← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 31922-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 20/08/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Alajuela 1 Health Area Office was ordered to take immediate measures requiring AERIS and MECO to address the dust observed on the bare ground; the amparo concerning the oil incident was found inadmissible.Se ordenó al Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 disponer medidas inmediatas para que AERIS y MECO atiendan el polvo constatado en el terreno descubierto; el amparo por el incidente de aceite se declaró improcedente.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) partially granted an amparo application by a neighbor of construction works at Juan Santamaría International Airport. Although it accepted that mitigation measures and earlier health-authority actions had been taken, an inspection on 2 June 2026 found the ground still bare, wind carrying dust toward the applicant’s property, and no water trucks or other mitigation system at the site. The Chamber therefore ordered the Alajuela 1 Health Area Office to issue the necessary orders immediately and take measures within its authority so that AERIS and Constructora MECO address the observed problem; both companies must comply with those orders. The Chamber found the amparo inadmissible as to the 27 January 2026 oil incident because cleanup measures had been offered and the applicant refused them. It ordered the State and the companies to pay costs, damages, and losses, to be assessed through the applicable proceedings. Justice Castillo Víquez filed a separate note.La Sala Constitucional declaró parcialmente con lugar el amparo presentado por un vecino de las obras del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría. Aunque tuvo por acreditadas medidas de mitigación y actuaciones sanitarias previas, una inspección del 2 de junio de 2026 comprobó que el terreno seguía descubierto, el viento llevaba polvo hacia la propiedad del recurrente y no había camiones cisterna ni otro sistema de mitigación en el sitio. Por ello, ordenó al Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 girar de inmediato las órdenes y adoptar las medidas de su competencia para que AERIS y Constructora MECO atiendan el problema constatado; ambas empresas deben acatar esas órdenes. La Sala consideró improcedente el amparo respecto del incidente de aceite del 27 de enero de 2026, pues se ofrecieron medidas de limpieza que el recurrente rechazó. Condenó al Estado y a las empresas al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios, cuya liquidación remitió a las vías correspondientes. El magistrado Castillo Víquez consignó una nota.
Key excerptExtracto clave
As to the health authorities’ statement that “On 2 June 2026, a visit was made to Juan Santamaría International Airport, specifically to the reported site, and the health authority found that no earthmoving was taking place at the time of inspection because it had ended. It also observed that, although no earthmoving was underway, the ground was bare and wind was carrying dust toward the applicant’s property. No water truck or watering vehicle was present at the site, nor was any other mitigation system observed. On the upper part of the ground, opposite the complainant’s property, machinery was working, apparently installing foundations for a platform to be built. Accordingly, it was established that, although the earthmoving had ended, dust was present at the reported airport site”; the amparo is granted on this point. Although the initial reported problem had been resolved, it was shown that the ground remained bare even without earthmoving, and wind carried dust toward the respondent’s property. In short, it was established that no water truck or watering vehicle was present at the site, and no other mitigation system was observed. It was therefore concluded that “The Mitigation Plan is not being implemented, although the earthmoving has supposedly ended, but dust is present on that airport ground.” Accordingly, the amparo is granted on this point, with the consequences stated in the operative part of this judgment.Ahora bien en cuanto a la afirmación de las autoridades sanitarias al señalar que “El día 02 de junio de 2026, se realizó visita al establecimiento Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, concretamente al sitio denunciado y la autoridad sanitaria, constató en el sitio que al momento de la inspección no se observó movimiento de tierras por las obras en el sitio, ya que este concluyó. También se observó que, aunque no se están realizando movimientos de tierra, el terreno esta descubierto y con el viento, el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del amparado. No se observó la presencia de ningún camión cisterna o de riego en el sitio, tampoco se observó que se hubiera implementado otro sistema de mitigación. En la parte alta del terreno, frente a la propiedad del denunciante se observó maquinaria trabajando, en apariencia, están instalando cimientos para una plataforma a construir. Por lo anterior, se comprobó que, aunque el movimiento de tierras ya concluyó, se observó la presencia de polvo en el sitio denunciado”; el recurso deviene procedente. Si bien es cierto la problemática denunciada inicialmente fue resuelta se demostró que en el terreno, aunque no se realice el movimiento de tierra, esta descubierto y con el viento el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del denunciado. En suma se demostró que no había presencia de ningún camión cisterna o de riego en el sitio; tampoco se observó la implementación de cualquier otro sistema de mitigación. Por lo que se concluyó que “El Plan de Mitigación no está siendo implementado, aunque el movimiento de tierra supuestamente ya concluyó, pero se observa presencia de polvo en dicho terreno del aeropuerto”. Así las cosas el recurso deviene procedente en cuanto a este extremo con las consecuencias que se indican en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Lleva razón el recurrente al señalar que las obras así como el tránsito de maquinaria pesada eventualmente podrían generar material particulado."
"The applicant is right that the works and the movement of heavy machinery could generate particulate matter."
Considerando V
"Lleva razón el recurrente al señalar que las obras así como el tránsito de maquinaria pesada eventualmente podrían generar material particulado."
Considerando V
"El Plan de Mitigación no está siendo implementado, aunque el movimiento de tierra supuestamente ya concluyó, pero se observa presencia de polvo en dicho terreno del aeropuerto."
"The Mitigation Plan is not being implemented, although the earthmoving has supposedly ended, but dust is present on that airport ground."
Considerando VII
"El Plan de Mitigación no está siendo implementado, aunque el movimiento de tierra supuestamente ya concluyó, pero se observa presencia de polvo en dicho terreno del aeropuerto."
Considerando VII
"Se ordena a Víctor González Jiménez en su calidad de Director del Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 del Ministerio de Salud o a quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo que de forma inmediata, gire las órdenes necesarias y tome las medidas pertinentes que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia"
"Víctor González Jiménez, in his capacity as Director of the Alajuela 1 Health Area Office of the Ministry of Health, or whoever holds that position, is ordered immediately to issue the necessary orders and take the appropriate measures within his authority."
Por tanto
"Se ordena a Víctor González Jiménez en su calidad de Director del Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 del Ministerio de Salud o a quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo que de forma inmediata, gire las órdenes necesarias y tome las medidas pertinentes que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia"
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
Review of the Document CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at 9:20 a.m. on 20 August 2026.
Amparo application filed by [Nombre 001], identity card [Valor 001], against AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, and the MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Background:
“I- PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
“(…) Interested management of airport services. Interested management is a way of managing public services and public works through which the Administration acts with the participation of a third party (in this case, a private party), which acts for and in the name of the State, which collects payment for the service and pays the manager a previously defined fee. In this case, the respective public entity remains in charge of the asset and all public services related to it, using the manager as its administrator. LIABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDED THERE REMAINS WITH THE STATE, without prejudice to any contractual liability the manager may assume toward it for breach of its duties. This differs from other arrangements, such as concessions for public works and services, insofar as the latter involve a true transfer of the provision and operation of the service. Likewise, under a CONCESSION, the private party is remunerated from payments received directly from the public, and liability always rests with the concessionaire.
