ineptitud de algunas entidades, el día 18 de marzo de 2026, en horas de la mañana se apersonaron dos funcionarios de la oficina del Minae de Alajuela, uno de ellos habló con mi esposa y lo único que le dijo fue que, ya habían ido a hablar con el señor y que tiene un permiso, a lo que ella le indicó si tenían conocimiento del alcance del permiso en relación a la obra realizada, contestándole que entonces tenía que dirigirse a la Dirección de Agua. Por lo que se ve, no leyeron el permiso, mi esposa le indicó, que entonces no había más que hablar, nunca dijeron que querían pasar a inspeccionar, en todo caso, si visitaron al señor Wilber, debieron hacer la inspección por el lado de su propiedad, por el puente también se aprecia ya que, está muy cerca. Actualmente no está corriendo agua por el cauce, se ha acumulado al lado arriba debido a la obstrucción del mismo, las aguas estancadas emanan malos olores, y además, constituye un foco propicio para la proliferación del mosquito transmisor del dengue lo que pone en peligro la salud y la vida de las personas, especialmente bebes, niños, ancianos y personas con condiciones médicas preexistentes, cabe resaltar que a unos 100 metros de distancia existe una guardería infantil y a 200 metros se ubica el hogar de ancianos de la localidad. Sétimo. por otra parte, cómo es posible que se le solicite a la Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la municipalidad vía correo electrónico, la emisión de una constancia que incluya las inspecciones realizadas y todas las actividades llevadas a cabo, ni siquiera hacen mención alguna al asunto (aporto correo y oficio). de esta manera se desentienden completamente de su responsabilidad en el caso, lo que me hace sospechar que no lleva ningún registro, muy lamentable que esto suceda en la función pública, la denuncia era de su conocimiento, independientemente de la vía por la que se transmitió, por otra parte, las entidades aquí recurridas deben establecer y mantener una coordinación efectiva entre sí, ya que se trata de asuntos relacionados con bienes de dominio público, cuyo cuidado y gestión requieren de la colaboración conjunta de las entidades competentes. En el oficio: MAT-GA-0014-2026, emitido por el señor Jeudy Ortiz, el cual se aporta, propiamente en el numeral tercero con el subtítulo: "Sobre la participación municipal" dicho señor afirma que la participación municipal se limita a funciones de coordinación institucional, atención de denuncias ciudadanas y eventual comunicación de hechos a las autoridades competentes, pero, sin ninguna responsabilidad, al menos en el caso que nos ocupa, la coordinación y comunicación que se ha intentado dar, ha sido por causa de la revelación que he realizado de la situación a las diferentes entidades motivado por esta última invasión del cauce de la quebrada, de ahí para atrás no hubo ninguna gestión tendiente a dar una solución por parte de las entidades competentes. obviando el interés público. Ante todo esto me permito preguntar: _ ¿Es función de la municipalidad emitir requerimientos para obtención de permisos en otras entidades, existiendo una ilegalidad sin resolver? (el acto del 16 de diciembre de 2023, fue y es total y absolutamente ilegal, porque el señor Wilber Castro no contaba con el permiso correspondiente) Si la Unidad de Gestión Ambiental de la municipalidad hubiera notificado a la Oficina del Minae de Alajuela, y esta a su vez a la Dirección de Agua, como ya lo indiqué, por tratarse de bienes de dominio público, por ser un caso de interés público y por tratarse de obras realizadas ilegalmente por no contar el señor Wilber con el permiso correspondiente, hoy no estaríamos ante esta problemática, ya que, el requerimiento municipal no habría tenido efecto o se le habría dado un tratamiento más responsable al asunto. Octavo. La quebrada El Rastro presenta un caudal considerable de agua en épocas de lluvia, por lo que la obstrucción de su cauce con los materiales depositados representa un riesgo significativo para la población de la zona, al aumentar la probabilidad de inundaciones y desbordamientos que podrían afectar viviendas, vías y poner en peligro la vida de las personas, no es válido esperar a ver qué pasa, porque el asunto es apremiante, nadie está en contra de que el señor asegure su muro, pero, que lo haga ajustado a las normas que rigen esa materia, con responsabilidad y en consideración por las demás personas. Además, de que esa parte del muro de la propiedad de este señor se encuentra cubierto en su base y más allá, por piedras, mallas, cemento vertido desde arriba hacia el cause, es un trabajo que no cuenta con ninguna norma técnica, no queda bien adherida la mezcla de cemento por falta de compactación y, al estar cubierto desde su base se hace imposible la inspección regular para comprobar el estado de sus cimientos, pudiendo darse un colapso del muro, el cual, según el citado requerimiento municipal, tiene una altura de 2.5 metros. El señor Wilber Castro, tras cometer un evidente abuso del permiso otorgado, generó en el lugar una situación de riesgo inminente. Ante el cansancio y desgaste que genera esta incertidumbre, no jurídica, porque las leyes existen y están para ordenar y proteger, sino, de la inaplicabilidad de las mismas, pude optar por no hacer nada y dejar que las cosas caigan por su propio peso, pero, no quiero ser uno más de los que lleven cargos en su conciencia". Con base en los alegatos expuestos, estima que se han vulnerado derechos fundamentales. Solicita se declare con lugar el recurso.
2.- Por resolución de presidencia de las 08:55 horas del 16 de abril de 2026, se le dio curso al presente amparo.
3.- Informan bajo juramento MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES Y ROY ARIAS ROJAS, por su orden alcalde y presidente del Concejo, ambos de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, quienes manifiesta lo siguiente: “… El recurso formulado por el señor [Nombre 001] pretende atribuir a la Municipalidad de Atenas supuestas violaciones a derechos fundamentales, derivadas de la ejecución de obras en el cauce de dominio público denominado quebrada El Rastro, así como de una alegada omisión municipal en la fiscalización, corrección y sanción de dichas obras, sin embargo, tal planteamiento desnaturaliza el ámbito propio del recurso de amparo, pues procura que esta Sala examine, valore y resuelva asuntos de legalidad o ilegalidad técnica de una obra en cauce. Debe tomar en cuenta esta Sala que el recurso se plantea por los supuestos excesos constructivos y afectaciones hidráulicas o ambientales, que podrían generar posterior a su comprobación, responsabilidades administrativas, por la incorrecta actuación de autoridades material y legalmente competentes distintas a la Municipalidad, los alegatos del recurrente exceden de manera evidente la función tutelar del amparo, cuyo objeto no es sustituir las vías ordinarias ni dirimir controversias técnicas complejas. Como se demuestra en la prueba ofrecida, la Municipalidad de Atenas no otorgó permiso de obra en cauce, ni autorizó intervención alguna sobre el cauce de dominio público, sobre este asunto el oficio MAT-CCONST-017-2024, emitido por el Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcción, constituye únicamente un criterio técnico municipal referido a la inexistencia de necesidad de licencia constructiva municipal, y no un acto autorizante de obra en cauce, el alcance del documento no suple ni sustituye permisos necesarios, no genera derechos subjetivos a favor del administrado, condiciona expresamente cualquier intervención que el interesado quiera efectuar a la obtención del aval técnico y permiso de la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, de tal manera que no existe acto administrativo municipal que haya habilitado la obra cuestionada ni que pueda reputarse arbitrario o lesivo de derechos fundamentales. Contrario a lo alegado por la parte recurrente, la Municipalidad sí actuó dentro de su marco competencial, de forma diligente y conforme al principio de legalidad, al atender las gestiones y denuncias ciudadanas presentadas, realizando verificaciones preliminares sin carácter sancionador, por carecer de competencia material. La Municipalidad de Atenas ha remitido formalmente los hechos a la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, mediante el oficio MAT-GA-015-2026, solicitando inspección y valoración técnica especializada, esta actuación responde al deber de coordinación interinstitucional y a la atención razonable de las denuncias, sin que exista obligación constitucional de asumir competencias legalmente ajenas de conformidad con los artículos 3, 69 y 70 de la Ley de Aguas N.º 276, así como con el Decreto Ejecutivo que regula las funciones de la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, normativa expresamente citada en el propio permiso DA-0833-2024 que establece de manera clara que: Los cauces son bienes de dominio público del Estado, por lo que la autorización, fiscalización, modificación y eventual sanción por intervenciones en cauces corresponde exclusivamente al MINAE, por medio de la Dirección de Agua. Exigir a la Municipalidad de Atenas que fiscalice, sancione o modifique obras en cauce supondría obligarla a actuar fuera del principio de legalidad, lo cual resulta constitucionalmente inadmisible. Tras la remisión municipal de los hechos la Dirección de Agua del MINAE realizó inspección técnica del sitio y determinó que las obras ejecutadas no se ajustaban al permiso otorgado, por lo que se dictó una orden de demolición total de la obra en cauce, este incumplimiento de la orden de la autoridad competente debe procesarse en la sede penal correspondientes, para ello el Ministerio de Ambiente ha presentado la denuncia ante el Ministerio Público y corresponde a su competencia darle impulso procesal oportuno. Estas actuaciones evidencian que la institucionalidad pública funcionó conforme a derecho y que no subsiste omisión alguna que amerite tutela constitucional en sede municipal. El presente recurso resulta manifiestamente improcedente en cuanto pretende sustituir la vía administrativa y la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa, para obtener pronunciamientos técnicos complejos en sede constitucional, además pretende la imputación en sede constitucional de responsabilidades por una competencia que la ley no le atribuye. La Sala Constitucional ha reiterado que el recurso de amparo no es una instancia paralela de legalidad ni un mecanismo para corregir la actuación de autoridades competentes distintas, cuando estas actúan dentro de los procedimientos ordinarios previstos por el ordenamiento jurídico.”.
