Dismissal of unconstitutionality action on Ostional Refuge permitsRechazo de acción de inconstitucionalidad sobre permisos en Refugio Ostional

Res: 2002-02053 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on February twenty-seventh, two thousand two.- Action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) brought by Nombre18711, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Heredia, with identity card number CED8909 against the erroneous interpretation and improper application of Articles 82, paragraph 3, and 84, subsection b) of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and Articles 85 and 86 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, number 22545-MINAE of August thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three.

Resultando:

1. 1By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at fifteen hours and five minutes on December thirteenth, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of the erroneous interpretation and improper application of Law number 7317 of December seventh, nineteen ninety-two “Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre” and its Regulations be declared, considering that it infringes the provisions of Articles 11, 89, and 50 of the Political Constitution, as well as the environmental principles those norms imply, such as the principle of prudent avoidance and the precautionary principle. He alleges that Articles 82 and following of the aforementioned Law and 84 and following of its Regulations have been interpreted and applied by the environmental authorities of the Area de Conservation Tempisque in an erroneous manner, classifying the “Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional” as a mixed (mixto) and not a state-owned refuge, and by virtue thereof, they have granted permits for land use without any restriction or management plan, thus violating the cited constitutional norms and the international conventions existing in this regard.The Law defines state-owned refuges in which the areas declared as such belong entirely to the state. Thus, a harmonious exegesis of Article 82, third paragraph of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, in relation to Article 85 of its Regulations, clarifies that the granting of permits for the realization of activities or development and exploitation projects of the natural resources inherent to said areas is legally permitted only in privately owned refuges and those of a mixed character; obviously on the lands that fall under the private category and not on the public domain (demaniales) ones, since for these, the principle of legality does not allow any other interpretation. If the type of activity to be developed in mixed refuges is restricted, with much greater reason in the truly state-owned ones, in which by express law their purpose is exclusively conservationist. In this sense, the land-use permits (permisos de uso del suelo) that the Area de Conservación Tempisque has been granting in said Refuge in recent times violate the entire bloc of constitutional environmental-normative validity in force in the country.The authorities, by continuing this flawed practice, grossly violate not only Article 50 of the Constitution, but also the Convention on Biological Diversity in its postulates 2, first paragraph, 8, subsections a), b), d), e), and l, 14, subsections a), b), and d), and the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. He asserts as standing to sue, the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and also his status as special judicial representative of the “Asociación Cívica Nosara.”
2. 2Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Chamber to dismiss on procedural grounds or on the merits, at any time, including upon filing, any petition submitted for its consideration that is manifestly inadmissible, or when it deems sufficient grounds for dismissal exist, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a prior identical or similar dismissed petition.

Redacta el Magistrado Solano Carrera; y,

Considerando:

UNICO.- Inadmissibility of the action on the grounds of its object. Processing as an amparo remedy (recurso de amparo). The petitioner challenges the interpretation and application of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and its Regulations, by virtue of which, permits for land use in the “Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional” have been and continue to be granted, despite it being a state-owned property, which by its intrinsic nature cannot be possessed by private individuals. He considers that this interpretation and application violates Articles 11, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity in its postulates 2, first paragraph, 8, subsections a), b), d), e), and l, 14, subsections a), b), and d), and the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Upon examining the petitioner's arguments, it is observed that he does not challenge any legal norm but rather targets the actions of the authorities in charge of the Area de Conservación Tempisque in granting land-use permits contrary to the provisions of the Law.

Article 29 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional indicates that an amparo remedy is appropriate against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, in general, against any action, omission, or simple material act not based on an effective administrative act by public servants and bodies, which has violated, violates, or threatens to violate any of the fundamental rights and freedoms. The action of unconstitutionality, for its part, as expressed in Article 73 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, is essentially designed to challenge laws and other general provisions that infringe, by action or omission, any constitutional norm or principle. Consequently, it is appropriate to dismiss the filed action in view of the object of the claim. It is ordered to separate the memorial that runs from folios 2 to 113 of the file so that it may be processed as an amparo remedy (recurso de amparo), as legally appropriate.

Por tanto:

The action is dismissed on procedural grounds. Separate the memorial attached from folios 2 to 113 of the file so that it may be processed as an amparo remedy (recurso de amparo), as legally appropriate.

Luis Fernando Solano C.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.

Carlos M. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Adrián Vargas B. Susana Castro A.