It is therefore clear that the two arrangements—the concession and interested management—must not be confused. On this point, the claimants argue that Decree 26801-MOPT establishes a true ‘concealed’ concession of Juan Santamaría International Airport and the services provided there. In this regard, it is clear from reading the Regulation in question and the contract ultimately signed that the proponents of this proceeding are mistaken: the arrangement chosen in both instruments is in fact interested management, not a concession of a public work with a public service (…).” (Emphasis and capitalization are not in the original.)
II- FACTS ALLEGED IN THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION 1. Works in the western sector of AIJS Alleged fact: Since December 2025, work to expand the runway and parking areas has been underway in the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport.
Response: On 27 October 2025, work entitled “Expansion of the Remote Apron and Complementary Works” began at Juan Santamaría International Airport. It is identified as Project A-01 in the Master Plan for Juan Santamaría International Airport. The scope of this work includes construction of approximately 34.500 m² of new remote apron, as well as a series of complementary works essential to airport service operations and to improving existing areas in the surrounding zones. Accordingly, the alleged fact is admitted as true, subject to the clarifications stated. Evidence items 2, 3, 4, and 10 are cited.
2. Location of the claimant’s home and household Alleged fact: The claimant’s home is located approximately 50 meters from the work area and is occupied by various members of the claimant’s family, including minors and older adults.
Response: On this point, it should be clarified that AERIS has visited homes in the area as part of its community outreach during the construction period. During those visits, general information was collected about the number and ages of the people living there. Accordingly, AERIS has knowledge of those basic details about the composition of the households visited. However, the scope of those visits does not, without additional support, establish other particular circumstances of the residents, especially circumstances requiring a specific assessment or not directly observed by AERIS. As to the property’s location, the home in question is near the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport, in an area adjoining places where work associated with Project A-01 is being carried out. Nevertheless, the exact distance and degree of exposure must be assessed based on available technical information, plans, photographs, inspections, and other objective evidence, and not solely on a unilateral statement by the claimant. Evidence item 11 is cited.
3. Dust generated by earthworks and heavy machinery Alleged fact: Excavation, earthworks (movimiento de tierra), and the use of heavy machinery have caused an unusual, sustained, and high level of dust dispersion.
Response: Given the nature of the earthworks, excavation, and heavy machinery traffic involved in an airport infrastructure project of this scale, temporary generation of particulate matter could occur. However, AERIS denies that such generation has been unusual, sustained, or high in the terms alleged by the claimant. The activities carried out are ordinary and necessary within the scope of the project. From the planning stage, specific emissions-control measures were included, such as surface wetting, speed controls, covering materials, environmental monitoring, and additional measures when weather conditions required them. Any dust dispersion should therefore be assessed in light of the scale of the project, the characteristics of the terrain, and external factors such as wind and the dry season; this does not mean that the Operator or national aviation authority failed to act or acted arbitrarily. Evidence items 5,6,7,8,9,11,12, and 13 are cited.
4 and 5. Alleged effects on homes, health, and quality of life Alleged fact: The time of year when this work is carried out coincides with the dry season, which in this specific area is characterized by very strong trade winds blowing from east to west. The dust generated affects the cleanliness of neighboring homes, as well as the health and quality of life of people and animals in the area.
Response: AERIS denies that the available evidence conclusively establishes direct effects on health, quality of life, or the integrity of homes and animals in the area in the terms alleged by the claimant. Although the record contains actions by the competent authorities, including inspections and health orders, the existence of such actions alone does not permit all alleged effects to be attributed directly and exclusively to the work being carried out. A causal relationship of that kind must be determined through an overall assessment of the circumstances of each case and the available technical and objective evidence. Rather, AERIS has maintained strict environmental control over the contractor’s activities and acted diligently, preventively, and with ongoing monitoring. It has implemented mitigation measures and addressed communications received; this cannot be construed as acceptance that a constitutional or public-health injury has been proven.
6. Measures taken with AERIS, MECO, and the Ministry of Health, and mitigation measures Alleged fact: The claimant raised concerns with AERIS, MECO, and the Ministry of Health, which expressed willingness to follow up and apply mitigation measures, such as watering with tanker trucks. However, these measures have not been sufficient to curb the dust generated, and there is no evidence that the conditions described have improved. Dust continues to accumulate in our homes, our belongings, and our respiratory systems.
Response: AERIS admits that it received communications and expressions of concern related to Project A-01 and, in response, provided continuous follow-up through the established channels for handling inquiries, complaints, and observations from third parties. Those communications were addressed promptly through responses, coordination with the contractor, follow-up by specialized personnel, visits or inspections when appropriate, and reinforcement of mitigation measures. Thus, far from showing inaction, this fact confirms that AERIS has acted actively and consistently to address concerns raised by the neighboring community.
AERIS also admits that it implemented dust-control mitigation measures, including watering by tanker trucks, surface wetting, speed controls for machinery and vehicles, covering loads, and applying stabilizing agents when conditions required, as shown in the photographic record in Documentary Evidence item twelve. However, it denies that these measures were technically or legally insufficient. The purpose of mitigation measures is not to absolutely eliminate every trace of dust inherent in large-scale construction, but to reasonably reduce, control, and minimize its effects. In this case, the measures were and continue to be applied consistently, progressively reinforced, and subject to environmental monitoring. It therefore cannot validly be asserted that AERIS failed to meet its prevention and control obligations.
Accordingly, AERIS denies the allegation as stated because there is no objective technical evidence from which to conclude that dust persistently accumulated in homes, belongings, or residents’ respiratory systems as a direct and exclusive consequence of the work carried out for the project. AERIS arranged inspections, environmental monitoring, and responses to observations received, in addition to ongoing mitigation measures. In any event, mitigation does not mean completely eliminating any emission or nuisance associated with construction. The enforceable obligation is to implement reasonable, proportionate, and effective control measures, which has been done and documented during the project. Evidence items 5,6,7, 8, 9, 11,12, and 13 are cited.
7. Oil spill incident on 27 January Alleged fact: On 27 January, an excavator suffered a ruptured lubricating-oil hose, causing oil to spread to neighboring properties due to the wind.
Response: AERIS admits that an operational incident involving an excavator occurred, consisting of a ruptured lubricating-oil hose, with the clarifications set out in the documentation for Evidence item thirteen. Once the event was identified, containment, cleanup, and response measures were activated, including verification of site conditions, coordination with the contractor, and documentation of the incident for follow-up purposes. Appropriate corrective actions were also taken to prevent similar incidents from recurring. Accordingly, the fact is admitted only as to the occurrence of the mechanical event described. It is clarified that the incident was addressed promptly and does not show inaction or negligence by AERIS, but instead was an isolated event that was duly remedied. It should be clarified that the claimant refused to accept the cleanup measures planned specifically for the claimant’s property. Evidence item 13 is cited in relation to this fact.
8. Alleged violation of fundamental rights Alleged fact: Both the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and the General Health Law, along with various decrees and regulations, guarantee health as a fundamental right and a public good protected by the State. The guarantee of a healthy and safe environment for all the country’s inhabitants is also recognized. It is further established that every natural or legal person must comply with the legislation in force on health matters. These guarantees are being violated for those of us who live near the airport, and no improvement in conditions is foreseeable while the dry season continues.