4.- Por escrito agregado al Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales de esta Sala el 20 de abril de 2026, el recurrente manifiesta lo siguiente: “… Primero: Que en fecha 16 de marzo de 2026, el asunto fue puesto en conocimiento del Concejo Municipal, por medio de la síndica correspondiente, el cual dispuso su traslado a la administración para la emisión de informe técnico. Segundo: Que, según acuerdo municipal, se otorgó un plazo de diez días hábiles para la emisión de dicho informe respectivo; sin embargo, a la fecha no se tiene conocimiento de la emisión de pronunciamiento alguno, por parte de la administración. En virtud de lo anterior, y ante la ausencia de información sobre la emisión de los informes indicados, se pone en conocimiento de esta Sala la situación descrita, a efectos de su valoración dentro del presente proceso. Tercero: Que en fecha 25 de marzo de 2026 se realizó inspección por parte de la Dirección de Aguas del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, sin que a la fecha se haya comunicado informe o resultado oficial de dicha actuación. PRUEBA PARA MEJOR RESOLVER. Cuarto: Se aporta como prueba para mejor resolver fotografía de fecha 23 de febrero de 2024, en la cual no se observan variaciones sustanciales en las condiciones del cauce respecto de la situación evidenciada con posterioridad a la intervención del 16 de diciembre de 2023, manteniéndose la presencia de materiales depositados en el mismo. Lo anterior resulta relevante considerando que, según se indicó en el requerimiento municipal de fecha 22 de enero de 2024, para ese efecto, se había realizado una inspección de campo.”.
5.- Informa bajo juramento MARJORIE MEJÍAS VILLEGAS, en su condición de Secretaria del Concejo de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, quien señala lo siguiente: “… Mediante el presente oficio nos permitimos notificarle que con base al recurso de amparo planteado por la Sr. [Nombre 001], céd# [Valor 003], ante los hechos alegados siendo este propietario de propiedad ubicada en Alajuela, Atenas, 200 metros al este y 25 al sur de los Tribunales de Justicia y su propiedad que colinda con la quebrada el Rastro, por lo que esta Secretaria del Concejo Municipal, en respuesta a este nos permitimos señalar lo siguiente: 1. Que en fecha 20 de mayo 2024, vía correo electrónico, a la 13:37 pm, se recibe nota enviada por la Sra. Marcela Villareal, Sindica propietaria de Atenas, para que esta sea incluida en su participación de la Sesión Ordinaria del Concejo, en el apartado del VIII Informe de Síndicos del Orden del día, se adjuntan la nota de participación e imágenes. Ver folio # 01 al 03. 2. Que en fecha 20 de mayo del 2024, en la Sesión Ordinaria N 04, celebrada en el salón de sesiones de la Municipalidad de Atenas, en el Articulo VIII, Informe de Síndicos, la Sra. Marcela Villareal, Sindica por el Distrito de Atenas, se permite realizar solicitudes relacionadas con la quebrada el Rastro, y se realiza la presentación de las imágenes, se toman los acuerdos correspondientes, Ver folio 04. 3. Que en fecha 30 de mayo del 2024, mediante oficio MAT-CM-288-2024-1, PROBLEMÁTICA EN EL PUENTE DEL SUBIBAJA, QUEBRADA EL RASTRO, se traslada el acuerdo tomado y dirigido a la Administración Municipal, mediante correo electrónico en fecha jueves 30 de mayo de 2024, a las 10:34 am. Ver folios 05 al 07. 4. Que en fecha 16 de marzo 2026, vía correo electrónico, a la 08:22 am, se recibe nota enviada por la Sra. Marcela Villareal, Sindica propietaria de Atenas, para que esta sea incluida en su participación de la Sesión Ordinaria del Concejo, en el apartado del VIII Informe de Síndicos del Orden del día, se adjuntan la nota de participación e imágenes. Ver folios 08 al 12. 5. Que en fecha 16 de marzo del 2026, en la Sesión Ordinaria N 149, celebrada en el salón de sesiones de la Municipalidad de Atenas, en el Articulo VIII, Informe de Síndicos, la Sra. Marcela Villareal, Sindica por el Distrito de Atenas, se permite realizar solicitudes relacionadas con la quebrada el Rastro, y se realiza la presentación de las imágenes, se toman los acuerdos correspondientes. Ver folio 13 al 14. 6. Que mediante el oficio MAT-CM-270-2026-1, se traslada correo electrónico de fecha 23 de marzo de 2026, a las 15:19 pm, se traslada el acuerdo correspondiente. Ver folio 15 al 18. 7. Que mediante correo electrónico de fecha lunes 16 de abril de 2026, a las 14:31 pm, la administración Municipal, se traslada la respuesta al oficio MAT-CM-270-2026, con los siguientes adjuntos: MAT-GA-014-2026 ATENCIÓN AL CUIDADANO GESTIÓN SOBRE INTERVENCIÓN CAUCE QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; DA-0833-2024 EXP 1445-O PERMISO OBRA CAUCE.pdf; MAT-GA-023-2026 ATENCIÓN DE ACUERDO MAT-CM-270-2026 Y OFICIO MAT-DA-0245-2026 QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-GA-0152026 REMISIÓN DE DENUNCIA Y SOLICITUD DE VERIFICACIÓN TÉCNICA DE OBRAS EN CAUCE – QUEBRADA EL RASTRO.pdf; MAT-DA-0280-2026 Ver folio 19 al 33. 8. Que en fecha 20 de abril de 2026, en la Sesión Ordinaria N 156, celebrada en el salón de sesiones de la Municipalidad de Atenas, en el Articulo IV Correspondencia, Inciso 14, Asunto: REM. RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-2702026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, Ver folio 34 al 37. 9. Que en fecha 17 de abril del 2026, mediante oficio MAT-CM-337-2026-1, REMISION RESP. ADM. OFIC. MAT-CM-270-2026, REMISIÓN DE PETICIONES MARCELA VILLAREAL -SÍNDICA DE ATENAS, se traslada vía correo electrónico con fecha miércoles 22 de abril de 2026, a las 14.03 pm, se trasladan las notificaciones correspondientes, Ver folio 38 al 46.”.
