← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 32956-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 27/08/2026
OutcomeResultado
The amparo application was granted, and municipal authorities were ordered to arrange, within six months after service, the works that technical criteria require to resolve the problem comprehensively and inform the applicant.Se declaró con lugar el amparo y se ordenó a las autoridades municipales disponer, en seis meses desde la notificación, las obras que determinen necesarias los criterios técnicos para resolver integralmente la problemática y comunicarlo a la recurrente.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) granted the amparo application against the Municipality of Alajuela because it had not definitively resolved a longstanding problem associated with the Finland School educational center, including complaints about construction, stormwater, and possible environmental impacts. Although the Municipality reported inspections, pending procedures, and answered submissions, the Chamber found that the reported problem remained unresolved and that the applicant had not been kept informed of the actions taken. It held that this omission was inconsistent with the principles of administrative effectiveness, continuity, and coordination. The Chamber ordered the mayor and the president of the Municipal Council, each within their respective powers, to arrange for the works that applicable technical criteria require to resolve the problem comprehensively to be carried out within six months after service of the judgment, and to inform the applicant. It ordered the Municipality to pay costs, damages, and losses, to be assessed in enforcement proceedings before the administrative-litigation jurisdiction. One justice dissented only as to the forum for enforcement.La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el amparo contra la Municipalidad de Alajuela por la demora en resolver integralmente una problemática conocida durante años y relacionada con el centro educativo Finland School, incluidas denuncias sobre construcciones, aguas pluviales y posibles afectaciones ambientales. Aunque la Municipalidad informó sobre inspecciones, procedimientos pendientes y trámites atendidos, la Sala concluyó que la situación denunciada no tenía una solución definitiva y que la recurrente no había sido mantenida al tanto de las acciones realizadas. Consideró que esa omisión era incompatible con los principios de eficacia, continuidad y coordinación administrativa. Ordenó al alcalde y al presidente del Concejo Municipal, dentro de sus respectivas competencias, disponer lo necesario para que en seis meses desde la notificación se ejecuten las obras que los criterios técnicos determinen necesarias para solucionar integralmente el problema y se informe a la recurrente. Condenó a la Municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios, que se liquidarán en ejecución ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. Una magistrada discrepó únicamente sobre la sede de ejecución.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Accordingly, it is established that the applicant’s complaint concerns a problem known for years and connected with environmental matters and stormwater that has not been definitively resolved, an omission inconsistent with the principles of administrative effectiveness, continuity, and coordination. It is also not apparent that the applicant was kept informed of the actions taken by the Municipality to resolve the matters raised since 11 February 2025. Consequently, this part of the claim against the Municipality of Alajuela must be granted, so that a comprehensive technical solution is adopted and the works necessary to definitively resolve the problem reported by the applicant are carried out, and she is informed accordingly, as will be stated in the operative part of this judgment.Así las cosas, se constata que el reclamo de la recurrente obedece a una problemática conocida por años y vinculada con cuestiones ambientales y aguas pluviales que no ha sido resuelta de forma definitiva, omisión que resulta incompatible con los principios de eficacia, continuidad y coordinación administrativa. Además, no se observa que a la recurrente se le haya mantenido actualizada de las acciones realizadas por el municipio a fin de resolver lo reclamado desde el 11 de febrero de 2025. En consecuencia, procede declarar con lugar este extremo contra la Municipalidad de Alajuela, a fin de que se adopte la solución técnica integral y se ejecuten las obras necesarias para solucionar de manera definitiva la problemática denunciada por la recurrente, y se le comunique lo que corresponda, según se indicará en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Se declara con lugar el recurso."
"The application is granted."
Por tanto
"Se declara con lugar el recurso."
Por tanto
"Se condena a la Municipalidad de Alajuela al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a la presente declaratoria"
"The Municipality of Alajuela is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts underlying this declaration."
Por tanto
"Se condena a la Municipalidad de Alajuela al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a la presente declaratoria"
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
Document Review CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at 9:40 a.m. on 27 August 2026.
Amparo proceeding in case file No. 26 019995-0007-CO, filed by Nombre11, identity card CED05, against the MUNICIPALITY OF ALAJUELA.
Background:
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATED 1. The right to petition and receive a prompt response, established in Article 27 of the Political Constitution. 2. The right of access to administrative and public information. 3. The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. 4. The principle of administrative legality contained in Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law on Public Administration. 5. The right to effective administrative protection and to receive consistent, complete, and timely responses.
LEGAL BASIS The Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly held that every authority is obligated to expressly and fully resolve filings made by members of the public within a reasonable period. Likewise, constitutional case law has recognized that environmental protection and effective oversight of activities that may pose urban-planning or environmental risks are constitutional duties of municipalities. Omission, unjustified delay, contradictory responses, or failure to perform oversight duties constitute conduct subject to review by means of an amparo proceeding.
RELIEF REQUESTED For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request:
1. That this amparo proceeding be granted. 2. That the Municipality of Alajuela be ordered to provide a comprehensive, complete, reasoned, and definitive response concerning all complaints relating to construction, earthworks, storm-drainage systems, marking of the public road, traffic congestion, and operation of the Finland School educational center. 3. That the Municipality be ordered to resolve, within a mandatory deadline set by the Constitutional Chamber, all pending administrative proceedings relating to those complaints. 4. That the Municipality be ordered to provide precise information on the status of the closure proceedings, construction permits, business licenses, stormwater outfall authorizations, and other related administrative actions, including permits for marking the street and managing the parking lot they built in front of the school. 5. That the respondent Municipality be ordered to pay costs, damages, and losses caused by the violation of the fundamental rights claimed herein.
ADDITIONAL RELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the Constitutional Chamber order the Municipality of Alajuela to:
1. Conduct a comprehensive technical inspection of the properties associated with the Finland School educational center, including properties with real estate folio numbers PRN01, PRN11, PRN12, CED01, and any others connected with the reported works. 2. Specifically verify whether there are valid construction permits, earthwork permits, stormwater outfall authorization, storm-drainage approval, land-use approval, environmental viability, a municipal business license, MEP permits, and any other authorizations required for the reported operation. 3. Report whether the works built without a permit were closed, penalized, or made subject to administrative proceedings. 4. Resolve the summary proceeding concerning the possible suspension of the business license, pursuant to Article 7 of the General Regulations on Business Licenses of the Municipality of Alajuela. 5. Implement the final resolutions adopted by the Municipal Council relating to this case. 6. Notify the appellant and the complaining neighbors of a complete, clear, and reasoned resolution concerning all complaints filed from 2021 to the present.”
Therefore, in light of the foregoing background and the Municipal Council’s last cited agreement, as of this date the Mayor’s Office is coordinating with the relevant departments to carry out the points described, under the conditions explained and for as long as the failure to comply with legal obligations and duties continues and has not been corrected and remedied; all in protection of public order and the rights of the neighbors of the educational center in question.” Lastly, the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Construction, Eng. Roy Delgado Alpízar, was consulted and, by letter No. MA-PPCI-0355-2026, dated 0355-2026, stated as follows: “In response to letter No. MA-PSJ-0989-2026, concerning the amparo proceeding filed before the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), I hereby state the following within this department’s scope of authority: with regard to Municipal Council agreement No. MA-SCM-0327-2025, this Process became aware of it and acted on it in a timely manner by means of the internal referral made by the Directorate of the Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process.
Accordingly, by letter MA-PPCI-0206-2025, dated 12 March 2025, the agreement was referred to the Stormwater Drainage Activity so that it could provide a report on whether there were any stormwater discharge applications for parcel PRN06 and adjacent properties. In response to that inquiry, by letter MA-AAP-0299-2025 of 14 March 2025, Eng. Lawrence Chatón Soto, Stormwater Drainage coordinator, states that Stormwater Drainage responded to the Municipal Mayor’s Office by letter No. MA-AAP-0256-2025, a copy of which is attached. In that letter, Eng. Chacón Soto informs the Mayor’s Office that parcel No. PRN15 has no approval for stormwater discharge; he also notes that approval for stormwater discharge is issued for construction with coverage of 500 square meters or more. In addition, Eng. Lawrence Chacón Soto clarifies that the Municipal Council agreement under Article No. 1, Chapter VI of Regular Session No. 07-2025 does not fall within, nor correspond to, the work of the Stormwater Drainage Activity, since the Basic Organization Manual assigns the powers to ‘supervise,’ inspect, and control all for-profit activities, construction processes, and installation of outdoor advertising to the ‘Fiscal and Urban Control Process.’ This letter also clarifies that, more broadly, those powers do not belong to the Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process either, which comprises the Construction Control Activity and the Stormwater Drainage Activity; inspection of works, control of construction works, control of commercial licenses, inspection of signs, and inspection of activities, among other tasks, belong to the Fiscal and Urban Control Process.