Response: AERIS categorically denies that the facts described amount to a violation of fundamental rights attributable to AERIS. The available documentary and technical evidence shows that the project has the corresponding administrative and environmental authorizations; that preventive and corrective dust-control measures were implemented; that communications from the community were addressed; and that environmental monitoring took place during the work. Accordingly, no arbitrary, unlawful, or disproportionate action or omission constituting a constitutional injury is apparent. Any nuisances that may arise from authorized construction must be assessed in light of the reasonable mitigation measures adopted, which AERIS has applied diligently and consistently. Evidence item 13 is cited in relation to this fact.
III- OTHER FUNDAMENTAL MATTERS AND CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MERITS a. The project at issue in the application The claimant’s statements concern work on the project entitled “A-01 Extension of the Remote Apron to the West and Complementary Works,” carried out within Juan Santamaría International Airport as part of the modernization and expansion of that airport terminal, as shown in Evidence items 2, 4, and 10. AERIS Holding Costa Rica, S.A. carries out the project in the name and on behalf of the Technical Council of Civil Aviation, in its capacity as Interested Manager of Juan Santamaría International Airport. As indicated in section I, Preliminary Considerations, in that capacity AERIS coordinates, supervises, and controls airport projects carried out within the airport terminal, including monitoring environmental matters associated with that work. From the start of the project, AERIS has acted diligently and continuously to ensure compliance with applicable environmental obligations and minimize any effects that might result from the construction work, in compliance with applicable standards and through implementation of measures to mitigate construction-related effects.
b. Legality and authorization of the project It is important to note that the work at issue in this application is part of a project duly authorized by the competent authorities. In that regard, at session 51-2025, the Technical Council of Civil Aviation approved the work, which was scheduled to be completed within 420 calendar days beginning 27 October 2025, as shown in Evidence item 10. The project to expand and modernize Juan Santamaría International Airport has environmental viability granted by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat through Resolution N.° 0676-2001-SETENA, issued in the administrative file for the Juan Santamaría International Airport modernization and expansion project, as shown in Evidence item 2.
The Ministry of Public Works and Transport approved the construction plans and authorized the project entitled “Extension of the Remote Apron to the West and Complementary Works,” through official letter CARTA-MOPT-DVOP-DEN-PYD2025-753, as shown in Evidence item 4. Likewise, the Municipality of Alajuela expressly verified compliance with the technical and environmental requirements relating to the earthworks associated with the project, confirming the existence of the corresponding environmental viability, authorization of the material’s final disposal site, the lawfulness of the haul route, and compliance with the applicable municipal requirements, as shown in Evidence item 3. Accordingly, the project is being carried out within a framework of full legality, under ongoing administrative oversight, and in full compliance with the environmental obligations established by the legal system.
c. Dust generation and environmental management AERIS acknowledges that earthworks associated with a large-scale airport infrastructure project can generate temporary particulate emissions. Project A-01 therefore includes the mitigation measures required by Executive Decree N.° 44843, Regulations for the Management of Construction and Demolition Waste. Those measures were established before construction began to prevent, control, and mitigate dust dispersion during the work.
Among those measures, a specific procedure entitled “Dust Control Instructions: Earthworks” was prepared to minimize particulate emissions, protect workers’ health, and reduce possible nuisances to neighboring communities, as shown in Evidence item 5. This procedure expressly identifies the risks associated with dust generation and establishes various preventive, operational, and corrective controls to mitigate them. This shows that the situation reported by the claimant was not ignored or neglected by AERIS, but was a condition inherent in this type of construction work, anticipated during project planning and addressed through ongoing control mechanisms, as shown in Evidence item 13.
d. Control and mitigation measures implemented To prevent and reduce dust generation and dispersion inherent in construction activities, Project A-01 has maintained a set of environmental control and mitigation measures across the various work fronts. Their implementation has been monitored by the Environmental Management of Juan Santamaría International Airport and adjusted to the operational and environmental conditions at each point in time.
These measures form part of a dynamic control approach: their intensity and frequency vary reasonably according to factors such as precipitation, soil moisture and condition, wind, machinery traffic, and the intensity of construction activities. The principal actions implemented, documented in Evidence items 5,6,7,8,9,11,12, and 13, include:
With the onset of the rainy season, watering frequency has been reduced due to natural precipitation and the resulting increase in soil moisture. This does not mean the measure has been suspended: at least one tanker truck remains available on site, allowing wetting to be increased when weather, surface conditions, or the work being performed require it.
Accordingly, these are not isolated or one-time actions, but concurrent and adjustable measures intended to control the effects inherent in construction activities. Their application and monitoring are supported by the project logs and periodic reports of the Environmental Management for Project A-01, submitted as part of the documentary evidence. This approach also shows that dust generated by construction does not, by itself, imply an absence of environmental control. What matters is the existence, application, monitoring, and adjustment of reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate dust dispersion, as has been done throughout the project.
e. AERIS’s actions in response to complaints Contrary to the assertions in the application, AERIS has not remained inactive in response to statements by area residents. Before work on Project A-01 began, AERIS prepared a Communication and Stakeholder Management Plan that included the neighboring community. The plan identified channels for handling complaints, which remain available to users and third parties every day without exception, 24 hours a day, to provide corrective attention to reported situations. AERIS therefore has a dedicated system for receiving, administering, and following up on complaints related to this project.
In addition, the independent Environmental Management responsible for monitoring projects carried out within Juan Santamaría International Airport recorded that it had received various communications from the claimant and other community members concerning nuisances associated with dust generation. All were addressed promptly through various communication and follow-up mechanisms. As shown in Evidence items 9, 11, and 13, this included:
- Receipt and follow-up of communications by email; - Follow-up calls by specialized personnel; - Responses through direct communication channels; - In-person visits to people who expressed dissatisfaction; - Implementation of special measures agreed with various community members to further mitigate effects on their properties.
As further action in response to observations from residents in the western sector of the airport, AERIS progressively reinforced mitigation measures by increasing the number of vehicles assigned to watering, increasing the frequency of water application, and using additional surface-stabilization measures. It also carried out cleanup measures on third parties’ properties when authorized and agreed on special measures with specific property owners, through the relevant coordination, to further mitigate effects inherent in the construction phase. Thus, far from showing inaction, the actions taken demonstrate a consistent response aimed at continuously improving the measures in place.
f. Independent technical verification of environmental compliance It is particularly relevant that the measures described above were not merely reported by AERIS or the contractor; they are also subject to control and oversight by various government authorities. The independent Environmental Management retained to monitor projects carried out within Juan Santamaría International Airport also conducted periodic inspection and monitoring visits to Project A-01. Based on those inspections, as shown in Evidence items 7 and 8, the Environmental Management expressly concluded that:
- The contractor continuously and without interruption maintained the dust-control measures prescribed for this type of project; - Ongoing watering and surface wetting were verified; - The progressive increase in mitigation measures was confirmed; - Stabilizing agents were verified as having been applied when conditions required them; - Compliance was confirmed with environmental programs relating to dust control and management of relations with neighboring communities.