6.- Informa bajo juramento DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, en su condición de DIRECTOR A.I. DE AGUA DEL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA, quien aduce lo siguiente: “… SOBRE EL FONDO Que mediante resolución DA-0833-2024, dictada por la Dirección de Agua, en el expediente administrativo1445-O, se otorgó a favor de Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A Permiso de Obra en Cauce de Dominio Publicó, en la ubicación que reclama el recurrente, para la colocación de rocas medianas al pie del muro infraestructura existente, para que la fuerza Hidráulica del cauce de la quebrada El Rastro no continue golpeando o en su efecto socavando directamente la infraestructura de concreto. Que el día 12 de Marzo del 2026 se tiene conocimiento de la denuncia ingresada al oficial de la Dirección la que se incorpora al expediente 1445-O, y remitida por el recurrente, misma que posteriormente fuera remitida por parte de la Municipalidad de Atenas mediante oficio MAT-GA-0015-2026 de fecha 17 de Marzo del 2026 (GESTION 08662026). Que en atención a la denuncia sobre las obras realizadas, se llevó a cabo una visita el día 25 de marzo del 2026, por parte funcionarios de la Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles de la Dirección de Agua, en presencia de los señores Sara Vargas Elizondo en representación de los denunciantes, el Ingeniero municipal Jeudy Ortiz Murillo y el señor Wilbert Castro Cubero representante de Inversiones CYC del Oeste S.A y propietario del inmueble donde se realizaron las obras, generándose el oficio elaborado por la Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles de la Dirección de Agua, DA-UHTPCOSR0195-2026 del 20 de Abril del 2026, que en lo que interesa se trascribe: ( “ ) Al comparar lo otorgado en la resolución DA-0833-2024 con lo encontrado en campo durante la inspección al sitio, se determinó la obra en cauce realizada en el lugar no se construyó según lo otorgado en la Resolución DA-08332024 del expediente 1445-O, por lo que se trata de una obra en cauce ilegal. Desde la óptica técnica, la obra construida representa una afectación a la dinámica de flujo del cauce de dominio público, ya que afecta negativamente la dirección de flujo por extenderse desde el margen, hasta cubrir parte del lecho, a diferencia de una protección con rocas medinas que aumentan rugosidad y disminuyen velocidad de flujo, la obra de concreto realizada posee rugosidad menor y favorece velocidades erosivas que podrían afectar aguas abajo o el margen contrario. Además, sus dimensiones y características disminuyen el área hidráulica del cauce (…)”. “Por lo anterior, se les ordena los señores INVERSIONES CYC DEL OESTE S.A con cédula jurídica 3-101-539756 realizar la demolición completa de la obra en cauce de muro de malla y cemento realizado en el sitio en la margen izquierda de la quebrada El Rastro, esto debido a que se (sic) contó permiso para esta obra en cauce ya que no fue lo autorizado en el expediente 1445-O. Para realizar la demolición de esta obra en cauce, se le concede un plazo improrrogable de 8 días hábiles, de lo contrario una vez cumplido el plazo y de no haberse realizado lo solicitado, El Estado puede ejercer las acciones penales correspondientes.” Como puede observarse, en este caso la actuación de la Dirección de Agua ha sido diligente en la atención de la denuncia, sin embargo el recurrente acude a la interposición del recurso de Amparo en fecha 24 de marzo sin que haya trascurrido un plazo prudente para la realización de la visita de campo programada para la atención de la denuncia, misma que como se indicó, se realizó el día 25 de marzo del 2026 -lo anterior aunado al periodo de vacaciones por la Semana Mayor decretado por el gobierno- por lo que, esta Dirección ha actuado conforme a la normativa que rige la materia atendiendo diligentemente la denuncia como se ha demostrado. Así mismo, ante la situación evidenciada mediante oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0196-2026 del 20 de Abril del 2026, ha sido trasladada la denuncia a la fiscalía de Atenas para lo que corresponda, y puesto en conocimiento a la Municipalidad de Atenas mediante oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0197-2026 del 20 de Abril del 2026 del trámite de la denuncia, oficios que han sido aclarados mediante DA-UHTPCOSR-0204-2026 y DA-UHTPCOSR-0206-2026 respectivamente.”.
7.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.
Redacta la Magistrada Hess Herrera; y,
Considerando:
I.- ACLARACIÓN PREVIA. Antes de analizar el fondo del asunto debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia número 2008-02545 de las 08:55 horas del 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa -con algunas excepciones- aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos razonablemente pautados para resolver las solicitudes planteadas por los administrados a la luz de lo dispuesto por el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política. Precisamente, en el sub lite, se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia por obras dentro del cauce de la Quebrada El Rastro, colocando piedras, mallas y cemento, lo que habría obstruido y desviado el cauce hacia la propiedad del recurrente, que presuntamente no ha sido resuelta dentro de un plazo razonable, poniendo en riesgo su integridad y la potencial afectación a la dinámica de flujo del cauce de dominio público. Atendiendo a la naturaleza de la temática que trata la gestión, esta Sala valorará las posibles dilaciones en la resolución de la denuncia planteada. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
II.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El recurrente denuncia que un vecino realizó obras dentro del cauce de la Quebrada El Rastro, colocando piedras, mallas y cemento, lo que habría obstruido y desviado el cauce hacia su propiedad. Señala falta de actuación efectiva y coordinación entre la Municipalidad de Atenas y el MINAE, pese a múltiples denuncias e inspecciones. Afirma que la situación genera riesgo de inundaciones, malos olores, aguas estancadas y peligro para la salud pública.
III.- HECHOS PROBADOS. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
EN CUANTO A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS:
EN CUANTO A LA DIRECCIÓN DE AGUA DEL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA:
IV.- SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS CONSTITUCIONALES EN MATERIA AMBIENTAL.
Concerniente a los principios preventivo y precautorio, en la sentencia nro. 2021024807 de las 9:20 horas del 5 de noviembre de 2021, esta Sala precisó:
“En este orden de ideas, la doctrina especializada ha señalado que el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos. En general, este principio aplica cuando existen riesgos claramente definidos e identificados al menos como probables; asimismo, tal principio resulta útil cuando no existen informes técnicos o permisos administrativos que garanticen la sostenibilidad de una actividad, pero hay elementos suficientes para prever eventuales impactos negativos. Por otra parte, el principio precautorio señala que, cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente. De lo anterior, se advierte que el principio parte de una incertidumbre científica razonable en conjunto con la amenaza de un daño ambiental grave e irreversible. En términos generales, una diferencia relevante entre el principio preventivo y el precautorio radica en el nivel de conocimiento y certeza de los riesgos que una actividad u obra provoque. Mientras que en el primero existe tal certeza, en el segundo lo que se advierte es un estado de duda resultado de informaciones científicas o estudios técnicos (…)” (la negrita fue suplida).