Likewise, by letter MA-PPCI-0205-2025, dated the same day, the agreement was referred to the Construction Control Activity, requesting information on whether there were construction permits related to the case. That office has not received a response to this letter as of today; however, by letter MA-ACC-3793-2025, the Construction Control Activity reports that the projects under contracts OC-1046818, corresponding to ‘Finland School Expansion,’ and OC-1201898, corresponding to ‘replacement of synthetic turf, installation of posts and perimeter mesh,’ were decided as REJECTED by that municipal department; therefore, they may possibly already have been built and exist on the site, such that, once again, under the Basic Organization Manual, the obligation and duty to act in cases of construction erected without a permit rests with this Municipality’s Fiscal and Urban Control Process (the application rejections are attached).
It follows from the above that this Process carried out the relevant administrative steps in response to the agreement, within the scope of its capacity, obligations, and duties as defined by the Basic Organization Manual, channeling the request to the competent technical departments for their respective analysis and response, and for the administrative actions required by law to be taken, without prejudice to any other legal or administrative actions that may be determined in due course.” By virtue of the foregoing, it is established that the Municipality has taken multiple steps over the years in response to the complainant’s subjective arguments. Regarding solid waste collection in the area, the technical report issued by the person in charge of that unit makes clear that a report was submitted to the Internal Audit Office stating that “(…) the company contracted by the Municipality of Alajuela to provide ordinary solid waste collection services does not use that type of motor vehicle, since they are not suitable for the service.
It should also be noted that the truck shown in the photograph bears no lettering linking it to the collection company, and the date shown in the photograph is Monday 26/01/2026, a day on which collection is not provided at that location. Letter No. MA-AGIRS-458-2026 is attached,” thus establishing that it was not a Municipal truck that entered private property to collect waste, as the complainant subjectively alleged: “(...) She also states that the videos provided show the municipal nontraditional waste collection truck picking up garbage bags on a public road and entering the educational center to remove construction debris from works she considers to have been carried out without a permit (…).” With respect to environmental matters, the Environmental Management unit stated in its technical report that, at the system level, “(…) there is no record of environmental-harm complaints concerning the Finland School educational center having been received or assigned to this department.
Nor is there any record of complaints having been received or referred through institutional communication channels, or through the MINAE Environmental Comptroller’s Integrated Environmental Complaint Processing and Assistance System, or from any other government entity (Ministry of Health, SINAC, or similar entities) (…).” The Environmental Management Department has also received no applications for earthworks (movimientos de tierra) on the indicated parcels, much less requests for technical opinions in that regard. It must be borne in mind that, with respect to earthworks, the Environmental Management Department does not issue permits; it is limited to issuing environmental opinions and/or recommendations, since it verifies whether there is an existing environmental feasibility approval or a need to obtain one, depending on the project’s volume or area (see attached evidence).
It is important to mention that noise pollution is not within municipal jurisdiction, since the Ministry of Health is responsible for handling complaints, reports, or applications related to such problems. The complainant’s arguments therefore show a clear lack of understanding of how this Municipality operates internally and of the internal administrative procedures to be followed, which are consistent with legal requirements and must comply with the law and with our areas of authority.
As to the complainant’s statement that “(…) since 2021, together with other neighbors, she has filed multiple complaints with the Municipality and the Municipal Council of Alajuela concerning construction … stormwater drainage works, flooding (…)”, those arguments are untrue, since, according to the Stormwater Drainage Department and a review of the application system, “(…) no application has been filed under the name of Ms. Nombre11, identity card CED02, lodging complaints or any kind of grievance concerning situations caused by stormwater (…).” According to the report issued by the professional in charge of the Stormwater Drainage Activity, there are no applications, complaints, or requests relating to the “problems” identified by the complainant from “(…) Nombre02, Erick Sánchez Monge, Ana Rojas Calvo, Juan Luis Jiménez Chacón, Nombre09, Nombre17, Damaris Herrera Zamora, Nombre26, Nombre15, Nombre05, Nombre01, Nombre23, Nombre20, Nombre07, Nombre11, Nombre06, Nombre21, Nombre10, Nombre25, Nombre13, Nombre27, Nombre03, Nombre24, Nombre04, and Nombre16 (…).” According to the Integrated Customer Service System, one request by Ms.
Nombre14 is recorded (1590-2017), and it was addressed; however, it is unrelated to the situation described in the amparo application, and it dates from 2017. As for Ms. Nombre19, she filed application No. 56797-2024, to which a proper response was provided by letter No. MA-AAP-0208-2025 (see evidence submitted).
Regarding the complainant’s statement concerning “stormwater discharge,” the technical opinion issued by the Stormwater Drainage Activity records three separate applications:
• Application No. 21613-2025: It was addressed by letter No. MA-AAP-0423-2025, which stated that certain requirements had not been met; it was therefore rejected by letter No. MA-AAP-1193-2025 because the required conditions had not been satisfied.
• Application No. 50752-2025: It was addressed by letter No. MA-AAP-1372-2026, which stated that certain requirements had not been met. It was therefore rejected by letter No. MA-AAP-0127-2026 because the land-use approval issued by the Municipality of Alajuela was not submitted; digitally signed stormwater design plans prepared by a qualified professional in the relevant field were also not provided; no stormwater management plan using retention ponds, tanks, or other structures permitting controlled stormwater discharge was submitted; the surface runoff coefficient data were not corrected; and the situation concerning parcels No. CED03 PRN13 and whether there is a stormwater easement benefiting parcel No. PRN14 was not clarified.
• Application No. 28626-2026: It was addressed by letter No. MA-AAP-491-2026 and approved by letter No. MA-AAP-0621-2026, having met all requested technical requirements according to the technical opinion issued.
It is very important to clarify the following regarding the applications identified in the referral document:
• Application No. 48796-2021 (…) That application was duly addressed by letter No. MA-PCFU-2231-2021, “NOTIFIED/INTERESTED PARTY Nombre22,” according to the Municipality’s Application System.
• Application No. 49834-2021: The Integrated Customer Service System contains no record of any application, complaint, or request under that number; we therefore do not know why it was included in the referral document for this proceeding.
• Application No. 56801-2024 (…) That application was duly addressed by letter No. MA-PCFU-1948-2024, and notice was sent to email ...05, according to the Municipality’s Application System.
• Application No. 58290-2024: (…) That application was duly addressed by letter No. MA-PCFU-055-2025, and notice was sent to email ...05, according to the Municipality’s Application System.
• Application No. 55180-2024: (…) That application was duly addressed by letter No. MA-PCFU-1807-2024, and notice was sent to the email addresses ...03, ...01, ...04, and ...06, according to the Municipality’s Application System.
It is established that all applications filed with the Municipality have been addressed and duly answered to the interested parties.
By letter No. MA-ACC-1329-2026 dated 23 June 2026, signed by Architect María José Zamora Castro, Coordinator of the Construction Control Activity, the following was stated: “The educational center known as Finland School is located mainly on parcel registered under title PRN07, cadastral plan A-1448026-2010, where the kindergarten is currently located. The property registered under title PRN07 has an approved construction license resolution under letter No. MA-SPU-PA-0188-2012 (attached) for construction of a daycare center and kindergarten, as well as a land-use resolution for the location and endorsement of a commercial license, letter No. MA-ACC-03846-2018 (attached). Applying Article 28 of PRUA 2004 and letter No. MA-SCM-1260-2017 (attached), it is granted the characteristics of the Community Institutional zone located in front of the property, permitting educational-center activity (preschool, school, and high school) on the aforementioned parcel.
As for the property registered under title PRN02, cadastral plan A-0049854-2024 (amending plan A 0017212-1973), where the Finland School educational building, corridors, multipurpose court, and other facilities are currently located, I inform you that our records show several land-use applications, including construction uses and commercial-license endorsements; however, through resolutions under letters Nos. MA-ACC-US-704-2025, MA-ACC-07061-2019, and MA-ACC-US-5369-2024 (attached), requests for information for an educational center are permitted. For the land use of the aforementioned property, applying Article 193 of PRUA, it is granted the conditions of the zoning for MIXED SERVICES, DISTRICT URBAN CENTERS, permitting educational-center activity on the property.
“As of today, the projects are:
“Project 1: OC 1046818, Finland School Expansion (PRN02), remains in the Municipal APC system with the application status REJECTED since last 27 February (attached).
“Project 2: OC 1201898, replacement of synthetic turf, installation of posts and perimeter mesh (PRN02), remains in the Municipal APC system with the application status REJECTED since last 27 February (attached).
“As of today, projects OC CED04 OC 1201898 are in REJECTED status and have not been resubmitted with the required corrections to the grounds for rejection in the Municipal APC system for a new review.