The Environmental Management itself concluded that the project was carried out under a consistent framework of compliance with approved environmental measures and that the best available practices for dust control were applied.
g. Absence of a constitutionally relevant omission The documentary evidence submitted objectively demonstrates that:
- The project has the required environmental and administrative authorizations; - A specific dust-control program was implemented; - Mitigation measures were and continue to be carried out on an ongoing basis; - Neighborhood complaints were addressed promptly; - Controls were reinforced as the project progressed; - Independent environmental oversight has been in place throughout the work; and - Compliance with applicable environmental obligations was technically verified.
Accordingly, there was no arbitrary action or omission attributable to AERIS Holding Costa Rica, S.A. that could be considered injurious to the fundamental rights invoked by the claimant. Even if certain residents experienced nuisances associated with construction activities and weather conditions typical of the dry season, the technical documentation shows that AERIS adopted and maintained reasonable, proportionate, and ongoing measures to minimize those effects, acting diligently and in accordance with the best available practices.
h. Inadmissibility of the request to suspend the work The claimant’s request to suspend the work is a disproportionate claim that bears no reasonable relationship to the circumstances it seeks to address. A project’s complete suspension cannot follow automatically from nuisances or impacts associated with construction activity, particularly when those effects can be prevented, controlled, mitigated, monitored, and improved through less burdensome technical and operational measures.
Such a measure would require proof that ordinary prevention and mitigation measures are insufficient, that no reasonable alternatives exist to address the reported situation, and that continuing the work poses a risk of such magnitude as to justify the economic, contractual, operational, and public-interest consequences of suspension. That is not the case here. On the contrary, the specific prevention and mitigation measures described above have been implemented and documented and can also be strengthened and adapted as conditions change during the project.
The material reality must therefore be considered: excavation, earthworks, machinery traffic, and material transport inevitably generate certain temporary impacts, including dust and particulate matter. Because these effects are foreseeable, regulations and good construction practices provide mechanisms to prevent, control, and reduce them. The existence of an impact cannot therefore be confused with the absence of measures to manage it. In this case, the submitted documentation establishes that a specific control scheme has been implemented, including daily planning of work in light of soil and wind conditions, watering cycles, speed controls, covering loads, visual monitoring, use of dust suppressants, and road cleaning. The Dust Control Instructions, included among the available evidence, also provide specific measures for earthworks and require safety and mitigation actions to be determined based on the conditions on each workday. This is therefore not work carried out without controls, but a known impact for which specific management measures exist.
Nor can it be required that work of this nature be conditioned on absolute mitigation or zero dust generation. Such a standard would be materially incompatible with earthworks. What is required is that impacts be reasonably prevented, reduced, and controlled through appropriate technical measures. The occasional or residual presence of dust therefore does not, by itself, establish that the measures implemented are nonexistent or that the only possible response is to halt all work.
Suspension is particularly disproportionate because less burdensome alternatives capable of addressing the situation have not been exhausted. The measures currently in place are not rigid. They can be reviewed, reinforced, and adapted based on conditions verified in the field. The Mitigation Plan itself follows this approach by providing for changes in watering frequency depending on heat and wind conditions, as well as the possibility of suspending critical tasks when weather conditions make the control measure ineffective. Accordingly, if a particular situation is identified, targeted measures can be assessed. There is a substantial difference between adjusting or temporarily suspending a specific activity when technical circumstances warrant it and halting an entire project. The former is an ordinary management and mitigation tool; the latter is an extreme measure requiring substantially greater justification.
In addition, possibilities for coordination and implementation of further measures concerning the claimant have not been exhausted. As a neighbor whose property adjoins Juan Santamaría International Airport, the claimant has been offered AERIS’s assistance in addressing the situations raised and coordinating an assessment of the specific conditions of the property. However, despite the approaches made, it has not yet been possible to reach an agreement with the claimant that would fully establish this coordination and allow assessment and implementation of any additional measures specifically directed to the claimant’s situation.
This is particularly relevant because it shows that options for assistance, coordination, and improvement remain available but have not been fully implemented because no agreement has been reached with the claimant. This does not shift to the claimant the prevention, control, and mitigation obligations that belong to AERIS and those involved in carrying out the work. Rather, it shows a willingness to continue addressing specific conditions that can be verified and, if technically and reasonably appropriate, to strengthen or supplement the measures already in place. Therefore, while technically viable options for improving mitigation remain, it is unreasonable to maintain that suspension is necessary.
The proportionality of the measure must also be assessed in light of more than the immediate effect of stopping the work. The work is part of broader planning for airport infrastructure development and is linked to schedules, investments, contracts, personnel, machinery, supplies, and subsequent construction activities. For that reason, suspending one phase does not have an isolated effect but creates a chain reaction. Disrupting the schedule for one activity may displace later phases, extend contracts, increase the periods for which machinery and personnel must remain, require supply rescheduling, and affect investments already made or committed. Suspension may also generate demobilization and subsequent remobilization costs, extensions of time, contract amendments, and increased administrative and operational costs. Those consequences can affect the rest of the project and the timely completion of work included in airport planning.
In that regard, suspension may affect implementation of the Master Plan, investment in airport infrastructure, and timely completion of work involving infrastructure of strategic importance to the country. This does not mean that economic considerations should prevail over environmental or public-health obligations. It means that all of them must be weighed together to determine the most reasonable response. If the objective can be achieved through less burdensome mitigation, oversight, and improvement measures, it is disproportionate to assume the systemic consequences of a general suspension. The issue should not be framed as a choice between protecting people and the environment, on the one hand, and continuing the work, on the other. Both interests can and must coexist.”
Drafted by Justice Cruz Castro; and, Reasons:
Article 57 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction specifies the circumstances in which an amparo application may be brought against acts or omissions of private-law subjects. It provides that this type of application is admissible when such subjects act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or when, as a matter of fact or law, they occupy a position of power against which ordinary judicial remedies are clearly insufficient or too late to protect the fundamental rights or freedoms referred to in Article 2, subsection a), of that Law. In this case, those conditions are met because the respondents are alleged to occupy a position of power in relation to the claimant, insofar as the work being carried out allegedly places the health of neighbors and their homes at risk.
II.Before analyzing the merits of the matter—concerning the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and duly completed procedure—it must be clarified that, beginning with judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on 22 February 2008, this Chamber has referred to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction—with some exceptions—matters in which the issue is whether the public administration has complied with the time limits established by the General Law on Public Administration (Articles 261 and 325) or by sector-specific laws governing special administrative procedures, both for issuing a final decision in an administrative procedure—initiated ex officio or at the request of a party—and for hearing the available administrative appeals. In this particular case, an exception applies, because the matter concerns a complaint of pollution and effects on the applicant’s health that allegedly has not been addressed. Having clarified this point, the Chamber proceeds to decide this issue on the merits.
The applicant claims that since December 2025, work has been underway in the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport to expand the runway and parking areas. The applicant states that their home is approximately 50 meters from the location where the work is being carried out, and that other family members live on the same property, including children aged two and three, middle-aged adults, and older adults. The applicant alleges that the work involves moving a large quantity of earth using heavy machinery: excavators and dump trucks. The applicant notes that the work is taking place during the dry season, which in this specific area is characterized by very fast trade winds blowing east to west. These factors have caused an unusual, sustained, and very high dispersion of dust particles, affecting the cleanliness of nearby homes as well as the health and quality of life of those of us who live there, both people and animals.