Justamente, el principio precautorio debe ser entendido como se contempla en el principio XV de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo: “Cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente”. Es decir, no se trata de la exigencia de tener estudios científicos para arribar a la ‘certeza absoluta’ de la inocuidad de una actividad para con el ambiente (en tesis de principio una seguridad total difícilmente es alcanzable), sino, más bien, de que, aunque el peligro de un daño grave o irreversible al ambiente no esté del todo asegurado, tal incertidumbre jamás justificará ni excusará que se postergue la ejecución de medidas efectivas para impedir la degradación al ambiente. Al respecto, obsérvese, por un lado, que no se está ante cualquier tipo de amenaza ‑plausiblemente debe involucrar un peligro serio‑, y, por otro, que la medida demanda un uso eficaz y eficiente de los recursos empleados. En el sentido expuesto, aun cuando el principio precautorio está ligado a un cierto nivel de incerteza científica, ello no implica que se pueda emplear de forma irrestricta con el argumento de que cualquier actividad podría generar daños al ambiente ‑lo que desnaturalizaría su razón de ser‑, sino que es menester que se cuente con cierto grado de identificación de los peligros de un daño grave o irreversible que se podría generar, cuya determinación varía en atención de las particularidades propias del caso concreto. Así, cuando se está ante una situación que exige la aplicación del principio precautorio, los entes y órganos públicos deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación que razonablemente conlleve un riesgo grave; incluso, se encuentran obligados a suspender las actividades que se estén desarrollando. Paralelamente tienen que adoptar con eficiencia y efectividad todas las medidas requeridas para la preservación de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
El referido principio se recoge de igual modo en una fuente jurídica del hard law, toda vez que el principio 3 de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático ‑ratificada por Costa Rica mediante la ley nro. 7414 del 13 de junio de 1994 y por todos los estados miembros de la OEA- estatuye:
“3. Las Partes deberían tomar medidas de precaución para prever, prevenir o reducir al mínimo las causas del cambio climático y mitigar sus efectos adversos. Cuando haya amenaza de daño grave o irreversible, no debería utilizarse la falta de total certidumbre científica como razón para posponer tales medidas, teniendo en cuenta que las políticas y medidas para hacer frente al cambio climático deberían ser eficaces en función de los costos a fin de asegurar beneficios mundiales al menor costo posible. A tal fin, esas políticas y medidas deberían tener en cuenta los distintos contextos socioeconómicos, ser integrales, incluir todas las fuentes, sumideros y depósitos pertinentes de gases de efecto invernadero y abarcar todos los sectores económicos. Los esfuerzos para hacer frente al cambio climático pueden llevarse a cabo en cooperación entre las Partes interesadas” (el destacado fue incorporado).
El principio precautorio también se encuentra previsto en el Convenio de Estocolmo sobre Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes, el cual se encuentra ratificado por 32 Estados Miembros de la OEA, entre ellos, Costa Rica ‑véase ley nro. 8538 del 23 de agosto de 2006‑, en la que se lee:
“ARTÍCULO 1 Objetivo Teniendo presente el principio de precaución consagrado en el principio 15 de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, el objetivo del presente Convenio es proteger la salud humana y el medio ambiente frente a los contaminantes orgánicos persistentes (…)”.
Igualmente, tal principio está contemplado el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica ratificado por 34 Estados Miembros de la OEA, incluido Costa Rica, por medio de la ley nro. 7416 del 30 de junio de 1994, en cuyo preámbulo se establece: “(…) Observando que es vital prever, prevenir y atacar en su fuente las causas de reducción o pérdida de la diversidad biológica. Observando también que cuando exista una amenaza de reducción o pérdida sustancial de la diversidad biológica no debe alegarse la falta de pruebas científicas inequívocas como razón para aplazar las medidas encaminadas a evitar o reducir al mínimo esa amenaza (…)”.
En consonancia con la referida normativa vigente en el país, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos también se refirió al principio precautorio en la OC 23/17 del 15 de noviembre de 2017:
“180. (…) Por tanto, esta Corte entiende que, los Estados deben actuar conforme al principio de precaución, a efectos de la protección del derecho a la vida y a la integridad personal, en casos donde haya indicadores plausibles que una actividad podría acarrear daños graves e irreversibles al medio ambiente, aún en ausencia de certeza científica. Por tanto, los Estados deben actuar con la debida cautela para prevenir el posible daño. En efecto, en el contexto de la protección de los derechos a la vida y a la integridad personal, la Corte considera que los Estados deben actuar conforme al principio de precaución, por lo cual, aún en ausencia de certeza científica, deben adoptar las medidas que sean “eficaces” para prevenir un daño grave o irreversible” (el resaltado fue añadido).
Posterior a tal resolución y por medio de una sentencia, en Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) vs. Argentina, la Corte IDEH se pronunció el 6 de febrero de 2020 de esta forma: “el derecho a un medio ambiente sano “debe considerarse incluido entre los derechos [...] protegidos por el artículo 26 de la Convención Americana”, dada la obligación de los Estados de alcanzar el “desarrollo integral” de sus pueblos, que surge de los artículos 30, 31, 33 y 34 de la Carta”. De alta significación, se debe subrayar que, en este pronunciamiento, la Corte IDH remite a la opinión consultiva nro. OC-23/17 con la finalidad de desarrollar el contenido y alcance de tal derecho, merced a lo cual las consideraciones jurídicas de la última lógicamente han venido a alcanzar la obligatoriedad jurídica propia de una sentencia. En tal sentido, el órgano jurisdiccional internacional reitera “que el derecho a un medio ambiente sano “constituye un interés universal” y “es un derecho fundamental para la existencia de la humanidad”, y que “como derecho autónomo [...] protege los componentes del [...] ambiente, tales como bosques, mares, ríos y otros, como intereses jurídicos en sí mismos, aun en ausencia de certeza o evidencia sobre el riesgo a las personas individuales. Se trata de proteger la naturaleza”, no solo por su “utilidad” o “efectos” respecto de los seres humanos, “sino por su importancia para los demás organismos vivos con quienes se comparte el planeta”. Lo anterior no obsta, desde luego, a que otros derechos humanos puedan ser vulnerados como consecuencia de daños ambientales”. Precisamente, en el desarrollo de la conceptualización del derecho al ambiente, la Corte IDH con toda claridad detalla las obligaciones estatales frente a posibles daños al ambiente, tales como el deber de prevención, el principio de precaución, la obligación de cooperación y el acceso a la información.
En suma, la aplicación del principio precautorio implica que cuando existan indicadores de que cierta actividad plausiblemente podría ocasionar daños graves e irreversibles al ambiente, la falta de certeza o evidencia científica absoluta al respecto no exime de la obligación de adoptar todas aquellas medidas eficientes y eficaces para impedir una vulneración al ambiente.
Concerniente al principio preventivo, en el primer informe de la ONU sobre el estado del derecho ambiental internacional, documento A/73/419 de 30 de noviembre de 2018 elaborado por su secretario general en cumplimiento de la resolución de la asamblea general de 10 de mayo de 2018 (nro. A/72/L.51), se le conceptualiza como pauta normativa del derecho internacional consuetudinario “confirmada por la práctica pertinente en muchos tratados relativos al medio ambiente y los principales proyectos de codificación”.
Ahora, si bien en el informe antedicho se subraya la prevención del daño transfronterizo, lo cierto es que este principio general de derecho, como bien se consigna en el documento ‘95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable’ (aprobados en la XIX Edición de la Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 y por la Corte Plena en el artículo XIX de la sesión nro. 28-2020 del 25 de mayo de 2020) , tiene un alcance mucho mayor, toda vez que, como guía hermenéutica, conduce a que “las causas y las fuentes de los problemas ambientales se atenderán en forma prioritaria e integrada, tratando de prevenir los efectos negativos que sobre el ambiente se puedan producir. El criterio de prevención prevalecerá entonces, sobre cualquier otro en la gestión pública y privada del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales”. Lo anterior tiene todo sentido, pues es consecuente con el deber de prevenir la consumación de un daño ambiental, y no limitarse a decidir acerca de la reparación de las consecuencias perjudiciales ya corroboradas, incluso disponiendo la paralización de los efectos dañinos.