“With respect to other applications, the integrated municipal system identifies the following for parcel PRN02:
“- Application for endorsement, APPROVED, letter No. MA-ACC-V-1506-2025 (attached) “- Application for land-use approval for construction of an educational center, APPROVED, letter No. MA-ACC-US 704-2025 (attached) “- Application for land-use approval for a license and location endorsement for EDUCATIONAL CENTER, PRESCHOOL, PRIMARY SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, APPROVED, letter No. MA-ACC-US-5369-2025 (attached).” Regarding the allegations concerning roads, the responsible department was consulted, and according to the technical opinion issued, that department is responsible under the Municipality of Alajuela’s Basic Organization Manual for guiding the planning, conservation, and improvement of the cantonal road network. Its responsibilities are therefore based on technical analysis of road infrastructure and the formulation of proposals for its development, maintenance, and optimization. Operational traffic matters, supervision of parking on public roads, and immediate control of vehicle flow are outside that department’s responsibilities.
It must also be understood that traffic congestion in the area is part of a structural problem affecting the La Guácima district generally, so in our view it is inappropriate to attribute the problem exclusively to that commercial activity. Nevertheless, the road network in the area appears at first glance to have limited alternative routes for adequately dispersing traffic, particularly during periods of high demand. This is a structural condition that limits the existing network’s ability to respond to temporary increases in traffic, causing congestion at certain points. It is important to mention that there is no record of formal requests to the Road Management Department for road-infrastructure improvement works or structural interventions on the indicated stretch, nor has any road-engineering project directly associated with the operation of the aforementioned establishment been submitted to that Subprocess. We therefore consider that there has been no omission or inaction by the Municipality on this matter, since the situation raised does not result from an intervention attributable to the responsible department, nor has it been the subject of a specific request requiring direct attention in terms of road works or design.
As for construction carried out in the area, the Fiscal and Urban Control Process has conducted site inspections to verify whether construction works were carried out without a municipal license, and prepared various records for parcel registered under title PRN02:
✓ Record of Information Regarding Completed Work without a License No. 855-2021, concerning the expansion of some classrooms. Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1732-2026 was issued; the administrative proceeding is currently pending under Articles 93 et seq. of the Ley de Construcciones.
✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1390-2025, concerning construction of a stormwater box within the educational center’s premises. Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1730-2026 was issued; the administrative proceeding is pending under the applicable regulations.
✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1391-2025, concerning renovation of a dwelling located on the same parcel. Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1731-2026 was issued; the administrative proceeding is pending.
✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1096-2025, concerning placement of posts and aggregate material. The corresponding ordinary appeals were filed against that administrative act and were duly addressed, decided, and notified. The last notice concerning those appeals was issued on 28 April 2026, and the case file is currently under administrative follow-up.
It is established that the Fiscal and Urban Control Process has conducted inspections, control actions, and the relevant administrative proceedings, and has continued to follow up on the case files to date. Even with respect to actions relating to the commercial license, it is important to mention that Commercial Licenses Area Notice Form No. 017797-2025 was prepared after it was established that the commercial activity was taking place on the property registered under title PRN02, while the existing commercial authorization applied to the property registered under title PRN03. This shows that the Municipality acted in accordance with the law well before this proceeding was filed and notice of it was given.
Based on the notices issued, the parties administered filed the respective appeals, which were duly addressed, decided, and notified. The last notice was issued on 28 April 2026, communicating the decision on the appeal filed. It should also be noted and reiterated that, by letter No. MA-PCFU-911-2026 dated 02 June 2026, the Fiscal and Urban Control Process asked the Commercial Licenses Activity to suspend the commercial license, based on its follow-up of previously filed and addressed complaints.
According to the technical opinion issued by Infrastructure Planning and Construction, the Construction Control Activity reported by letter No. MA-ACC-3793-2025 that the projects under contracts OC-1046818, corresponding to “Finland School Expansion,” and OC-1201898, corresponding to “replacement of synthetic turf, installation of posts and perimeter mesh,” were decided as rejected by that municipal department. In light of the foregoing, it is important to state and reiterate that this shows a clear lack of understanding of the internal administrative procedures to be followed in this Municipality, procedures that comply with legal requirements and must be lawful for all citizens. The Municipality cannot disregard the procedures established by law, and the processes and deadlines to which both parties are entitled must be respected.
In this matter, the complainant cannot even claim that she has not received a response or that there has been an omission by the Administration. Rather, perhaps the complainant’s disagreement with the terms of the follow-up provided by the Municipality does not, by itself, impair the aforementioned guarantee. That conduct is entirely tied to legality, and the complainant is clearly mistaken. In any event, the evidence submitted confirms the Municipality’s statements and establishes that its conduct has been effective and prompt.
In light of the foregoing, it is very important to mention that the complaints filed in this particular case have been processed fully. It is also established that, before this amparo was filed, multiple applications had already been addressed and answered, and the corresponding notices had been issued (see attached evidence). The complainant’s assertions that the problems occurring at that location resulted from some form of negligence or omission by this Municipality are not accepted.
However, in this specific case, it is appropriate to recall Article 27 of the Constitución Política. The evidence shows that the right of petition under Article 27 of the Constitución Política has always been respected. That right refers to every citizen’s ability to address, in writing, any public official or official entity to raise a matter of interest to them. The guarantee is complemented by the right to receive a prompt response, but the latter does not mean that the response must be favorable. The constitutional right guarantees the right to petition, not the right to obtain what is requested, as in the complainant’s case, even though the public official must decide in strict accordance with the law. The freedom to petition is based on another principle: the Administration may not restrict the governed in their right to address public bodies.
In light of the foregoing, it is very important to state that all requests made to this Municipality have been duly processed (see attached evidence). We reiterate, however, that this case reflects a clear lack of understanding of the procedures established by law. The Fiscal and Urban Control Department has carried out the procedure required by law for years in specific cases such as this, establishing that these matters are not left to the Administration’s whim. Nor is it true that the Municipality has failed to take action on the matter, since the evidence once again shows that the Administration carried out the work falling within its authority, including preparation of the relevant records.
Accordingly, this Municipality considers the amparo application inadmissible, since the Administration carried out the work falling within its authority and must comply with the actions, procedures, and legal time limits applicable to proceedings of this kind, while also respecting the right of defense and the appeals or actions interested parties may bring within the established proceeding. We consider there to have been no omission or inaction by the Municipality; rather, as we reiterate, this shows a clear lack of understanding of the internal administrative procedures to be followed in this Municipality, procedures consistent with the relevant legal requirements and respecting the authority of each of the entities concerned. It is established that the Municipality of Alajuela acted diligently and carried out the work within its authority. Nevertheless, we reiterate that the complainant filed the amparo proceeding to cause confusion and thereby have the Municipality condemned, even though it is carrying out all relevant steps and actions almost immediately—and, we reiterate, even before this proceeding was filed—as confirmed by the evidence submitted by the Municipality itself. On the basis of the foregoing, we consider the complainant to have acted in bad faith by filing an amparo application in the terms set out.
In light of the foregoing, this Municipality considers that it has acted in accordance with the regulations in force and that there has been no inaction or violation of constitutional rights. Nevertheless, we consider that the complainant filed this application in an attempt to discredit the information provided in her filing; the Municipality, however, acts within the scope of its authority. In light of the foregoing, this Municipality considers that it has acted in accordance with the regulations in force and that there has been no inaction or violation of constitutional rights. It appears, however, that her aim is to have the Municipality condemned even though it has done what the law requires, always in compliance with applicable legislation and regulations. On that basis, we request that the amparo application be dismissed in its entirety.
Justice Rueda Leal drafts the opinion; and,
Considering:
I.Preliminary matters. Before analyzing the merits of the case, it should be clarified that, beginning with judgment No. 2008002545, issued at 8:55 on 22 February 2008, this Chamber has referred cases to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction—with some exceptions—where the issue is whether the public administration has complied with the time limits established by the General Law of Public Administration (Articles 261 and 325) or sectoral laws for special administrative proceedings, to issue a final decision in an administrative proceeding—initiated ex officio or at the request of a party—or to hear the applicable administrative remedies. The present case falls within an exception, since it concerns an environmental complaint that is alleged not to have been resolved within a reasonable time. That point having been clarified, the specific situation challenged in this amparo is now to be resolved.
Furthermore, given that the president of the Municipal Council of Alajuela failed to respond to the notice within the time limit set by this Court in the order initiating the present case, the application is to be decided in accordance with Article 45 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act, taking into account the evidence in the record.