The applicant states that they approached the Ministry of Health, the airport management company (AERIS), and the construction company (MECO) to express their concern. Those entities indicated they were willing to follow up and propose mitigation strategies, such as watering with tanker trucks; however, these measures have not been sufficient to suppress the dust, and there is no evidence that the conditions described have improved. The applicant maintains that dust continues to accumulate in their homes, on their belongings, and in their respiratory systems. The applicant argues that on 27 January, an excavator suffered a rupture in a lubricating-oil hose. This caused an irregular and explosive spray over a large area which, intensified by the strong winds, coated several surfaces on nearby properties, causing stains and dirt, as well as inhalation of the substance by people living in the area. Based on the arguments presented, the applicant considers that the actions complained of violate fundamental rights.
The following facts, relevant to the decision in this matter, are considered duly established, either because they were proven or because the respondent authority failed to address them:
AS TO AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA
AS TO CONSTRUCTORA MECO S.A.
AS TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
aa) During the 02 June 2026 visit, it was observed that although no earthworks were being carried out, the ground was exposed and, with the wind, dust was moving toward the amparo applicant’s property (see report of the respondent authority).
bb) On the upper part of the ground, opposite the complainant’s property, machinery was observed at work, apparently installing foundations for a platform to be built. It was therefore confirmed that, although the earthworks had ended, dust was present at the reported site (see report of the respondent authority).
The following was established from the reports submitted by the respondent authority under oath, with the legal consequences that entails, as well as from the responses of the respondent companies. As to the project to expand and modernize Juan Santamaría International Airport, it was established that the project has environmental viability granted by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental through Resolution N.° 0676-2001-SETENA, and that Aeris Holding Costa Rica, S.A. (“AERIS” or the “Manager”) serves as Interested Manager of Juan Santamaría International Airport (“AIJS”). It was shown that since December 2025, work has been underway in the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport to expand the runway and parking areas, and that work on the project known as “Expansion of the Remote Apron and Complementary Works” at Juan Santamaría International Airport began on 27 October 2025.
It is identified as Project A-01 in the Master Plan for Juan Santamaría International Airport. It was stated that the applicant’s home is in the vicinity of the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport, in an area adjoining areas where work associated with Project A-01 is being carried out. It was indicated that the nature of the earthworks, excavation, and heavy-machinery traffic could temporarily generate particulate matter. It was shown that dust-control mitigation measures have been implemented, including watering by tanker trucks, wetting surfaces, controlling the speed of machinery and vehicles, covering loads, and applying stabilizing agents when conditions have required it. It was shown that during the dry season, three (3) tanker trucks remained permanently in the work area during February, watering throughout the workday; and that with the onset of the rainy season, watering has been reduced because of natural rainfall and the resulting increase in ground moisture.
However, measures remain in place through a tanker truck available on site, allowing additional wetting when weather conditions, surface conditions, or the work being carried out so require. Speed limits were established within the worksite to reduce the dispersion of particles generated by heavy-machinery traffic and transport vehicles. All dump trucks were required to travel with their loads covered by properly secured tarpaulins to prevent materials from dispersing during transport. Finally, it was stated that when weather conditions required it, specialized dust-control products (“Dust Control”) were applied to improve the surface stability of the ground and reduce the release of particulate matter. As to Meco S.A., it was established that on 23 January 2026 the Ministry of Health issued Sanitary Order N.° MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-OS-0023-2026, addressed to AERIS HOLDING S.A. as owner of the Juan Santamaría International Airport expansion project, and subsequently issued Sanitary Report N.° IS-006-2026, which imposed on AERIS a fine of one base salary (¢462.200,00) for the noncompliance detected during the inspection of 23 March 2026.
It was established that MECO’s independent and continuous Environmental Oversight contracted the company Ecoseg, under the direction of Eng. Olivier Álvarez Calderón, as the project’s independent Environmental Supervisor to conduct systematic site visits, and that the oil incident of 27 January 2026 resulted from the rupture of a hydraulic hose on the MAIT HR75 equipment at a height of ten or twelve meters during work on compacted gravel columns. Corrective measures were therefore adopted, the affected vehicles were cleaned, and clothing was sent to a laundry. As to the Ministry of Health, it was shown that on 12 January 2026 the applicant filed a complaint with the Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 against Juan Santamaría International Airport regarding dust generated by earthworks being carried out on the west side of the aforementioned facility. Subsequently, on 20 January 2026, the health authorities informed airport management (AERIS) by email of the complaint and requested that it submit a mitigation plan to address the complainant’s concerns.
Then, on 29 January 2026, the requested Mitigation Plan was received under Official Letter GO-LE-26-110, signed by José Ricardo Hernández Larios, executive director of the company responsible for managing the airport. On 05 February 2026, the respondent authorities visited the site and verified that the reported problem continued to affect the complainant’s home. They therefore prepared technical report CARTA-MS-DRRSCNDARSA1-IT-116-2026. On 09 February 2026, Sanitary Order MS-DRRSCNDARSA1-OS-023-2026 was issued and served on Oscar Geovanni Muñoz Jiménez, legal representative of Aeris Holding, giving him 3 days to improve the mitigation plan in place so as to resolve the matter reported. On 13 February 2026, the mitigation plan with the requested improvements was received under Official Letter GO-LE-26-152, signed by José Ricardo Hernández Larios, Executive Director of AERIS. On 23 March 2026, the authorities visited the site and verified that the reported problem had not been resolved and that the submitted mitigation plan had not been implemented.
They therefore prepared technical report CARTA-MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-IT-350-2026. On 26 March 2026, sanitary report CARTA-MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-IS-006-2026 was issued and served. Pursuant to Articles 378 and 378-bis of the General Health Law, it imposed a fine of one base salary for failure to comply with the sanitary order served. On 02 June 2026, the authorities visited Juan Santamaría International Airport, specifically the reported site, and the health authority found that no earthworks were being carried out at the time of inspection because the work there had been completed. During the 02 June 2026 visit, it was observed that although no earthworks were being carried out, the ground was exposed and, with the wind, dust was moving toward the amparo applicant’s property. It was shown that on the upper part of the ground, opposite the complainant’s property, machinery was observed at work, apparently installing foundations for a platform to be built.
It was therefore confirmed that, although the earthworks had ended, dust was present at the reported site. In conclusion, it is true that since December 2025, work has been underway in the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport to expand the runway and parking areas. It is also true that the applicant’s home is in the vicinity of the western sector of Juan Santamaría International Airport, in an area adjoining areas where work associated with Project A-01 is being carried out. The applicant is correct in stating that the work and heavy-machinery traffic could temporarily generate particulate matter. It is not true, however, that the measures implemented to address the problem have been insufficient. As was established, the complaint filed by the applicant on 12 January 2026 against Juan Santamaría International Airport regarding dust generated by earthworks on the west side of the aforementioned facility was duly resolved.