Tal instituto se refleja, entre otras normas, en los ordinales 194.1 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar (ratificada por Costa Rica mediante ley nro. 7291) y 5 y Anexo II del Acuerdo de las Naciones Unidas sobre Peces Transzonales y Altamente Migratorios (ratificado mediante ley nro. 8059), así como en la jurisprudencia constitucional (ver sentencias nros. 2021024807 de las 9:20 horas del 5 de noviembre de 2021 y 2018016383 de las 17:00 horas del 28 de setiembre de 2018, entre muchas otras) y en la convencional, verbigracia, e la opinión consultiva nro. OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017, párrafos: 127 a 174 e incisos a) y b) del párrafo 242 y la sentencia de 24 de noviembre de 2022 Baraona Bray vs. Chile. Justamente, en la última señala la Corte IDH de manera expresa:
“208. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, en materia específica ambiental, debe destacarse que el principio de prevención de daños ambientales, forma parte del derecho internacional consuetudinario, y entraña la obligación de los Estados de llevar adelante las medidas que sean necesarias ex ante la producción del daño ambiental, teniendo en consideración que, debido a sus particularidades, frecuentemente no será posible, luego de producido tal daño, restaurar la situación antes existente. En virtud del deber de prevención, la Corte ha señalado que “los Estados están obligados a usar todos los medios a su alcance con el fin de evitar que las actividades que se lleven a cabo bajo su jurisdicción, causen daños significativos al […] ambiente”200. Esta obligación debe cumplirse bajo un estándar de debida diligencia, la cual debe ser apropiada y proporcional al grado de riesgo de daño ambiental201. Por otro lado, si bien no es posible realizar una enumeración detallada de todas las medidas que podrían tomar los Estados con el fin de cumplir este deber, pueden señalarse algunas, relativas a actividades potencialmente dañosas: i) regular; ii) supervisar y fiscalizar; iii) requerir y aprobar estudios de impacto ambiental; iv) establecer planes de contingencia, y v) mitigar en casos de ocurrencia de daño ambiental202”.
Por su parte, el principio in dubio pro natura significa, según la ‘Declaración Mundial de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) acerca del Estado de Derecho en materia ambiental’ que “en caso de duda, todos los procesos ante tribunales, órganos administrativos y otros tomadores de decisión deberán ser resueltos de manera tal que favorezcan la protección y conservación del medio ambiente, dando preferencia a las alternativas menos perjudiciales. No se emprenderán acciones cuando sus potenciales efectos adversos sean desproporcionados o excesivos en relación con los beneficios derivados de los mismos” (ver principio V).
En tal sentido, según el documento ‘95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable’ (aprobados en la XIX Edición de la Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 y por la Corte Plena en el artículo XIX de la sesión nro. 28-2020 del 25 de mayo de 2020), “Todo operador de las normas ambientales deberá tener siempre presente el principio pro naturaleza, conforme al cual se evitarán los riesgos, se privilegiarán los intereses colectivos generales sobre los particulares, se favorecerá la preservación del medio ambiente y en caso de duda se preferirá la interpretación que en forma más amplia proteja el entorno”.
El principio in dubio pro natura, entonces, no depende de que haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible -como sucede con el principio precautorio‑, sino que implica una “regla general de comportamiento, para la relación del Estado -y la sociedad en general- con el medio ambiente, aplicable a todos los ámbitos de decisiones en que exista un riesgo de afectación al medio ambiente, y que nos obliga a evitar optar por aquellas conductas que puedan causar daño al medio ambiente, cuando existan otras opciones” (Olivares y Lucero, 2018).
Por otra parte, en la sentencia nro. 2012013367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012, este Tribunal Constitucional se refirió a los principios de progresividad y de no regresión en materia ambiental en este sentido:
“V. Sobre los principios de progresividad y no regresión de la protección ambiental. El principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos ha sido reconocido por el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos; entre otros instrumentos internacionales, se encuentra recogido en los artículos 2 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos Sociales y Culturales, artículo 1 y 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y artículo 1 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales. Al amparo de los estas normas, el Estado asume la obligación de ir aumentando, en la medida de sus posibilidades y desarrollo, los niveles de protección de los derechos humanos, de especial consideración aquellos, que como el derecho al ambiente (art. 11 del Protocolo), requieren de múltiples acciones positivas del Estado para su protección y pleno goce por todos sus titulares. Del principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos y del principio de irretroactividad de las normas en perjuicio de derechos adquiridos y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas, recogido en el numeral 34 de la Carta Magna, se deriva el principio de no regresividad o de irreversibilidad de los beneficios o protección alcanzada. El principio se erige como garantía sustantiva de los derechos, en este caso, del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en virtud del cual el Estado se ve obligado a no adoptar medidas, políticas, ni aprobar normas jurídicas que empeoren, sin justificación razonable y proporcionada, la situación de los derechos alcanzada hasta entonces. Este principio no supone una irreversibilidad absoluta pues todos los Estados viven situaciones nacionales, de naturaleza económica, política, social o por causa de la naturaleza, que impactan negativamente en los logros alcanzados hasta entonces y obliga a replantearse a la baja el nuevo nivel de protección. En esos casos, el Derecho a la Constitución y los principios bajo examen obligan a justificar, a la luz de los parámetros constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, la reducción de los niveles de protección. En este sentido, la Sala Constitucional ha expresado en su jurisprudencia, a propósito del derecho a la salud: “…conforme al PRINCIPIO DE NO REGRESIVIDAD, está prohibido tomar medidas que disminuyan la protección de derechos fundamentales. Así entonces, si el Estado costarricense, en aras de proteger el derecho a la salud y el derecho a la vida, tiene una política de apertura al acceso a los medicamentos, no puede -y mucho menos por medio de un Tratado Internacional- reducir tal acceso y hacerlo más restringido, bajo la excusa de proteger al comercio. (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 9469-07). En relación con el derecho al ambiente dijo: “Lo anterior constituye una interpretación evolutiva en la tutela del ambiente conforme al Derecho de la Constitución, que no admite una regresión en su perjuicio.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 18702-10)”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original). (En el mismo sentido, las sentencias 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745 y 2019-017397)”.
De este modo, de acuerdo con el principio de progresividad, el Estado asume la obligación de aumentar, en la medida de lo posible, los niveles de protección de los derechos humanos, incluido el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por su parte, la aplicación del principio de no regresión consiste en una garantía que constriñe al Estado a abstenerse de adoptar medidas, políticas o normas que empeoren, sin una justificación razonable y proporcionada, el grado de protección a los derechos fundamentales ya alcanzado, y que, dado el caso, se tienen que ponderar las medidas de compensación que correspondan.
Finalmente, este Tribunal explicó el principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental en estos términos:
“En cuanto al ambiente, objeto del derecho fundamental expuesto, nuestra Carta Magna exige además que sea “sano”. La exigencia “sano” nos conduce a la “capacidad regenerativa” y a la “capacidad de sucesión” para garantizar la vida. De ambos requisitos: “sano” y equilibrado” se desprende la necesidad de un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable; la calidad de vida y la calidad ambiental dependen de ello. Ahora bien, con los conceptos de “ambiente”, “sano” “ecológicamente equilibrado”, la norma constitucional introdujo la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que, en los términos de los ordinales 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no pueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y, además, un “mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país”. En cuanto al sometimiento de las decisiones legislativas y administrativas a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, la Sala lo ha denominado principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental: “De la objetivación de la tutela ambiental (…) es un principio que en modo alguno puede confundirse con el anterior [principio precautorio o “principio de la evitación prudente”], en tanto, como derivado de lo dispuesto en los artículos 16 y 160 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general –tanto legales como reglamentarias–, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia. De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos –tales como los estudios de impacto ambiental–, si se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, es que resulta obligado desechar el proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una "duda razonable" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura), que puede traducirse en la adopción, tanto de medidas compensatorias como precautorias, a fin de proteger de la manera adecuada el ambiente.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)” (el resaltado fue agregado). (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012).
V.- SOBRE LA OPINIÓN CONSULTIVA DE LA CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS RELATIVA AL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO Y SU IMPACTO JURÍDICO-AMBIENTAL EN COSTA RICA. La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en su reciente Opinión Consultiva OC-32/25 del 29 de mayo de 2025, titulada “Emergencia Climática y Derechos Humanos” sobre cambio climático y derechos humanos, consolidó una interpretación evolutiva de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, conforme a la cual la crisis climática constituye una amenaza real, actual y creciente para el ejercicio efectivo de múltiples derechos fundamentales, entre ellos la vida, la salud, la integridad personal, el acceso al agua, la alimentación, la vivienda digna y el derecho a un ambiente sano.