II.Subject of the amparo application. The applicant alleges that she has filed multiple complaints with the Municipality of Alajuela concerning construction, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), stormwater sewer works, flooding caused by the sewer system, extensions, operations, noise pollution, road collapses, private activities on weekends, and other matters relating to the educational center known as Finland School, located in La Guácima, Alajuela. She alleges that the reported facts involve possible construction without permits, earthworks, stormwater discharge works, lack of technical approval for stormwater discharge, illegitimate operation of an educational center, and possible impacts on neighbors, public roads, drainage systems, waterways, community safety, and even the center’s students and staff. She states that, despite the existence of technical reports, closure records, rejected construction projects, lack of approval for stormwater discharge, and final resolutions of the Municipal Council, the necessary actions to protect the neighbors’ fundamental rights have not been carried out effectively, promptly, and comprehensively. She considers that the prolonged administrative omission, contradictory responses, errors acknowledged by the Administration itself, and failure to effectively implement corrective measures violate her fundamental rights.
III.Facts found. The following facts are considered duly established and relevant to the decision in this case:
1- The objective difficulties faced by the specific department (PCFU) in serving all current owners with the various records concerning the lack of construction permits, as required by the applicable regulations, are confirmed. In addition, some control measures that could be carried out have been challenged, and the subsequent appeals must be resolved promptly. These matters must be addressed, including by resorting to feasible alternative or supplemental measures—such as service by publication of a notice—in order to continue the applicable sanctioning proceedings, including the more extensive measure of demolition.
2- The construction permit applications submitted by the property owners to Construction Control at the beginning of the year have been rejected.
3- The facilities of the educational center in question (on property PRN01) do not have approval for stormwater discharge from the competent department.
4- The Licensing Activity’s records show the following relevant commercial licenses: No. 27952 for a preschool, elementary school, and high school educational center on property PRN09; and license No. 40552 for an educational center on property PRN10.
In light of the foregoing, the Administration will immediately proceed to apply whatever authorized alternative mechanisms are feasible—such as publication of notices—to notify all owners responsible for construction without a permit. It will also verify the status of the commercial licenses against the background, situation, and current operating conditions of the activities, for possible suspension or cancellation of those licenses, and will promptly resolve the pending administrative remedies concerning construction and commercial activity. As for the Council’s own powers, it is considered that, by resolution, it may communicate—or confirm with—the Ministry of Public Education the full current situation of irregularity at this educational center, so that the Ministry may take appropriate action within its powers under the applicable legal and administrative framework and its supervisory authority” (see report and evidence submitted).
IV.The specific case. In the present case, the applicant alleges that she has filed multiple complaints with the Municipality of Alajuela concerning construction, earthworks, stormwater sewer works, flooding caused by the sewer system, extensions, operations, noise pollution, road collapses, private activities on weekends, and other matters relating to the educational center known as Finland School, located in La Guácima, Alajuela. She alleges that the reported facts involve possible construction without permits, earthworks, stormwater discharge works, lack of technical approval for stormwater discharge, illegitimate operation of an educational center, and possible impacts on neighbors, public roads, drainage systems, waterways, community safety, and even the center’s students and staff. She states that, despite the existence of technical reports, closure records, rejected construction projects, lack of approval for stormwater discharge, and final resolutions of the Municipal Council, the necessary actions to protect the neighbors’ fundamental rights have not been carried out effectively, promptly, and comprehensively. She considers that the prolonged administrative omission, contradictory responses, errors acknowledged by the Administration itself, and failure to effectively implement corrective measures violate her fundamental rights.
In this regard, the facts found show that on 11 February 2025, the applicant sent a written submission addressed to the Municipal Council of Alajuela, stating the following: “I, the undersigned, Nombre11, in my capacity as a lawyer and notary, hereby report and bring to your attention the legal irregularities, and irregularities concerning construction permits, business licenses, and health permits, of which we have been informed and which are present at the FINLAND SCHOOL kindergarten, elementary school, and high school, located in La Guácima, Alajuela. First: The Municipality has informed us that it does not have and has never had a construction permit for the building that today houses students at different academic levels. Second, the license authorizing the educational activity is only for one of the properties occupied by the school, and not for the other 2 properties on which the buildings are located.
Third: There are inquiry requests before the Municipality of Alajuela, Nos. 56801 2024 and 55180-2024, and/or 58290-2024 before the Fiscal and Urban Control Process. Property No. 0189094, with cadastral identifier PRN16, is part of the Finland School Educational Center, and property No. PRN14, with cadastral identifier PRN16, is also part of the Finland School Educational Center, where illegal construction is taking place. Engineer Emerson Bone Moya states that they have not had and do not have construction permits, according to Official Letter MA-PCFU 067-2025 (MA-A-56-2025). The photograph appearing on folio 2 of Official Letter MA-PCFU-067-2025 (MA-A-56-2025) shows construction of an illegal sewer pipe; it does not show the construction being carried out illegally. Fourth: The photographs and videos we submitted clearly establish that, at the site, during the numerous visits by municipal officials, who prepared different reports, some said there was earthwork but that it was required to comply with a constitutional order, that they were building a court that had been destroyed by sewer construction; others said nothing could be seen, and others said there was a permit to extend classrooms.
None of this is acceptable despite their saying they could not enter. It is evident, public, and in broad daylight, both to the neighbors and to me as a lawyer and notary, who witnessed the taking of photographs and videos, many of which I took myself, that classrooms, courts, and infrastructure are being built for use by Finland School WITHOUT PERMITS. Fifth: It should also be added that one of the properties used by this school houses a dog kindergarten called ANIMAL FANTASY, which does not have organic waste management and operates in full view of the Municipality. Machinery enters through this site to remove earth and bring in materials such as cement, glass, and others. There is also an administrative proceeding concerning the extension of classrooms under Record of Completed Works without a License No. 855-2021. This leaves us wondering whether the owner of the property, where construction is taking place illegally, intends to follow the same procedure, build and have it declared a ‘completed work without a license’ (Record of Completed Works without a License No. 855-2021), so that the Municipality cannot do anything—in other words, to seek forgiveness instead of permission.
Sixth: Today, by Official Letter No. MA-A-517-2025, and after sending several official letters requesting a response to the Revocation Remedy with Appeal, they responded by Official Letter MA-PCFU-177-2025, in which they state that, by mistake, they replied using another template, Official Letter MA-PCFU-055-2025; and they granted the remedy by Official Letter No. MA-PCFU-157-2025. Seventh: Even more concerning, we never received Official Letter MA-PCFU-157-2025, much less Official Letter MA-PCFU-158-2025 (WITH THE CORRECT INFORMATION), and this letter cannot be a response to the remedy, since note the date: the alleged closure took place on 23 January 2025, whereas the date shown is 18 December 2024. It purportedly responds to each of the grounds of the remedy in file No. 58290-2024. Eighth: This case is serious because HOW CAN THE MUNICIPALITY ENSURE THAT THE FINLAND SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION IS SAFE, and how much will the illegal sewer increase the flow into the Rio Segundo?
Ninth: The Ministry of Education is already aware of these complaints. We demand a response both to the remedy and to the points discussed at the meeting with Nombre18 and Nombre12, as recorded in Official Letter MA-A-332-2025. Tenth: We request a thorough inspection. Ms. Nombre08 is making her property, which borders the illegal construction, available so that officials can enter and verify everything reported. Compliance should be required with the Regulation for the construction control of civil works and imposition of sanctions in the Central Canton of Alajuela. Summary of the unlawful acts: 1. Construction without construction permits. 2. Sewer construction without permission from the Municipal Council. 3. No land-use authorization for stormwater discharge and construction of such a large building (Property PRN04 and PRN03, PRN08, Identificacion01 2010). 4. No SETENA studies for stormwater discharge (Property PRN04 and PRN03, PRN08, Identificacion01-2010). 5.
The municipal business license granted is not for the activity being carried out. 6. Possible pollution and/or danger: a dog kindergarten next to FINLAND SCHOOL. For notices, email ...02”. At ordinary session No. 07-2025 on 18 February 2026, the Municipal Council of Alajuela gave the applicant a hearing so that she could present her complaint. After her statement, it was determined: “IT IS RESOLVED TO REFER THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY LICDA. Nombre11 TO THE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION SO THAT, WITHIN 10 DAYS, IT MAY PROVIDE A REPORT ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND THE ACTIONS TO FOLLOW.” By Official Letter MA-SCM-04632-2025 dated 28 October 2025, the Municipal Mayor’s Office addressed the situation and circumstances of the educational center, as follows: “(…) As is apparent from the updated reports cited, the situation to date may be summarized as follows: 1- The objective difficulties faced by the specific department (PCFU) in serving all current owners with the various records concerning the lack of construction permits, as required by the applicable regulations, are confirmed.
In addition, some control measures that could be carried out have been challenged, and the subsequent appeals must be resolved promptly. These matters must be addressed, including by resorting to feasible alternative or supplemental measures—such as service by publication of a notice—in order to continue the applicable sanctioning proceedings, including the more extensive measure of demolition. 2- The construction permit applications submitted by the property owners to Construction Control at the beginning of the year have been rejected. 3- The facilities of the educational center in question (on property PRN01) do not have approval for stormwater discharge from the competent department. 4- The Licensing Activity’s records show the following relevant commercial licenses: No. 27952 for a preschool, elementary school, and high school educational center on property PRN09; and license No. 40552 for an educational center on property PRN10.