The health authorities issued Sanitary Order N.° MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-OS-0023-2026, addressed to AERIS HOLDING S.A. as owner of the Juan Santamaría International Airport expansion project, and subsequently issued Sanitary Report N.° IS-006-2026, which imposed on AERIS a fine of one base salary (¢462.200,00) for the noncompliance detected during the inspection of 23 March 2026. In short, it was established that on 02 June 2026—after notice of the order commencing this amparo proceeding—the health authorities visited Juan Santamaría International Airport, specifically the reported site, and found that no earthworks were being carried out at the site at the time of inspection. In light of this and taking into account that the project developer implemented mitigation measures such as watering by tanker trucks, wetting surfaces, controlling the speed of machinery and vehicles, covering loads, and applying stabilizing agents when conditions required it; that during the dry season three tanker trucks remained permanently in the work area, watering throughout the workday; that during the rainy season the measures remained in place through a tanker truck available on site, allowing additional wetting when weather conditions, surface conditions, or the work being carried out so required; that vehicle speed limits were established within the worksite to reduce the dispersion of particles generated by heavy-machinery traffic and transport vehicles; that all dump trucks were required to travel with their loads covered by properly secured tarpaulins to prevent materials from dispersing during transport; and that specialized dust-control products (“Dust Control”) were applied to improve the surface stability of the ground and reduce the release of particulate matter. Accordingly, actions have been taken to address the reported problem.
VI.As to the event of 27 January 2026 involving the rupture of an excavator’s lubricating-oil hose, it was shown that the project developer offered the applicant the implementation of planned cleaning measures on their property, and that the applicant refused the measures offered. Accordingly, the amparo application is inadmissible as to this issue.
VII.As to the health authorities’ statement that “On 02 June 2026, a visit was made to Juan Santamaría International Airport, specifically to the reported site, and the health authority found that no earthworks were being carried out at the site at the time of inspection because the work there had been completed. It was also observed that although no earthworks were being carried out, the ground was exposed and, with the wind, dust was moving toward the amparo applicant’s property. No tanker truck or watering equipment was observed at the site, nor was any other mitigation system observed to have been implemented. On the upper part of the ground, opposite the complainant’s property, machinery was observed at work, apparently installing foundations for a platform to be built. It was therefore confirmed that, although the earthworks had ended, dust was present at the reported site”; the amparo application is admissible.
Although the problem initially reported was resolved, it was established that the ground remained exposed even though no earthworks were being carried out, and the wind was carrying dust toward the respondent’s property. In short, it was established that no tanker truck or watering equipment was present at the site, and no other mitigation system was observed to have been implemented. It was therefore concluded that “The Mitigation Plan is not being implemented, although the earthworks have supposedly ended, and dust is still present on the airport grounds.” Accordingly, the amparo application is admissible as to this issue, with the consequences set out in the dispositive part of this judgment.
I have supported this Tribunal’s position that, when a litigant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and duly completed justice in administrative proceedings, the Courts of the Administrative-Litigation Jurisdiction, rather than this Chamber, must hear the legal dispute. However, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Law on the Regulation of the Right of Petition, that right has been made subject to judicial protection through the amparo proceeding established by Article 32 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, in relation to Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in cases where the petitioner considers that the Administration’s material conduct, administrative acts, or response are affecting their fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not require this Tribunal to change its line of precedent; under Article 7 of its Law, this Tribunal alone defines its own jurisdiction.
Therefore, except for those constitutional legal disputes that this Chamber itself has recognized as exceptional cases that may be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo process, in all other cases—and for the reasons given by this Tribunal in judgment N° 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on 22 February 2008—the competent authorities are the Judges of the Administrative-Litigation Jurisdiction. This is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and rules), and the applicable legal provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
The parties are advised that if they have submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, they must be collected from the office within a maximum of 30 business days from service of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not collected within that period will be destroyed, pursuant to the “Regulation on Electronic Case Files before the Judiciary,” approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The amparo application is granted in part. Víctor González Jiménez, in his capacity as Director of the Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 of the Ministry of Health, or whoever holds that position, is ordered to immediately issue the necessary orders and take the appropriate measures within the scope of his authority to ensure that the companies HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA implement actions to address the dust problem caused by work carried out on the upper part of the ground opposite the applicant’s property—a problem confirmed during the inspection conducted on 02 June 2026. In addition, DENNIS MONGE CAMPOS, in his capacity as legal representative with the powers of a generalísimo attorney-in-fact of CONSTRUCTORA MECO S.A., and OSCAR GIOVANNI MUÑOZ JIMÉNEZ, in his capacity as General Judicial Attorney-in-Fact of AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, are ordered to comply immediately with the orders issued by the Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 of the Ministry of Health.
This order is issued with the warning that failure to comply may constitute the offense of disobedience and that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, anyone who receives an order issued in an amparo proceeding that they must comply with or enforce and fails to comply with or enforce it shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, provided the offense is not subject to a more severe penalty. The State and the companies AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts underlying this declaration. These shall be assessed in enforcement proceedings before the administrative-litigation jurisdiction and in civil proceedings, respectively. Justice Castillo Víquez files a note. Notify the parties.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
CASE FILE N° 26-006941-0007-CO Telephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Email address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 meters south of the Perpetuo Socorro church).
Revisión del Documento SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veinte de agosto de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo presentado por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], contra AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA y el MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Cruz Castro; y,
Considerando:
La Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en su artículo 57, estipula bajo qué supuestos es admisible el amparo contra las acciones u omisiones de sujetos de derecho privado, y señala que resulta admisible este tipo de demanda cuando éstos actúen o deban actuar en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas, o, se encuentren, de hecho o de derecho, en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resulten claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales a que se refiere el artículo 2° inciso a) de la misma Ley. En el caso concreto, se cumplen esos presupuestos, pues se acusa que las recurridas, están en una posición de poder respecto del accionante, en el tanto presuntamente los trabajos realizados están poniendo en riesgo la salud de los vecinos así como sus vivienda.
II.Previo a analizar el fondo del asunto –por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido– debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia No. 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas del 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa –con algunas excepciones– aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos, pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o por las leyes sectoriales relativas a los procedimientos administrativos especiales, tanto para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– como para conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en cuanto a este particular se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia interpuesta por contaminación e incidencia en la salud del recurrente que presuntamente no ha sido atendida. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver este particular por el fondo.
El recurrente reclama que desde diciembre de 2025, en el sector oeste del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría se están realizando trabajos de ampliación de la pista de aterrizaje y aparcamiento. Afirma que, su vivienda se ubica aproximadamente a 50 metros del punto donde se realizan dichas labores y en la misma propiedad conviven otras personas familiares, niños de dos y tres años, adultos de mediana edad y personas adultas mayores. Alega que, los trabajos mencionados implican una movilización de gran cantidad de tierra por medio de maquinaria pesada: excavadoras y vagonetas. Menciona que, en la época del año en que se realizan estas labores coincide con la estación seca, caracterizada en esta zona específica por la presencia de vientos alisios muy acelerados que transitan en dirección este-oeste, factores han generado una dispersión inusual, sostenida y muy elevada de partículas de polvo que está afectando la limpieza de las viviendas aledañas, así como la salud y calidad de vida de quienes las habitamos, tanto seres humanos como animales.