Res: 2002-02053 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on February twenty-seventh, two thousand two.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Nombre18711, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Heredia, with identity card number CED8909 against the erroneous interpretation and improper application of Articles 82 paragraph 3 and 84 subsection b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre) and Articles 85 and 86 of the Regulations to the Wildlife Conservation Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre), number 22545-MINAE of August thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three.

Resultando:

1. 1By written submission received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at fifteen hours and five minutes on December thirteenth of, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of the erroneous interpretation and improper application of Law number 7317 of December seventh, nineteen ninety-two, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) and its Regulations be declared, considering that it violates the provisions of Articles 11, 89, and 50 of the Political Constitution, as well as the environmental principles those norms implicitly contain, such as the precautionary principle and the principle of prudent avoidance. He alleges that Articles 82 and following of the referenced Law and 84 and following of its Regulations have been erroneously interpreted and applied by the environmental authorities of the Area de Conservación Tempisque, classifying the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) as mixed and non-state in nature, and by virtue of that, they have granted land use permits without any restriction or management plan, thereby violating the cited constitutional norms and the international conventions that exist on the matter.The Law defines state-owned refuges in which the areas declared as such belong entirely to the state. In such a way that a harmonious exegesis of Article 82, third paragraph of the Wildlife Conservation Law, in relation to Article 85 of its Regulations, clarifies that the granting of permits for undertaking development activities or projects and the exploitation of natural resources inherent to such areas is legally permitted only in privately-owned refuges and those of a mixed nature, obviously on lands that fall within the category of private property and not on public domain lands, since in the latter the principle of legality does not permit a different interpretation. If the type of activity to be developed in mixed refuges is restricted, with far greater reason in truly state-owned refuges, where by express provision of law their purpose is exclusively conservationist. In this sense, the land use permits that the Area de Conservación Tempisque has been granting in said Refuge in recent times violate the entire regulatory-environmental block of constitutionality in force in the country.By continuing with that flawed practice, the authorities grossly violate not only Article 50 of the Constitution, but also the Convention on Biological Diversity in its postulates 2 paragraph one, 8 subsections a), b), d), e) and 1, 14 subsections a), b) and d) and the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. He asserts standing to bring the action based on the right every person has to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and also his status as special judicial representative of the Asociación Cívica Nosara.
2. 2Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) authorizes the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, including from its presentation, any petition presented for its consideration that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is the mere reiteration or reproduction of a prior, identical or similar rejected petition.

Drafted by Magistrate Solano Carrera; and,

Considerando:

UNICO.- Inadmissibility of the action on grounds of its object. Processing as an amparo action (recurso de amparo). The petitioner challenges the interpretation and application of the Wildlife Conservation Law and its Regulations, by virtue of which land use permits have been and continue to be granted in the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional), despite the fact that it is a state-owned property which, by its intrinsic nature, cannot be possessed by private individuals. He considers that this interpretation and application violates Articles 11, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity in its postulates 2 paragraph one, 8 subsections a), b), d), e) and 1, 14 subsections a), b) and d) and the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Having examined the petitioner's arguments, it is observed that he is not challenging any legal norm but is instead challenging the action of the authorities in charge of the Area de Conservación Tempisque in granting land use permits contrary to the provisions of the Law.

Article 29 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) indicates that an amparo action (recurso de amparo) is appropriate against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, in general, against any action, omission, or mere material act not based on an effective administrative act, by public servants and bodies, that has violated, is violating, or threatens to violate any of the fundamental rights and freedoms. The action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad), on the other hand, as expressed in Article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, is designed essentially to challenge laws and other general provisions that violate, by action or omission, any constitutional norm or principle. Consequently, it is appropriate to reject the action filed based on the object of the claim. The brief filed, which constitutes folios 2 to 113 of the case file, is ordered to be separated for processing as an amparo action (recurso de amparo), in accordance with the corresponding law.

Por tanto:

The action is rejected outright. Separate the brief filed constituting folios 2 to 113 of the case file so that it is processed as an amparo action (recurso de amparo), in accordance with the corresponding law.

Luis Fernando Solano C.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.

Carlos M. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Adrián Vargas B. Susana Castro A.

Res: 2002-02053 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas con cincuenta y dos minutos del veintisiete de febrero del dos mil dos.- Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Nombre18711, mayor,casado,abogado, vecino de Heredia,con cédula de identidad número CED8909 contra la interpretación errónea y aplicación indebida de los artículos 82 párrafo 3 y 84 inciso b) de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y artículos 85 y 86 del Reglamento a la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, número 22545-MINAE del treinta de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y tres.