In light of the foregoing, the Administration will immediately proceed to apply whatever authorized alternative mechanisms are feasible—such as publication of notices—to notify all owners responsible for construction without a permit. It will also verify the status of the commercial licenses against the background, situation, and current operating conditions of the activities, for possible suspension or cancellation of those licenses, and will promptly resolve the pending administrative remedies concerning construction and commercial activity. As for the Council’s own powers, it is considered that, by resolution, it may communicate—or confirm with—the Ministry of Public Education the full current situation of irregularity at this educational center, so that the Ministry may take appropriate action within its powers under the applicable legal and administrative framework and its supervisory authority”.
By resolution No. 6, Chapter IV, of ordinary session No. 46-2025, held on 18 November 2025, the Municipal Council of Alajuela considered the Mayor’s report and determined: “(…) IT IS RESOLVED TO RETURN OFFICIAL LETTER No. MA-A-4632-2025 FROM THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR’S OFFICE SO THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 90 BIS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE MAY BE MET”. The order initiating the amparo proceeding was served on the parties on 24 June 2026. The Mayor’s Office of Alajuela reported that the Fiscal and Urban Control Process carried out site inspections to verify whether construction works had been carried out without a municipal license, and that various records were made for property registration PRN02, as follows: “✓ Information Record of Completed Work without a License No. 855-2021, concerning the extension of some classrooms. Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1732-2026 was issued, and the administrative proceeding is currently pending under Articles 93 et seq. of the Construction Law. ✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1390-2025, for construction of a stormwater box on the educational center’s premises.
Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1730-2026 was issued, and the administrative proceeding is pending under the applicable regulations. ✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1391-2025, for remodeling a residence located on the same property. Record of Completed Work without a License No. 1731-2026 was issued, and the administrative proceeding is pending. ✓ Construction Closure Record No. 1096-2025, for installation of posts and stone material. The corresponding ordinary remedies were filed against that administrative act and were duly addressed, decided, and served. The latest notice concerning those remedies was served on 28 April 2026, and the case file is currently under administrative follow-up”.
Accordingly, the respondent authorities acknowledge that the situation reported by the amparo applicant has not been resolved. In this regard, the report submitted by the municipal mayor states: “Given the most recent reports concerning the matters described, and for as long as the reported violations and breaches continue, as of this date the Administration is conducting a final assessment of the background information and coordinating with the relevant departments so that, after first complying with the legal requirements, such as duly notifying the co-owners of the related properties and the holders of the relevant business licenses, as applicable, it may do the following: 1- Institute administrative proceedings to demolish works built without construction permits (after duly serving ordinary or substitute notice of the prior acts required under the Ley de Construcciones: formal closure, verification that the work was completed without a license, and refusal to comply; and after resolving all administrative appeals filed). 2- Carry out the final steps and procedure for the possible suspension of business licenses associated with properties that have buildings without municipal permits, all in accordance with the municipality’s general business-license regulations. 3- Address the environmental impact situation in coordination with the internal departments and agencies such as the Ministerio de Salud. 4- Take corrective measures regarding impacts on neighbors and their relationship with public services.” Accordingly, it is established that the applicant’s complaint concerns a problem that has been known for years and is related to environmental matters and stormwater, and that has not been definitively resolved.
This omission is incompatible with the principles of administrative effectiveness, continuity, and coordination. Furthermore, it does not appear that the applicant has been kept up to date on the actions taken by the municipality to resolve the complaint filed on 11 February 2025.
Consequently, this aspect of the claim against the Municipalidad de Alajuela should be granted, so that a comprehensive technical solution is adopted and the works necessary to definitively resolve the problem reported by the applicant are carried out, and she is informed accordingly, as will be specified in the operative part of this judgment.
V.Note of Justice Castillo Víquez. I have supported this Court’s position that when a litigant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and effective justice in administrative proceedings, the courts that must hear the legal dispute are the administrative-litigation courts, and not this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, it has been established that this right is subject to judicial protection through the amparo proceeding established by Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in conjunction with Article 27 of the Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, in cases where the petitioner considers that the material actions of the Administration, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting the petitioner’s fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not mean that this Court must change its line of jurisprudence, since under section 7 of its Law this Court alone has authority to define its own jurisdiction.
Constitutional legal disputes involving minors, the environment, payment of wages, payment of benefits when a person retires, pensions under the non-contributory regime, cases involving profound cerebral palsy, persons with disabilities, foreigners who are outside the country, drinking water service, older adults when the matter does not concern their pension, corruption complaints, Indigenous people’s rights, claims concerning lack of insurance coverage with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, and maternity leave are heard by this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo remedy. In all other cases, for the reasons given in this judgment, jurisdiction lies with the judges of the administrative-litigation jurisdiction. All of this is consistent with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and rules), and the relevant legal rules, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal order.
VI.Note of Justice Salazar Alvarado. I consider that, in environmental matters, where the Public Administration has already intervened, jurisdiction to hear and resolve the matter lies with the administrative-litigation jurisdiction. However, I do hear the merits of the matter when other rights of the persons affected by the source of contamination are at stake, including health, quality of life, and the right to enjoy a healthy environment free from contamination (Article 50 of the Constitución Política), as occurs in this case. The complaint alleges an apparent failure by the Municipalidad de Alajuela to resolve and address reports of harm caused at a private educational center, affecting the applicants’ and other neighbors’ right to enjoy a healthy, ecologically balanced environment and a dignified quality of life.
VII.Dissenting opinion of Justice Garro Vargas on enforcement of the judgment. I dissent regarding enforcement of the judgment, so that, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (LJC), enforcement is assigned to the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda.
Enforcement of orders issued by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) is, in principle, to be supervised by this same jurisdiction. However, that provision sets out exceptions under which this Court may decide to assign enforcement of the judgment to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction:
“Art. 56. Enforcement of judgments is the responsibility of the Constitutional Chamber, except with respect to the assessment and payment of compensation and monetary liabilities, or other aspects that the Chamber itself deems appropriate, in which case enforcement shall take place through the administrative-litigation route under the judgment-enforcement procedure provided for in the law governing that jurisdiction.” (Emphasis not in the original.)
It should be recalled that the bill under consideration for the LJC originally provided as follows:
“Art. 56. Judgments in favor of the applicant shall be enforced through the administrative-litigation route under the judgment-enforcement procedure provided for in the law governing that jurisdiction.” (Emphasis not in the original.)
However, the text was amended by motion so that the provision would be consistent with Article 153 of the Constitución Política, and the following explanation was given:
“THE SECRETARY:
Motion No. 68 (32-19) by Deputy Chacón Jiménez:
“Article 57 (formerly 56): to read as follows: ‘Enforcement of judgments is the responsibility of the Constitutional Chamber, except with respect to the assessment and payment of compensation or monetary liabilities, or other aspects that the Chamber itself deems appropriate, in which case enforcement shall take place through the administrative-litigation route under the judgment-enforcement procedure provided for in the law governing that jurisdiction.’” THE PRESIDENT:
Is the motion just read open for discussion?
Doctor Piza Escalante:
There was a contradiction here with the general position that courts enforce their own judgments, and the entire enforcement process was being sent to the Administrative-Litigation Jurisdiction; then the other articles that allowed the Chamber to enforce them were left without effect.
Deputy Corrales Bolaños:
That part says, ‘or other aspects that the Chamber itself deems appropriate…’ What does that refer to?
Doctor Piza Escalante:
The idea is that, in the judgment-enforcement proceeding, the Chamber resolves what it considers to be its responsibility. The rest is sent to the administrative-litigation route.
THE SECRETARY:
Has the motion been discussed sufficiently?
THE PRESIDENT:
Discussed. Approved (unanimously, five deputies present).” (sic). See the minutes approving the LJC. (Emphasis not in the original).
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the LJC itself authorizes this Chamber to assess and decide whether it is necessary to refer all or some aspects of enforcement of the judgment to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction.
In this specific case, given the scope of the order issued by this Court, I consider it appropriate to assign the enforcement phase of the matter to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction. This is because the rules governing this constitutional jurisdiction provide no suitable mechanisms to monitor compliance with the orders set out in this judgment, which involve highly complex technical matters.
By contrast, the provisions on enforcement in the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (Article 155 et seq.) offer clear advantages, such as the possibility of requesting timetables, imposing fines, establishing liability, and monitoring stages of compliance. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 56 of the LJC, I consider that the enforcement phase should take place before the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the judgment-enforcement rules of that Code.