Alude que, se ha presentado en el Ministerio de Salud, a la empresa gestora del aeropuerto (AERIS) y a la empresa constructora (MECO) para exponer su inquietud y se han manifestado en disposición de dar seguimiento y plantear estrategias de mitigación, tales como el riego de agua con camiones cisterna; sin embargo, estas medidas no han sido suficientes para aplacar el polvo generado y no existe evidencia de mejora de las condiciones descritas. Sostiene que, el polvo se sigue acumulando en sus viviendas, nuestras pertenencias y sus sistemas respiratorios. Esgrime que, el 27 de enero, una de las excavadoras sufrió la ruptura de una maguera de aceite lubricante. Esto provocó una aspersión irregular y explosiva en un área extensa que, potenciada por los fuertes vientos, impregnó varias superficies de las propiedades cercanas, provocando manchas y suciedad, así como la inhalación de dicha sustancia por parte de quienes habitan el sector. Con base en los alegatos expuestos, estima que, con las actuaciones acusadas, se están vulnerando derechos fundamentales.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque la autoridad recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos:
EN CUANTO A LA EMPRESA AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA
EN CUANTO A LA CONSTRUCTORA MECO S.A.
EN CUANTO AL MINISTERIO DE SALUD
aa) Que en la visita del 02 de junio de 2026 se observó que, aunque no se están realizando movimientos de tierra, el terreno esta descubierto y con el viento, el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del amparado (ver informe de la autoridad recurrida).
bb) Que en la parte alta del terreno, frente a la propiedad del denunciante se observó maquinaria trabajando, en apariencia, están instalando cimientos para una plataforma a construir -por lo anterior, se comprobó que, aunque el movimiento de tierras ya concluyó, se observó la presencia de polvo en el sitio denunciado- (ver informe de la autoridad recurrida).
De los informes rendidos por la autoridad recurrida el cual es dado bajo la solemnidad del juramento con las consecuencias legales que ello implica así como de las contestaciones de las empresas recurridas se acreditó lo siguiente: En cuanto al proyecto de ampliación y modernización del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría se acreditó que el proyecto cuenta con viabilidad ambiental otorgada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental mediante Resolución N.° 0676-2001-SETENA y que, la empresa Aeris Holding Costa Rica, S.A. (“AERIS” o el “Gestor”) funge como Gestor Interesado del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría (“AIJS”). Se demostró que desde el mes de diciembre del año 2025, en el sector oeste del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaria se están realizando trabajos de ampliación de la pista de aterrizaje y áreas de aparcamiento y que el 27 de octubre de 2025 dieron inicio las obras denominadas “Expansión de la Plataforma Remota y obras complementarias” del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, identificadas como Proyecto A-01 dentro del Plan Maestro del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría.
Se afirmó que la vivienda del recurrente se encuentra en las inmediaciones del sector oeste del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, en una zona colindante con áreas donde se desarrollan obras asociadas al Proyecto A-01. Se indicó que la naturaleza de las labores de movimiento de tierras, excavación y tránsito de maquinaria pesada eventualmente podrían generar material particulado de forma temporal. Se demostró que se han implementado medidas de mitigación para el control del polvo, entre ellas el riego mediante camiones cisterna, la humectación de superficies, el control de velocidad de maquinaria y vehículos, la cobertura de cargas y la aplicación de agentes estabilizadores cuando las condiciones lo han requerido. Se demostró que durante la época seca, en el mes de febrero se mantuvieron tres (3) camiones cisterna de forma permanente en la zona de trabajo, efectuando labores de riego durante la jornada; y con el ingreso de la época lluviosa, la frecuencia de riego ha podido reducirse debido al aporte natural de las precipitaciones y al consecuente aumento de humedad del terreno -sin embargo las medidas se mantienen por medio de un camión cisterna disponible en sitio, permitiendo reforzar la humectación cuando las condiciones meteorológicas, el estado de las superficies o las actividades desarrolladas así lo requieran-.
En cuanto al control de velocidad de maquinaria y vehículos se establecieron límites de velocidad dentro de la obra para reducir la dispersión de partículas generadas por el tránsito de maquinaria pesada y vehículos de transporte. En cuanto a la cobertura obligatoria de materiales se dispuso que todas las vagonetas circularan con la carga cubierta mediante lonas adecuadamente aseguradas para evitar la dispersión de materiales durante el transporte. Finalmente se afirmó que cuando las condiciones climáticas así lo requirieron, se implementó la aplicación de productos especializados de control de polvo (“Dust Control”), destinados a mejorar la estabilidad superficial del terreno y disminuir la liberación de material particulado. En cuanto a la empresa Meco S.A. quedó probado que en fecha 23 de enero de 2026 el Ministerio de Salud dictó la Orden Sanitaria N.° MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-OS-0023-2026, dirigida a AERIS HOLDING S.A. como propietaria del proyecto de ampliación del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, y emitió posteriormente el Informe Sanitario N.° IS-006-2026, que impuso a AERIS una multa de un salario base (¢462.200,00) por el incumplimiento detectado en visita del 23 de marzo de 2026.
Se constató que la Regencia Ambiental independiente y continua MECO contrató a la empresa Ecoseg, bajo la dirección del Ing. Olivier Álvarez Calderón, como Regente Ambiental independiente del proyecto para realizar visitas sistemáticas al sitio y que el incidente de aceite del 27 de enero de 2026 fue consecuencia del reventón de una manguera hidráulica del equipo MAIT HR75 a diez o doce metros de altura durante trabajos de columnas de grava compactada por lo que se adoptaron medidas correctivas, limpieza de los vehículos afectados y envío de ropa a lavandería. En cuanto al Ministerio de Salud se demostró que en fecha 12 de enero de 2026 el recurrente presentó una denuncia en el Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 contra el Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, por el polvo generado a consecuencia de un movimiento de tierra que se estaba realizando al costado oeste del establecimiento referido.
Posteriormente el 20 de enero de 2026, vía correo electrónico las autoridades sanitarias informaron a la administración del aeropuerto (AERIS) sobre la denuncia presentada y se solicitó la presentación de un plan de mitigación para atender lo señalado por el denunciante. Seguidamente el 29 de enero 2026, se recibió con el Oficio GO-LE-26-110 el Plan de Mitigación solicitado, suscrito por el señor José Ricardo Hernández Larios, director ejecutivo de la empresa encargada de la administración del aeropuerto. El 05 de febrero de 2026 las autoridades recurridas realizaron una visita al sitio y verificaron que la problemática denunciada continuaba afectando a la vivienda del denunciante por lo que se procedió a confeccionar informe técnico CARTA-MS-DRRSCNDARSA1-IT-116-2026. El 09 de febrero de 2026, se procedió a emitir orden sanitaria MS-DRRSCNDARSA1-OS-023-2026, notificada al señor Oscar Geovanni Muñoz Jiménez, representante legal de la empresa Aeris Holding con plazo de 3 días para que realizara mejoras al plan de mitigación aplicado con el fin de resolver lo denunciado.