Se reafirma que los fenómenos climáticos extremos, la degradación de ecosistemas, la pérdida de biodiversidad y el aumento de riesgos socioambientales no pueden analizarse únicamente como cuestiones técnicas o de política pública, sino como materias sujetas a control jurídico constitucional y convencional, en tanto comprometen obligaciones estatales de respeto, garantía y prevención frente a los derechos humanos reconocidos por el sistema interamericano.
Que la Corte estableció que los Estados parte tienen deberes positivos reforzados de mitigación, adaptación, prevención del daño ambiental significativo, regulación de actividades contaminantes, supervisión empresarial y protección de poblaciones vulnerables, de conformidad con los principios de precaución, prevención, progresividad, equidad intergeneracional y no regresión ambiental.
Adicionalmente, la Opinión Consultiva desarrolla el principio pro natura, especialmente a partir de los párrafos 216 y 279 a 286, conforme al cual, ante varias interpretaciones jurídicamente posibles, debe preferirse aquella que otorgue mayor protección a la naturaleza, a los ecosistemas y a los derechos humanos vinculados al equilibrio ambiental. Dicho criterio hermenéutico impone a las autoridades públicas y órganos jurisdiccionales un deber reforzado de interpretar y aplicar las normas internas e internacionales en sentido favorable a la conservación, restauración y continuidad funcional de los ecosistemas, particularmente en contextos de incertidumbre científica, riesgo de daño grave o irreversible y toma de decisiones con efectos climáticos relevantes.
Que igualmente se reconoció que la respuesta estatal frente al cambio climático requiere procesos institucionales transparentes, técnicamente fundamentados y orientados a la participación efectiva de la ciudadanía, de modo que las decisiones públicas con incidencia ambiental cuenten con legitimidad democrática y control jurídico suficiente.
La Opinión Consultiva enfatiza que los Estados deben garantizar acceso oportuno a información relevante sobre riesgos climáticos, emisiones contaminantes, impactos acumulativos, vulnerabilidad territorial, planificación ambiental y medidas de adaptación, como presupuesto indispensable para la tutela efectiva de los derechos comprometidos.
Asimismo, la Corte destacó la necesidad de contar con recursos administrativos y jurisdiccionales eficaces frente a actos u omisiones estatales que favorezcan deterioro ambiental, insuficiencia regulatoria o incumplimiento de deberes climáticos, fortaleciendo así el acceso a la justicia en asuntos ambientales.
Para la República de Costa Rica esta Opinión Consultiva reviste especial relevancia, al tratarse de un Estado Parte de la Convención Americana y con una reconocida tradición constitucional en materia ecológica, particularmente a partir del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que reconoce el derecho de toda persona a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
En el contexto nacional, ello implica que toda decisión relacionada con proyectos energéticos, expansión urbana, infraestructura pública, aprovechamiento de recursos naturales, ordenamiento territorial, gestión hídrica, desarrollo costero o actividades con incidencia climática debe valorarse también a la luz del deber estatal de prevención de daños ambientales y climáticos.
Que dicha obligación comprende la necesidad de adoptar decisiones públicas basadas en evidencia científica, estudios técnicos suficientes, evaluación de impactos acumulativos y consideración de efectos presentes y futuros sobre comunidades humanas y ecosistemas estratégicos.
La Opinión Consultiva refuerza igualmente la jurisprudencia histórica de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica, la cual ha reconocido el ambiente como derecho fundamental justiciable. En consecuencia, el control constitucional puede proyectarse con mayor intensidad hacia una justicia climática, permitiendo examinar omisiones estatales, insuficiencia normativa o actuaciones incompatibles con estándares razonables de protección ambiental.
Merece particular atención el énfasis interamericano en grupos en condición de vulnerabilidad, tales como pueblos indígenas, comunidades costeras, niñez, personas adultas mayores y poblaciones expuestas a inundaciones, sequías o erosión territorial, respecto de las cuales el deber estatal de adaptación y protección adquiere una dimensión reforzada.
Ello posee especial incidencia para Costa Rica, dadas sus características geográficas, su riqueza ecológica, la relevancia de sus zonas costeras, la protección de sus bosques y cuencas hidrográficas, así como la exposición diferenciada de diversos territorios a eventos climáticos extremos.
Dicha Opinión Consultiva representa un parámetro normativo de alta relevancia que fortalece la tutela del ambiente, amplía la exigibilidad judicial de la acción climática estatal y reafirma que la defensa del equilibrio ecológico constituye una dimensión inseparable del Estado social, democrático y ecológico de Derecho.
VI.- EN CUANTO AL PRINCIPIO DE COORDINACIÓN INTERADMINISTRATIVA. La coordinación, en cuanto asegura la eficiencia y eficacia administrativas, es un principio constitucional virtual o implícito que permea el entero ordenamiento jurídico administrativo y obliga a todos los entes públicos. Esta puede ser interorgánica –entre los diversos órganos que conforman un ente público no sujetos a una relación de jerarquía– o intersubjetiva, esto es, entre los entes públicos, cada uno con personalidad jurídica, presupuesto propio, autonomía y competencias específicas. La autonomía administrativa o de otro grado de cuya titularidad gozan los entes públicos los obliga a coordinar sus acciones, puesto que, no pueden estar sometidos recíprocamente a relaciones de jerarquía por su naturaleza interorgánica. La coordinación administrativa tiene por propósito evitar las duplicidades y omisiones en el ejercicio de las funciones administrativas de cada ente público, esto es, que sean desempeñadas de forma racional y ordenada; y se logra a través del establecimiento de niveles o canales fluidos y permanentes de información entre los entes públicos, todo lo cual se puede lograr a través de reuniones, informes o la creación de instancias formales de coordinación. En materia ambiental, este principio toma un matiz diferenciado, siendo que resulta de relevancia lo dicho por este Tribunal en Sentencia No. 2012-008892 de las 16:03 horas de 27 de junio de 2012:
“(…) “III.- La coordinación entre las dependencias públicas debe garantizar la protección del ambiente. En diversas oportunidades, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha indicado que la protección del ambiente es una tarea que corresponde a todos por igual, es decir, que existe una obligación para el Estado –como un todo- de tomar las medidas necesarias para proteger el medio, a fin de evitar grados de contaminación, deforestación, extinción de flora y fauna, uso desmedido o inadecuado de los recursos naturales, que pongan el peligro la salud de los administrados. En esta tarea, por institución pública, debe entenderse comprendida tanto la Administración Central –Ministerios, como el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía y el Ministerio de Salud, que en razón de la materia, tienen una amplia participación y responsabilidad en lo que respecta a la conservación y preservación del ambiente; los cuales actúan, la mayoría de las veces, a través de sus dependencias especializadas en la materia, como por ejemplo, la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, la Dirección Forestal, y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA); así como también las instituciones descentralizadas, caso del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, el Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; tarea en la que, por supuesto, tienen gran responsabilidad las municipalidades, en lo que respecta a su jurisdicción territorial. Es por ello, que podría pensarse que esta múltiple responsabilidad provocaría un caos en la gestión administrativa, lo cual no es cierto, por cuanto a fin de evitar la coexistencia simultánea de esferas de poder de diferente origen y esencia, la duplicación de los esfuerzos nacionales y locales, así como la confusión de derechos y obligaciones entre las diversas partes involucradas, es que se hace necesario establecer una serie de relaciones de coordinación entre las diversas dependencias del Poder Ejecutivo y las instituciones descentralizadas, y entre éstas con las municipalidades, a fin de poder llevar a cabo las funciones que les han sido encomendadas. Esta Sala con anterioridad –y en forma bastante clara- se refirió al principio de coordinación de las dependencias públicas con las municipalidades en la realización de fines comunes -lo cual, obviamente se debe hacer extensivo a la relación que en esta importante función realizan las instituciones de la Administración Central y las descentralizadas-, para lo cual se remite a lo indicado en aquella ocasión (sentencia número 5445-99, de las catorce horas treinta minutos del catorce de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve):