VIII.Documents submitted to the case file. The parties are hereby advised that if they submitted any paper document, objects, or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, these must be retrieved within a maximum period of 30 business days from notification of this judgment. Any material not retrieved within that period will be destroyed, pursuant to the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial” (approved by the Corte Plena at Article XXVI of session nro. 27-11 on 22 August 2011 and published in Boletín Judicial nro. 19 on 26 January 2012) and Article LXXXI of session nro. 43-12 of the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial on 3 May 2012.
Therefore:
The amparo application is granted. Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón and Jorge Arturo Campos Araya, each in their respective capacity as mayor and president of the Municipal Council, both of Alajuela, or whoever holds those positions, are ordered to issue the relevant orders and take the necessary measures within their respective areas of authority to ensure that, within SIX MONTHS from notification of this judgment, the works necessary, in accordance with the applicable technical criteria, to comprehensively resolve the problem reported by the applicant are carried out, and that she is informed accordingly. The respondent authorities are advised that, under Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a person who receives an order to comply with or enforce, issued in an amparo proceeding, and fails to comply with or enforce it, shall be subject 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 Municipalidad de Alajuela is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts underlying this declaration, to be assessed in enforcement proceedings before the administrative-litigation jurisdiction. Justice Castillo Víquez files a note. Justice Salazar Alvarado files a note. Justice Garro Vargas dissents regarding the venue for enforcement of the judgment and, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, orders that this phase be assigned to the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Let this judgment be served.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
EXPEDIENTE N° 26-019995-0007-CO Telephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección01).
Revisión del Documento SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del veintisiete de agosto de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente nro. 26 019995-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre11, cédula de identidad CED05, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA.
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,
Considerando:
I.Cuestiones previas. Antes de analizar el fondo del asunto debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia nro. 2008002545 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 las leyes sectoriales para los procedimientos administrativos especiales, para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en el sub lite, se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante una denuncia ambiental la cual se acusa que no ha sido resuelta dentro de un plazo razonable. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta reclamada en este amparo.
Por otra parte, en vista de que el presidente del Concejo Municipal de Alajuela omitió contestar la audiencia dentro del plazo fijado por este Tribunal en la resolución de curso del sub lite, se procede a resolver el recurso de acuerdo con el artículo 45 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y tomando en consideración los elementos probatorios que constan en los autos.
II.Objeto del recurso. El recurrente alega que ha interpuesto múltiples denuncias ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela relacionadas con las construcciones, movimientos de tierra, obras de alcantarillado pluvial, inundaciones por el alcantarillado, ampliaciones, operación, contaminación sónica, colapsos viales, actividades privadas los fines de semana y otras, en relación con el centro educativo denominado Finland School, ubicado en La Guácima de Alajuela. Aduce que los hechos denunciados involucran posibles construcciones sin permiso, movimientos de tierra, obras de desfogue pluvial, ausencia de aprobación técnica para descarga de aguas pluviales, operación ilegitima de un centro educativo y posibles afectaciones a vecinos, vía pública, drenajes, cauces, seguridad comunal y hasta a los mismos estudiantes y personal del centro. Menciona que, pese a la existencia de informes técnicos, actas de clausura, proyectos constructivos rechazados, ausencia de aprobación de descarga pluvial y acuerdos firmes del Concejo Municipal, no ha ejecutado de forma efectiva, oportuna e integral las acciones necesarias para tutelar los derechos fundamentales de los vecinos. Considera que la omisión administrativa prolongada, las respuestas contradictorias, los errores reconocidos por la propia Administración y la falta de ejecución efectiva de las medidas correctivas vulneran sus derechos fundamentales.
III.Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
1- Se ratifican les dificultades objetivas enfrentadas por la dependencia específica (PCFU) para poder notificar -como requiere la normativa de la materia- a todos los propietarios actuales las distintas actas por la falta de permisos de construcción, siendo que -además- han sido impugnados algunos actos de control que sí pudieron ser realizados y deben resolverse a la brevedad los recursos ulteriores de apelación. Lo (sic) aspectos referidos deben ser superados incluso recurriendo acciones alternativas o supletorias que sean factibles -como la notificación por edicto- para poder continuar con los procedimientos sancionatorios que correspondan, incluyendo el de mayor alcance de demolición.
2- Las solicitudes de permisos de construcción presentadas por los propietarios de las fincas ante Control Constructivo a inicios de año se encuentran en estado de rechazadas.
3- Las instalaciones del centro educativo de interés (en la finca PRN01) no cuentan con aprobación de descarga de aguas pluviales por parte de la dependencia competente.
4- En la Actividad de Patentes consta la existencia de las licencias comerciales relacionadas: número 27952 para actividad de centra educativo preescolar primaria colegio, en la finca PRN09; y la licencia 40552 para la actividad de centro educativo en la finca PRN10.
Por lo que, bajo lo descrito, la Administración procederá de inmediato a la aplicación que resulte factible de mecanismos alternos autorizados -como la publicación de edictos- para la notificación a la totalidad de los propietarios infractores de construcciones sin permiso. Así como verificará el estado de las licencias comerciales frente a los antecedentes, situación y condiciones actuales de operación de las actividades, para la eventual suspensión o cancelación de dichas licencias; y procederá a la respectiva resolución a la brevedad de los recursos administrativos por construcciones y actividad comercial en curso. Siendo que en cuanto a las facultades propias del Concejo se estima que, por medio de un acuerdo, puede comunicar -0 ratificar- ante e/ Ministerio de Educación Pública toda la situación de irregularidad actual integral existente de este centro educativo, para que dentro de sus competencias adopte las acciones que correspondan según el marco legal y administrativo de la materia y las facultades de supervisión propias de este Ministerio” (véase informe y prueba aportada).
IV.Sobre el caso concreto. En el sub lite, la recurrente alega que ha interpuesto múltiples denuncias ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela relacionadas con las construcciones, movimientos de tierra, obras de alcantarillado pluvial, inundaciones por el alcantarillado, ampliaciones, operación, contaminación sónica, colapsos viales, actividades privadas los fines de semana y otras, en relación con el centro educativo denominado Finland School, ubicado en La Guácima de Alajuela. Aduce que los hechos denunciados involucran posibles construcciones sin permiso, movimientos de tierra, obras de desfogue pluvial, ausencia de aprobación técnica para descarga de aguas pluviales, operación ilegitima de un centro educativo y posibles afectaciones a vecinos, vía pública, drenajes, cauces, seguridad comunal y hasta a los mismos estudiantes y personal del centro. Menciona que, pese a la existencia de informes técnicos, actas de clausura, proyectos constructivos rechazados, ausencia de aprobación de descarga pluvial y acuerdos firmes del Concejo Municipal, no ha ejecutado de forma efectiva, oportuna e integral las acciones necesarias para tutelar los derechos fundamentales de los vecinos.
Considera que la omisión administrativa prolongada, las respuestas contradictorias, los errores reconocidos por la propia Administración y la falta de ejecución efectiva de las medidas correctivas vulneran sus derechos fundamentales.
Al respecto, de la relación de hechos probados se desprende que el 11 de febrero de 2025, la recurrente remitió un escrito dirigido al Concejo Municipal de Alajuela en el que indicó lo siguiente: “Quien suscribe Nombre11 en mi condición de Abogada y Notaría, procedo a denunciar y hacer de su conocimiento sobre las irregularidades que se nos ha informado, tanto legales como de permisos de construcción, patente y de sanidad que presenta el kínder, escuela y colegio FINLAND SCHOOL, ubicado en La Guácima de Alajuela. Primero: Se nos indica por parte de la Municipalidad que la misma no tiene ni ha tenido permiso de construcción para la edificación que hoy día alberga estudiantes de los diferentes niveles académicos. Segundo, que la patente que autoriza la actividad educativa es únicamente para un de las fincas ocupadas por la escuela, y no de las otras 2 fincas en las que se encuentra la edificación.
Tercero: Existen los tramites de consulta ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela N° 56801 2024 y 55180-2024 y o 58290-2024 ante el Proceso de Control Fiscal y Urbano. La finca N.° 0189094, con identificador catastral PRN16, forma parte del Centro Educativo Finland School, y la finca N.° PRN14, con identificador catastral PRN16, también forma parte del Centro Educativo Finland School, lugar donde se está realizando la construcción ilegal, de la cual indica el Ingeniero Emerson Bone Moya que no han tenido, ni tienen permisos de construcción, según oficio MA-PCFU 067-2025 (MA-A-56- 2025) La fotografía que rola a folio 2, del oficio MA-PCFU-067-2025 (MA-A-56-2025) demuestra la construcción de una tubería de alcantarillado que es ilegal, no muestra la construcción que se está llevando a cabo de forma ilegal. Cuarto: Con las fotografías y videos que aportamos, se logra determinar claramente; que en el lugar donde en sendas visitas que han realizado funcionarios de la Municipalidad, y han redactado diferentes informes, algunos en los cuales indican que, si hay movimiento de tierra pero que se debe a un cumplimiento de orden constitucional, que están construyendo una cancha la cual fue destruida por una construcción de alcantarillado; que están otros indican que no se logra ver nada, otros indican que si tienen permiso para ampliación de aulas.