El 13 de febrero de 2026, se recibió con el oficio GO-LE-26-152 el plan de mitigación con las mejoras solicitadas, suscrito por el señor José Ricardo Hernández Larios, Director Ejecutivo de la empresa AERIS. El 23 de marzo de 2026, se realizó visita al sitio y se verificó que el problema denunciado no ha sido resuelto, que el plan de mitigación presentado no había sido implementado, por lo que se procedió a confeccionar informe técnico CARTA-MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-IT-350-2026. El 26 de marzo de 2026, se emitió y notificó informe sanitario CARTA-MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-IS-006-2026 en que en aplicación a lo dispuesto en los artículos 378 y 378-bis de la Ley General de Salud se le impuso multa de un salario base por incumplimiento a la orden sanitaria notificada. El 02 de junio de 2026, se realizó visita al establecimiento Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, concretamente al sitio denunciado y la autoridad sanitaria, constató en el sitio que al momento de la inspección no se observó movimiento de tierras por las obras en el sitio, ya que este concluyó.
En la visita del 02 de junio de 2026 se observó que, aunque no se están realizando movimientos de tierra, el terreno esta descubierto y con el viento, el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del amparado. Se demostró que en la parte alta del terreno, frente a la propiedad del denunciante se observó maquinaria trabajando, en apariencia, están instalando cimientos para una plataforma a construir -por lo anterior, se comprobó que, aunque el movimiento de tierras ya concluyó, se observó la presencia de polvo en el sitio denunciado-. En conclusión, es cierto que desde el mes de diciembre del año 2025, en el sector oeste del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaria se están realizando trabajos de ampliación de la pista de aterrizaje y áreas de aparcamiento. También es cierto que la vivienda del recurrente se encuentra en las inmediaciones del sector oeste del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, en una zona colindante con áreas donde se desarrollan obras asociadas al Proyecto A-01.
Lleva razón el recurrente al señalar que las obras así como el tránsito de maquinaria pesada eventualmente podrían generar material particulado. Lo que no es cierto es que las medidas que se han implementado para solventar el problema resulten insuficientes. Tal y como se logró demostrar ante la denuncia planteada por el recurrente el 12 de enero de 2026 contra el Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, por el polvo generado a consecuencia de un movimiento de tierra que se estaba realizando al costado oeste del establecimiento referido fue debidamente resuelta. Las autoridades sanitarias emitieron la Orden Sanitaria N.° MS-DRRSCN-DARSA1-OS-0023-2026, dirigida a AERIS HOLDING S.A. como propietaria del proyecto de ampliación del Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, y emitió posteriormente el Informe Sanitario N.° IS-006-2026, que impuso a AERIS una multa de un salario base (¢462.200,00) por el incumplimiento detectado en visita del 23 de marzo de 2026.
En suma se demostró que el 02 de junio de 2026 -fecha posterior a la notificación de la resolución de curso del presente amparo- las autoridades sanitarias realizaron una visita al establecimiento Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, concretamente al sitio denunciado y constataron que en el sitio que al momento de la inspección no se observó movimiento de tierras por las obras en el sitio. Ante ese panorama y tomando en cuenta que la empresa desarrolladora implementó medidas de mitigación tales como: el riego mediante camiones cisterna, la humectación de superficies, el control de velocidad de maquinaria y vehículos, la cobertura de cargas y la aplicación de agentes estabilizadores cuando las condiciones lo han requerido; durante la época seca se mantienen tres camiones cisterna de forma permanente en la zona de trabajo, efectuando labores de riego durante la jornada, en la época lluviosa las medidas se mantienen por medio de un camión cisterna disponible en sitio, permitiendo reforzar la humectación cuando las condiciones meteorológicas, el estado de las superficies o las actividades desarrolladas así lo requieran; se establecieron límites de velocidad de los vehículos dentro de la obra para reducir la dispersión de partículas generadas por el tránsito de maquinaria pesada y vehículos de transporte, todas las vagonetas circularan con la carga cubierta mediante lonas adecuadamente aseguradas para evitar la dispersión de materiales durante el transporte; se implementó la aplicación de productos especializados de control de polvo (“Dust Control”), destinados a mejorar la estabilidad superficial del terreno y disminuir la liberación de material particulado. De manera que se han realizado acciones atinentes a resolver la problemática denunciada.
VI.En cuanto al evento del día 27 de enero de 2026 relacionado con la ruptura de una maguera de aceite lubricante de una excavadora se demostró que la empresa desarrolladora le ofreció al recurrente la implementación de medidas de limpieza planificadas en su propiedad y fue el recurrente el que se negó a aceptar las medidas ofrecidas. De manera que el recurso deviene improcedente en cuanto a este extremo.
VII.Ahora bien en cuanto a la afirmación de las autoridades sanitarias al señalar que “El día 02 de junio de 2026, se realizó visita al establecimiento Aeropuerto Internacional Juan Santamaría, concretamente al sitio denunciado y la autoridad sanitaria, constató en el sitio que al momento de la inspección no se observó movimiento de tierras por las obras en el sitio, ya que este concluyó. También se observó que, aunque no se están realizando movimientos de tierra, el terreno esta descubierto y con el viento, el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del amparado. No se observó la presencia de ningún camión cisterna o de riego en el sitio, tampoco se observó que se hubiera implementado otro sistema de mitigación. En la parte alta del terreno, frente a la propiedad del denunciante se observó maquinaria trabajando, en apariencia, están instalando cimientos para una plataforma a construir. Por lo anterior, se comprobó que, aunque el movimiento de tierras ya concluyó, se observó la presencia de polvo en el sitio denunciado”; el recurso deviene procedente.
Si bien es cierto la problemática denunciada inicialmente fue resuelta se demostró que en el terreno, aunque no se realice el movimiento de tierra, esta descubierto y con el viento el polvo se desplaza hacia la propiedad del denunciado. En suma se demostró que no había presencia de ningún camión cisterna o de riego en el sitio; tampoco se observó la implementación de cualquier otro sistema de mitigación. Por lo que se concluyó que “El Plan de Mitigación no está siendo implementado, aunque el movimiento de tierra supuestamente ya concluyó, pero se observa presencia de polvo en dicho terreno del aeropuerto”. Así las cosas el recurso deviene procedente en cuanto a este extremo con las consecuencias que se indican en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales. A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia.
Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.
Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a Víctor González Jiménez en su calidad de Director del Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 del Ministerio de Salud o a quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo que de forma inmediata, gire las órdenes necesarias y tome las medidas pertinentes que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia a efectos de que las empresas HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y LA CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA implementen acciones atinentes a resolver la problemática de polvo generada por los trabajos realizados en la parte alta del terreno frente a la propiedad del recurrente -problemática que se comprobó en la inspección realizada el 02 de junio de 2026-. De otra parte se ordena a DENNIS MONGE CAMPOS en su calidad de Representante de legal con las facultades de apoderado generalísimo de la empresa CONSTRUCTORA MECO S.A. y a OSCAR GIOVANNI MUÑOZ JIMÉNEZ en su calidad de Apoderado General Judicial de la empresa AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA acatar de forma inmediata las órdenes que emita el Área Rectora de Salud Alajuela 1 del Ministerio de Salud.
Lo anterior se dicta bajo la advertencia que de no acatar la orden dicha, podría incurrir en el delito de desobediencia y que de conformidad con el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se le 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 no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado y a las empresas AERIS HOLDING COSTA RICA, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y A LA CONSTRUCTORA MECO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que serán liquidados en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativa y en vía civil, respectivamente. El magistrado Castillo Víquez consigna nota. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
EXPEDIENTE N° 26-006941-0007-CO
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.