"De manera que la coordinación es la ordenación de las relaciones entre estas diversas actividades independientes, que se hace cargo de esa concurrencia en un mismo objeto o entidad, para hacerla útil a un plan público global, sin suprimir la independencia recíproca de los sujetos agentes. Como no hay una relación de jerarquía de las instituciones descentralizadas, ni del Estado mismo en relación con las municipalidades, no es posible la imposición a éstas de determinadas conductas, con lo cual surge el imprescindible «concierto» interinstitucional, en sentido estricto, en cuanto los centros autónomos e independientes de acción se ponen de acuerdo sobre ese esquema preventivo y global, en el que cada uno cumple un papel con vista en una misión confiada a los otros. Así, las relaciones de las municipalidades con los otros entes públicos, sólo pueden llevarse a cabo en un plano de igualdad, que den como resultado formas pactadas de coordinación, con exclusión de cualquier forma imperativa en detrimento de su autonomía, que permita sujetar a los entes corporativos a un esquema de coordinación sin su voluntad o contra ella; pero que sí admite la necesaria subordinación de estos entes al Estado y en interés de éste (a través de la «tutela administrativa» del Estado, y específicamente, en la función de control la legalidad que a éste compete, con potestades de vigilancia general sobre todo el sector).” Por otro lado, las omisiones al deber de protección del ambiente y de cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental son de relevancia constitucional, por cuanto a consecuencia de la inercia de la Administración en esta materia, se puede producir un daño al ambiente y a los recursos naturales, a veces, de similares o mayores consecuencias, que de las derivadas de las actuaciones de la Administración; como lo es la autorización de planes reguladores, o construcciones sin la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental por parte Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, o la falta de control y fiscalización en la ejecución de los planes de manejo de las áreas protegidas por parte de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, o el permitir el funcionamiento de empresas sin los permisos de salud en lo que respecta al tratamiento de aguas negras o residuales (Acueductos y Alcantarillados y Ministerio de Salud), o no verificar los controles sónicos en bares, karaokes y discoteques (municipalidades y Ministerio de Salud), entre otros (ver al respecto sentencia número 2006-005159 de las trece horas cuatro minutos del siete de abril del dos mil seis).” En otras palabras, interesan la cooperación técnica que puedan brindarse los distintos entes, los elementos técnicos que éstos puedan aportar y el respeto a las competencias de cada uno; a fin de garantizar sin lugar a duda que la incidencia de los proyectos que se evalúen no sea negativa, y así garantizar la gestión sostenible de los recursos hídricos y el pleno derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, tal como lo consagra la norma constitucional. Así, el principio precautorio -que pretende evitar o suspender cualquier actividad que pueda incidir negativamente en dicha gestión- obliga a la Administración, en primer lugar, a emplazar a los afectados e interesados, y a las instituciones que puedan verse involucradas. Ello para que puedan hacer las alegaciones correspondientes y presentar los criterios técnicos correspondientes, y asegurar una efectiva participación de los órganos competentes en la materia en aras de proteger y preservar el ambiente y el recurso hídrico. Y obliga, en segundo lugar, a tomar en consideración las advertencias que haga una institución facultada por ley para proteger el recurso hídrico sobre el peligro de contaminación (…)”.
VII.- SOBRE EL CASO EN CONCRETO. En el caso concreto, de los hechos tenidos por demostrados se desprende que la controversia no se limita a una simple diferencia administrativa sobre el alcance de un permiso de obra en cauce, sino que involucra la posible afectación directa de un bien de dominio público —la quebrada El Rastro— así como la eventual amenaza al derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, reconocido en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Dicha norma no solo prevé el derecho de toda persona a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, sino que impone al Estado el deber positivo de garantizarlo, defenderlo y preservarlo. Además, legitima a toda persona para denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho y reclamar la reparación del daño causado.
En ese sentido, la Sala estima que tratándose de una intervención material dentro de un cauce de dominio público, la actuación estatal exigible no puede agotarse en la recepción de denuncias, la emisión de oficios o el traslado de los hechos al Ministerio Público. Tales actuaciones pueden ser necesarias, pero no son suficientes cuando la propia autoridad técnica competente ya ha constatado que la obra ejecutada no corresponde a lo autorizado, que fue realizada sin el permiso correspondiente en los términos construidos, y que incide negativamente sobre la dinámica hidráulica del cauce. Según los hechos probados, la Dirección de Agua tuvo conocimiento de la denuncia, realizó inspección el 25 de marzo de 2026, concluyó el 20 de abril de 2026 que la obra construida no correspondía a lo autorizado en la resolución DA-0833-2024, la calificó como ilegal y ordenó demoler completamente el muro de malla y cemento en un plazo improrrogable de ocho días hábiles.
Debe recordarse que las aguas de dominio público, así como los cauces de las corrientes de dominio público, pertenecen a la Nación. La Ley de Aguas establece que son de propiedad nacional, entre otros bienes, los cauces de las corrientes de dominio público. Asimismo, el Reglamento Ejecutivo N.º 44410-MINAE reconoce que el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía es el ente titular y rector del agua a nivel nacional, y que esa función se ejerce por medio de su órgano técnico, la Dirección de Agua, particularmente respecto de las solicitudes y permisos de obra en cauce. De ahí que, una vez determinada técnicamente la existencia de una obra no autorizada dentro del cauce, la Dirección de Agua no solo se encuentra facultada, sino obligada a adoptar medidas reales, eficaces y oportunas para restituir la legalidad ambiental y proteger el bien demanial afectado.
En el expediente consta además, que la obra originalmente autorizada no consistía en la construcción de un muro de malla y cemento, sino en labores de mantenimiento artesanal de un muro existente y colocación de rocas medianas al pie de la infraestructura. Por el contrario, la inspección de la Dirección de Agua determinó que se colocó una malla en la margen izquierda de la quebrada El Rastro, con rocas y cemento encima por aproximadamente quince metros, lo cual estrangula el cauce, impide el libre discurrir de las aguas, disminuye el área hidráulica y puede generar velocidades erosivas con afectación a terrenos de terceras personas. Ese hallazgo técnico es de especial relevancia constitucional, pues convierte el asunto en una amenaza concreta y actual al ambiente, al cauce público y eventualmente a la seguridad de quienes habitan o transitan en el sector.
Desde esta perspectiva, no resulta constitucionalmente admisible que la Dirección de Agua se limite a afirmar que presentó una denuncia penal o que puso los hechos en conocimiento de otras autoridades. La vía penal puede determinar responsabilidades personales por la eventual comisión de delitos ambientales, pero no sustituye el deber administrativo inmediato de restablecer el cauce, prevenir daños mayores y hacer cesar una situación material que la propia Dirección de Agua calificó como ilegal y perjudicial para la dinámica de flujo. El amparo ambiental exige una respuesta útil, pronta y efectiva, no una actuación meramente formal. La protección del artículo 50 constitucional tiene una dimensión preventiva, correctiva y restauradora, especialmente cuando se trata de bienes de dominio público y de riesgos vinculados al recurso hídrico.
La Ley General de la Administración Pública proporciona los instrumentos jurídicos necesarios para materializar esa orden. El artículo 146 dispone que la Administración tiene potestad de ejecutar por sí, sin recurrir a los tribunales, los actos administrativos eficaces, válidos o anulables, aun contra la voluntad o resistencia del obligado. De igual forma, el artículo 149 establece como medio de ejecución administrativa la ejecución sustitutiva, aplicable cuando la obligación puede ser cumplida por un tercero en lugar del obligado, quedando las costas a cargo de este último. La demolición de una obra ilegal de malla, cemento y rocas dentro de un cauce público es precisamente, una obligación que puede ser cumplida por un tercero —personal técnico, contratista, cuadrilla institucional o apoyo municipal— por lo que resulta jurídicamente procedente acudir a ese mecanismo si el obligado no cumple voluntariamente.