Todo lo anterior a pesar de indicar que no ha sido posible ingresar, no es de recibo. Es evidente, publico y a plena luz del día, tanto para vecinos como para mi persona como abogada y notaría, que he sido testigo durante la toma de fotografías y videos, muchos de los cuales fueron tomados por mi persona, que se está dando una construcción de aulas, canchas e infraestructura para ser utilizada por la escuela Finland SIN PERMISOS. Quinto: A todo esto, se debe agregar que en uno de los inmuebles utilizados por esta escuela hay un kínder de perros llamado ANIMAL FANTASY mismo que no cuenta con manejo de desechos orgánicos, y está a vista y paciencia de la Municipalidad, y es por donde ingresa maquinaria para sacar tierra, meter material como cemento, vidrios y otros. También hay un proceso administrativo por ampliación de aulas en actas de obra concluida sin licencia # 855- 2021 Esto nos deja la duda de si el objetivo del propietario del inmueble en construcción de manera ilegal está en espera de hacer el mismo procedimiento, construir y que sea declarado (obra concluida sin licencia # 855-2021) de manera que la Municipalidad no pueda hacer nada, o sea pedir perdón y no pedir permiso.
Sexto: El día de hoy, mediante oficio N°MA-A-517-2025, y posterior a enviar sendos oficios solicitando derecho de respuesta del Recurso Revocatoria con Apelación, dan respuesta mediante oficio MA-PCFU-177-2025 y en el mismo aluden a que por error se contestó en otro machote, oficio MA-PCFU-055-2025; y lo declaran con lugar mediante oficio N° MA-PCFU-157-2025. Séptimo: Aún más preocupante nunca recibimos el oficio MA-PCFU-157-2025 y mucho menos el oficio MA-PCFU-158-2025 (CON LA INFORMACION CORRECTA), y este oficio no puede ser respuesta al recurso por cuanto nótese la fecha, 18 de diciembre del 2024 la supuesta clausura se dio el 23 de enero 2025. en el cual, supuestamente dan respuesta a cada uno de los fundamentos del recurso, en el trámite N°58290-2024. Octavo: Este caso es grave por cuanto COMO PUEDE EL MUNICIPIO ASEGURAR QUE LA CONSTRUCCION DEL KINDER, ESCUELA Y COLEGIO FINLAND SCHOOL es segura, y de cuanto caudal va a aumentar el alcantarillado Ilegal, al Rio Segundo Noveno: Ya el Ministerio de Educación tiene conocimiento de estas denuncias.
Exigimos respuesta tanto del recurso como de los puntos que se tocaron en la reunión con Nombre18 y Nombre12, según consta en oficio MA-A-332-2025. Décimo: Solicitamos que se realice una inspección seria, para la cual la señora Nombre08 pone a su disposición su Inmueble mismo que colinda con la construcción Ilegal, para que puedan acceder y corroborar todo lo denunciado. Se exija cumplimiento del Reglamento para el control constructivo de obras civiles imputación de sanciones del cantón Central de Alajuela. Recuento de los hechos ilícitos: 1.Construcción sin permisos de construcción 2.Construcción de Alcantarillado sin permiso del Concejo Municipal 3.No tienen USO DE SUELOS para desfogue pluvial y construcción de semejante edificación (Finca PRN04 y PRN03, PRN08, Identificacion01 2010) 4.No cuentan con estudios de SETENA para desfogue pluvial, (Finca PRN04 y PRN03, PRN08, Identificacion01-2010) 5.Patente Municipal dada, no es la de la actividad que realizan. 6.Posible contaminación y o peligro, kínder de perros al lado de FINLAND SCHOOL.
Para notificaciones al correo ...02”. En sesión ordinaria nro. 07-2025 del 18 de febrero de 2026, el Concejo Municipal de Alajuela confirió audiencia a la recurrente para que expusiera su denuncia. Posterior a su intervención, se determinó: “SE RESUELVE TRASLADAR A LA ADMINISTRACIÓN MUNICIPAL, EL DOCUMENTO SUSCRITO POR LA LICDA. Nombre11 PARA QUE EN UN PLAZO DE 10 DÍAS BRINDE UN INFORME DE LO ACTUADO Y DE LAS ACCIONES A SEGUIR”. Por oficio MA-SCM-04632-2025 del 28 de octubre de 2025, la Alcaldía Municipal se refirió a la situación y circunstancias del centro educativo, a saber: “(…) Como se desprende de los reportes actualizados citados, en resumen a la fecha: 1- Se ratifican les dificultades objetivas enfrentadas por la dependencia específica (PCFU) para poder notificar -como requiere la normativa de la materia- a todos los propietarios actuales las distintas actas por la falta de permisos de construcción, siendo que -además- han sido impugnados algunos actos de control que sí pudieron ser realizados y deben resolverse a la brevedad los recursos ulteriores de apelación.
Lo (sic) aspectos referidos deben ser superados incluso recurriendo acciones alternativas o supletorias que sean factibles -como la notificación por edicto- para poder continuar con los procedimientos sancionatorios que correspondan, incluyendo el de mayor alcance de demolición. 2- Las solicitudes de permisos de construcción presentadas por los propietarios de las fincas ante Control Constructivo a inicios de año se encuentran en estado de rechazadas. 3- Las instalaciones del centro educativo de interés (en la finca PRN01) no cuentan con aprobación de descarga de aguas pluviales por parte de la dependencia competente. 4- En la Actividad de Patentes consta la existencia de las licencias comerciales relacionadas: número 27952 para actividad de centra educativo preescolar primaria colegio, en la finca PRN09; y la licencia 40552 para la actividad de centro educativo en la finca PRN10. Por lo que, bajo lo descrito, la Administración procederá de inmediato a la aplicación que resulte factible de mecanismos alternos autorizados -como la publicación de edictos- para la notificación a la totalidad de los propietarios infractores de construcciones sin permiso.
Así como verificará el estado de las licencias comerciales frente a los antecedentes, situación y condiciones actuales de operación de las actividades, para la eventual suspensión o cancelación de dichas licencias; y procederá a la respectiva resolución a la brevedad de los recursos administrativos por construcciones y actividad comercial en curso. Siendo que en cuanto a las facultades propias del Concejo se estima que, por medio de un acuerdo, puede comunicar -o ratificar- ante el Ministerio de Educación Pública toda la situación de irregularidad actual integral existente de este centro educativo, para que dentro de sus competencias adopte las acciones que correspondan según el marco legal y administrativo de la materia y las facultades de supervisión propias de este Ministerio”. Mediante el acuerdo nro. 6, capítulo IV de la sesión ordinaria nro. 46-2025, celebrada el 18 de noviembre de 2025, el Concejo Municipal de Alajuela conoció el informe de la alcaldía y determinó: “(…) SE RESUELVE DEVOLVER EL OFICIO N.° MA-A-4632-2025 DE LA ALCALDÍA MUNICIPAL PARA QUE SE CUMPLA CON LO ESTABLECIDO EN EL ARTÍCULO 90 BIS DEL CÓDIGO MUNICIPAL”.
La resolución de curso del amparo fue notificada a las partes el 24 de junio de 2026. La alcaldía de Alajuela informó que el Proceso de Control Fiscal y Urbano ha realizado inspecciones en el sitio, con el objetivo de realizar la verificación respectiva de la existencia de obras constructivas ejecutadas sin licencia municipal, y se realizaron distintas actas en la finca matrícula PRN02, a saber: “✓ Acta de Información de Obra Concluida sin Licencia N° 855-2021, que se refiere a la ampliación de unas aulas. Se emitió el Acta de Obra Concluida sin Licencia N° 1732-2026, encontrándose actualmente el procedimiento administrativo en trámite conforme a los artículos 93 y siguientes de la Ley de Construcciones. ✓ Acta de Clausura de Construcción N° 1390-2025, por la construcción de una caja pluvial dentro de las instalaciones del centro educativo. Se emitió el Acta de Obra Concluida sin Licencia N° 1730-2026, encontrándose el procedimiento administrativo en trámite conforme a la normativa aplicable. ✓ Acta de Clausura de Construcción N° 1391-2025, por la remodelación de una vivienda ubicada dentro de la misma finca.
Se emitió el Acta de Obra Concluida sin Licencia N° 1731-2026, encontrándose el procedimiento administrativo en trámite. ✓ Acta de Clausura de Construcción N° 1096-2025, por la colocación de postes y material pétreo. Contra dicho acto administrativo fueron interpuestos los recursos ordinarios correspondientes, los cuales fueron debidamente atendidos, resueltos y notificados. La última notificación relacionada con dichos recursos fue realizada el 28 de abril de 2026, encontrándose actualmente el expediente en seguimiento administrativo”.