Resultando:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las quince horas y cinco minutos del trece de Diciembre de, el accionante el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de la interpretación errónea y aplicación indebida de la Ley número 7317 del siete de Diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y dos Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y su Reglamento, por considerar que infringe lo dispuesto en los artículos 11,89 y 50 de la Constitución Política, así como los principios ambientales que esas normas llevan implícitas, como lo son el principio de evitación prudente y el precautorio. Alega que los artículos 82 y siguientes de la Ley referida y 84 y siguientes de su Reglamento, han sido interpretados y aplicados por parte de las autoridades ambientales del Area de Conservación Tempisque de manera errónea, catalogando al Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional como de carácter mixto y no estatal, y en virtud de ello, han otorgado permisos de uso del suelo sin restricción alguna ni plan de manejo, violándose de esa manera las normas constitucionales citadas y los convenios internacionales que existen al respecto.La Ley define los refugios de propiedad estatal en los cuales, las áreas declaradas como tales pertenecen íntegramente al estado. De manera tal que una exégesis armónica del artículo 82 párrafo tercero de la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, en relación con el 85 de su Reglamento, aclara que el otorgamiento de permisos para la realización de actividades o proyectos de desarrollo y explotación de los recursos naturales inherentes a dichas áreas, es legalmente permitido sólo en los refugios de propiedad privada y en los de carácter mixto; obviamente en los terrenos que participan de la categoría de particular y no en los demaniales, pues en éstos el principio de legalidad no permite interpretar otra cosa.Si se restringe el tipo de actividad a desarrollar en los refugios mixtos, con mucho mayor razón en los realmente estatales, en los cuales por ley expresa su destino es exclusivamente conservacionista.En este sentido, los permisos de uso de suelo que ha venido otorgando el Area de Conservación Tempisque en dicho Refugio, en los últimos tiempos, conculcan todo el bloque de constitucionalidad normativo-ambiental vigente en el país. Las autoridades, al continuar con esa práctica viciada, violan de manera grosera no sólo el artículo 50 de la Constitución, sino también el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica en sus postulados 2 párrafo primero, 8 incisos a), b), d), e) y 1, 14 incisos a),b) y d) y los principios de la Declaración de Río de sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Aduce como legitimación para accionar, el derecho que tiene toda persona a tener un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y además su condición de apoderado especial judicial de la Asociación Cívica Nosara.
2. 2El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.

Redacta el Magistrado Solano Carrera; y,

Considerando:

UNICO.- Inadmisibilidad de la acción en razón del objeto.Tramitación como recurso de amparo.El accionante impugna la interpretación y la aplicación de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y su Reglamento, en virtud de la cual, se han otorgado y se continúan otorgando permisos del uso del suelo en el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional, pese a que se trata de un bien de propiedad estatal, que por su intrínseca naturaleza no puede ser poseído por particulares. Considera que esa interpretación y aplicación vulnera los artículos 11,50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, así como el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica en sus postulados 2 párrafo primero, 8 incisos a), b), d), e) y 1, 14 incisos a),b) y d) y los principios de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Examinados los alegatos del accionante, se observa que no impugna ninguna norma jurídica sino que se dirige contra la actuación de las autoridades encargadas del Area de Conservación Tempisque al otorgar permisos de uso del suelo en contra de los dispuesto en la Ley.

El artículo 29 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional señala que procede el recurso de amparo contra toda disposición, acuerdo o resolución y, en general, contra toda acción, omisión o simple actuación material no fundada en una acto administrativo eficaz, de los servidores y órganos públicos, que haya violado, viole o amenace violar cualquiera de los derechos y libertades fundamentales. La acción de inconstitucionalidad por su parte, según expresa el artículo 73 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, está diseñada esencialmente para cuestionar las leyes y otras disposiciones generales que infrinjan, por acción o omisión alguna norma o principio constitucional. En consecuencia, procede rechazar la acción interpuesta atendiendo al objeto de la pretensión. Se ordena desglosar el memorial que corre agregando los folios 2 a 113 del expediente a fin de que sea tramitado como recurso de amparo, conforme a derecho corresponda.

Por tanto:

Se rechaza de plano la acción.Desglósese el memorial que corre agregado a folios 2 a 113 del a fin de que sea tramitado como recurso de amparo, conforme a derecho corresponda Luis Fernando Solano C.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.

Carlos M. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Adrián Vargas B. Susana Castro A.