Ahora bien, la ejecución administrativa debe realizarse conforme al principio de legalidad, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. El artículo 150 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública exige que la ejecución no sea anterior a la debida comunicación del acto principal y que, salvo caso de urgencia, sea precedida de dos intimaciones consecutivas, con indicación clara del requerimiento de cumplimiento, el medio coercitivo aplicable y un plazo prudencial para ejecutar lo ordenado. Lo anterior significa que la Dirección de Agua no está autorizada a actuar de manera improvisada o arbitraria; pero sí está legalmente habilitada y constitucionalmente obligada a pasar de la orden formal de demolición a la ejecución efectiva de la medida, si el particular incumple.
En el caso bajo examen, esa ejecución material debe comprender, al menos, la verificación del vencimiento del plazo conferido al administrado, la emisión de las intimaciones que correspondan —salvo que se motive técnicamente una urgencia por riesgo ambiental o de seguridad— la elaboración de un plan técnico de remoción, la definición del método de demolición, el manejo adecuado de escombros, la adopción de medidas para evitar mayor afectación al cauce y la documentación de la ejecución mediante actas, fotografías, georreferenciación e informes técnicos. Si existe oposición del obligado o de terceros, la Administración puede solicitar el auxilio de la Fuerza Pública, dentro de los límites estrictamente necesarios, pues la Ley General de la Administración Pública contempla el concurso policial para hacer efectivo el cumplimiento forzoso y prohíbe la resistencia violenta a la ejecución del acto administrativo.
Tampoco puede perderse de vista el deber de coordinación interinstitucional. La Municipalidad de Atenas no es la autoridad técnica primaria para autorizar, fiscalizar o determinar el incumplimiento de obras en cauce, pues esa competencia corresponde a la Dirección de Agua. Sin embargo, ello no significa que la Municipalidad pueda desentenderse de la situación cuando se trata de un cauce ubicado dentro de su cantón, con posible afectación a intereses locales, vecinos del sector, seguridad comunal y ambiente. El artículo 169 de la Constitución Política atribuye al Gobierno Municipal la administración de los intereses y servicios locales del cantón. Además, la normativa administrativa reconoce el principio de coordinación institucional e interinstitucional, conforme al cual los entes y órganos públicos deben actuar entre sí de manera coordinada, intercambiando información y prestando cooperación para la resolución de las gestiones sometidas a su conocimiento.
Así, la Sala considera que la Municipalidad de Atenas debe coadyuvar con la Dirección de Agua, dentro del marco de sus competencias, capacidades materiales y disponibilidad institucional, para que la orden de demolición no quede reducida a una declaración formal. Dicha colaboración puede incluir apoyo logístico, acompañamiento de gestión ambiental municipal, coordinación vial o comunal, asistencia en el retiro de materiales, facilitación de maquinaria municipal si técnicamente resulta necesaria y jurídicamente viable, así como cualquier otra actuación razonable que permita ejecutar la medida sin agravar el daño ambiental ni poner en riesgo a las personas. Esta colaboración no desplaza la competencia rectora de la Dirección de Agua, pero sí materializa el deber constitucional de cooperación entre administraciones públicas ante una amenaza ambiental localizada en el cantón.
En consecuencia, cuando la Dirección de Agua ya constató que la obra estrangula el cauce, disminuye el área hidráulica, limita el libre discurrir de las aguas y puede generar afectaciones a terceros, la respuesta constitucionalmente adecuada no puede ser la pasividad institucional ni la espera indefinida del resultado de una denuncia penal. La Administración cuenta con potestades suficientes para ejecutar sus propios actos, utilizar la ejecución sustitutiva, coordinar con otras instituciones, recuperar los costos frente al infractor y adoptar las medidas técnicas necesarias para restituir el cauce de dominio público. La omisión de activar oportunamente esos mecanismos perpetuaría la afectación del ambiente y dejaría sin tutela efectiva el derecho reconocido en el artículo 50 constitucional.
Por todo lo anterior, procede declarar con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a la Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía que verifique el cumplimiento de la orden de demolición dictada contra Inversiones C y C del Oeste S.A y en caso de incumplimiento, active de inmediato los mecanismos de ejecución administrativa previstos en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, incluida la ejecución sustitutiva, con cargo al obligado, previo cumplimiento de las intimaciones correspondientes o motivando la urgencia si técnicamente procediere. Asimismo, deberá coordinar con la Municipalidad de Atenas, la Fuerza Pública y las demás instituciones competentes la ejecución material de la demolición, el retiro de los escombros y la adopción de medidas de restauración o estabilización necesarias para garantizar el libre discurrir de las aguas y evitar daños adicionales al cauce de la quebrada El Rastro.
Igualmente, se ordena a la Municipalidad de Atenas que, sin asumir competencias técnicas que corresponden a la Dirección de Agua, preste la colaboración interinstitucional necesaria para la ejecución efectiva de la medida, incluyendo, si resulta necesario y técnicamente viable, el apoyo con maquinaria, personal, logística municipal o gestión ambiental local, todo bajo la dirección técnica de la autoridad competente en materia de cauces. Con ello se garantiza una respuesta efectiva, coordinada y proporcional frente a la afectación denunciada, se protege el dominio público hidráulico y se restablece el goce del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
VIII.- 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.
IX.- NOTA DEL MAGISTRADO SALAZAR ALVARADO. En tesis de principio, considero que los casos relacionados con la actividad o inactividad de la Administración Pública en la reparación, construcción, modificación o demolición de cualquier obra de infraestructura, deben ser desestimados, por constituir, esa omisión, un tema de legalidad, cuya discusión corresponde a la jurisdicción ordinaria, ante la cual la persona interesada puede debatir, con mayor amplitud, sus disconformidades. Sin embargo, cuando de aquella conducta administrativa (omisiva o no) se derive alguna violación a otros derechos fundamentales tutelados en esta jurisdicción constitucional, o se afecten grupos considerados vulnerables, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto, por constituir esta situación una excepción a mi posición en esta materia, tal y como sucede en este caso, en que la parte recurrente acusa que ha denunciado, ante la Municipalidad de Atenas y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, la alteración y obstrucción de la Quebrada El Rastro; sin embargo, sus gestiones no han sido atendidas, colocando en peligro la integridad de los habitantes de la comunidad.
X.- 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 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a DANNY OLIVARES RIVERA, en su condición de DIRECTOR A.I. DE AGUA DEL MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA, o a quien en su lugar ocupe dicho cargo, que dentro del plazo de TRES MESES contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se materialice la demolición ordenada mediante oficio No. DA-UHTPCOSR-0195-2026 y se garantice el retiro adecuado de los escombros y se adopten las medidas técnicas necesarias para la restauración del cauce, asegurando el libre discurrir de las aguas y la prevención de daños adicionales, todo lo cual deberá ser informado a este Tribunal dentro del mismo plazo. Asimismo, se ordena a MÁXIMO CHAVES OVARES Y ROY ARIAS ROJAS, por su orden alcalde y presidente del Concejo, ambos de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ATENAS, o a quienes en su lugar ocupen dichos cargos, que de INMEDIATO, dispongan con los personeros de la Dirección de Agua del MINAE -dentro de sus competencias y posibilidades- la colaboración interinstitucional necesaria para la ejecución efectiva de dicha demolición. Se advierte a las autoridades recurridas 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 y a la Municipalidad de Atenas 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. El magistrado Castillo Víquez consigna nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado pone 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 --
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.