Así las cosas, las autoridades recurridas aceptan que no se ha solucionado la situación denunciada por la parte amparada. Al respecto, en el informe rendido por el alcalde municipal se indica que: “Siendo que bajo los reportes más recientes sobre los extremos reseñados, en el tanto se mantengan las infracciones e incumplimientos reseñados, a la fecha la Administración se encuentra realizando la valoración final de los antecedentes y coordinación con las dependencias relacionadas para poder previo cumplimiento de los requerimientos legales como las debidas notificaciones a los copropietarios de las fincas relacionadas, así como a los patentados según corresponda- realizar lo siguiente: 1- Instaurar los procedimientos administrativos de demolición de las obras construidas sin permisos de construcción (bajo cumplimiento de la notificación ordinaria o subsidaria de los actos previos requeridos por la Ley de Construcciones de clausura formal, verificación de obra concluida sin licencia y renuencia; así como la resolución de todos los recursos administrativos interpuestos). 2- Realizar las gestiones finales y procedimiento para la eventual suspensión de las licencias comerciales referidas a fincas con construcciones sin permiso municipal; todo según el reglamento general de patentes de la Municipalidad. 3- Atender la situación de impacto ambiental de manera coordinada con las dependencias internas y entidades como el Ministerio de Salud. 4- Medidas correctivas sobre impactos a los vecinos y la relación con servicios públicos”.
Así las cosas, se constata que el reclamo de la recurrente obedece a una problemática conocida por años y vinculada con cuestiones ambientales y aguas pluviales que no ha sido resuelta de forma definitiva, omisión que resulta incompatible con los principios de eficacia, continuidad y coordinación administrativa. Además, no se observa que a la recurrente se le haya mantenido actualizada de las acciones realizadas por el municipio a fin de resolver lo reclamado desde el 11 de febrero de 2025.
En consecuencia, procede declarar con lugar este extremo contra la Municipalidad de Alajuela, a fin de que se adopte la solución técnica integral y se ejecuten las obras necesarias para solucionar de manera definitiva la problemática denunciada por la recurrente, y se le comunique lo que corresponda, según se indicará en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
V.Nota del magistrado Castillo Víquez. 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, pues las controversias jurídico-constitucionales que atañen a menores de edad, al ambiente, pago de salario, al pago de las prestaciones cuando la persona se jubila, a las pensiones del régimen no contributivo y los casos de parálisis cerebral profunda, discapacitados, extranjeros que se encuentran fuera del país, servicio de agua potable, adultos mayores cuando no se refiere a cuestiones de su pensión, denuncias de corrupción, derecho de los indígenas, reclamos por la falta de aseguramiento ante la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y de licencias de maternidad son de conocimiento de esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo.
En los demás casos, y por las razones que se dan en esta sentencia, 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.
VI.Nota del magistrado Salazar Alvarado. Considero que en asuntos ambientales, si ya ha habido intervención de la Administración Pública, su conocimiento y resolución corresponde a la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa. No obstante, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto cuando están de por medio otros derechos de las personas afectadas por el foco de contaminación, entre ellos, la salud, la calidad de vida y el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano y libre de contaminación (artículo 50, de la Constitución Política), tal y como sucede en este caso, en el que se acusa la aparente omisión en la resolución, por parte de la Municipalidad de Alajuela, en atender denuncias por afectaciones generadas en un centro educativo privado, lo que afecta el derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano, ecológicamente equilibrado y de un nivel digno de calidad de vida de la parte recurrente y demás vecinos.
VII.Voto salvado de la magistrada Garro Vargas sobre la ejecución de la sentencia. Salvo el voto respecto de la ejecución de la sentencia, para que, de conformidad con el art. 56 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (LJC), sea residenciada en el Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda.
La ejecución de las órdenes dictadas por la Sala Constitucional corresponde, en principio, ser fiscalizada por esta misma jurisdicción. Sin embargo, esa norma contempla supuestos de excepción en los que, por determinación de este Tribunal, se ordene residenciar la ejecución de la sentencia en la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa:
“Art. 56. La ejecución de las sentencias corresponde a la Sala Constitucional, salvo en lo relativo a la liquidación y cumplimiento de indemnizaciones y responsabilidades pecuniarias, o en otros aspectos que la propia Sala considere del caso, en que se hará en la vía contencioso administrativa por el procedimiento de ejecución de sentencia previsto en la ley reguladora de esa jurisdicción.” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).
Recuérdese que en el proyecto de ley de discusión de la LJC se preveía originalmente lo siguiente:
“Art. 56. Las sentencias favorables al recurrente se ejecutarán en la vía contencioso-administrativa por el procedimiento de ejecución de sentencia previsto en la ley Reguladora de esa Jurisdicción.” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).
Sin embargo, el texto fue modificado vía moción para que la norma fuera coincidente con lo regulado en el art. 153 de la Constitución Política, pero se realizó la siguiente explicación:
“EL SECRETARIO:
Moción No. 68 (32-19) del diputado Chacón Jiménez:
“artículo 57 (antes 56): para que el texto se lea así: “la ejecución de las sentencias corresponde a la Sala Constitucional, salvo en lo relativo a la liquidación y cumplimiento de indemnizaciones o responsabilidades pecuniarias en otros aspectos que la propia Sala considere del caso, en que se hará en la vía contencioso administrativa por el procedimiento de ejecución de sentencia previsto en la ley reguladora de esa jurisdicción”.
EL PRESIDENTE:
En discusión la moción leída?
Doctor Piza Escalante:
Aquí había una contradicción con la tesis genérica de que son los Tribunales los que ejecutan sus sentencias y enviaba la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativo toda la ejecución; entonces quedaban al aire los otros artículos que le permitían a la Sala ejecutarlos.
Diputado Corrales Bolaños:
En esa parte dice: “o en otros aspectos que la propia Sala considere del aso…”, a qué se está refiriendo?
Doctor Piza Escalante:
La idea es que la Sala, en la vía de ejecución de sentencia, resuelva lo que ella considere que le corresponde. Lo que demás, lo envía a la vía Contencioso Administrativa.
EL SECRETARIO:
Se considera suficientemente discutida la moción?
EL PRESIDENTE:
Discutida. Aprobada (unanimidad, cinco señores diputados presentes).” (sic). Ver actas de aprobación de la LJC. Lo destacado no corresponde al original).
A partir de lo anterior, está claro que la propia LJC autoriza a esta Sala para que valore y decida si es preciso derivar a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa todos o algunos los aspectos relativos a la ejecución de la sentencia.
En este caso concreto, en virtud de la entidad de la orden que está girando este Tribunal, estimo que lo procedente es residenciar la fase de ejecución del asunto en la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. Lo anterior, debido a la inexistencia de mecanismos idóneos previstos por la normativa que rige a esta jurisdicción constitucional para dar seguimiento a las órdenes consignadas en esta sentencia que revisten aspectos técnicos de gran complejidad.
En cambio, lo dispuesto por el Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo en materia de ejecución (art. 155 y siguientes) tiene evidentes ventajas, como la posibilidad de pedir cronogramas, imponer multas, sentar responsabilidades, fiscalizar etapas de cumplimiento, etc. Por ello, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el art. 56 de LJC, considero que la fase de ejecución debe realizarse ante el Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, bajo las reglas de ejecución de sentencia de dicho Código.
VIII.Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel u objetos o pruebas contenidos en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Se advierte que será destruido todo material que no sea recogido dentro de ese lapso, con base en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial" (aprobado por la Corte Plena en el artículo XXVI de la sesión nro. 27-11 de 22 de agosto de 2011 y publicado en el Boletín Judicial nro. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012) y en el artículo LXXXI de la sesión del Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial nro. 43-12 de 3 de mayo de 2012.
Por tanto:
Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se les ordena a Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón y Jorge Arturo Campos Araya, cada uno en su respectiva condición de alcalde y presidente del Concejo Municipal, ambos de Alajuela, o a quienes ocupen esos cargos, que giren las órdenes pertinentes y dispongan lo necesario dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, para garantizar que dentro del plazo de SEIS MESES, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se ejecuten las obras que, de conformidad con los criterios técnicos aplicables, sean necesarias para solucionar de manera integral la problemática denunciada por la parte recurrente, y se le comunique lo correspondiente. Se advierte a las autoridades recurridas, que de acuerdo con lo establecido por 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 dentro de un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado.
Se condena a la Municipalidad de Alajuela al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a la presente declaratoria, los cuales se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. El magistrado Castillo Víquez pone nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado consigna nota. La magistrada Garro Vargas salva el voto respecto de la sede de la ejecución de la sentencia y, de conformidad con el artículo 56 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, dispone que esa fase sea residenciada en el Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. 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° 26-019995-0007-CO
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.