Right to a healthy environment — pollution from garbage dumps in CurridabatDerecho a ambiente sano — contaminación por basurales en Curridabat

*050040980007CO* *050040980007CO* Res. Nº 2005010290 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at eleven hours and six minutes of August fifth, two thousand five.

Amparo action (Recurso de amparo) filed by Nombre01, identification number CED01, Nombre02, identification number CED02, and Nombre03, identification number CED03, against LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CURRIDABAT.

Resultando:

1.- By a document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 4:00 p.m. on April 8, 2005, the petitioner files an amparo action against LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CURRIDABAT, and states that they are residents of Tirrases de Curridabat, Dirección01, next to the first A y A tank. That for fifteen years they have possessed a parcel of land that they have considered as part of their house yards, as it borders the same. The land has been fenced on several occasions, but the fences are always destroyed to pile up large quantities of garbage, including soil, ballast, old engines, washing machines, unusable refrigerators, and hospital waste. That as a consequence, such garbage produces flies, dengue mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, and other vermin, which invade their properties and cause them illnesses. That they have constantly requested that the respondent Municipality remove that garbage, but it has not acted to solve the problem, in violation of their fundamental rights. That they also believe that this land belongs to them and should be occupied by their families, for which reason their possession of it must be respected, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 23 and 45 of the Constitución Política.

2.- Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor (Alcaldesa Municipal) of Curridabat, states under oath (folio 8) that she does not know for certain if the petitioners are residents of the area, as it is in reality a locality of squatters (precaristas), so she affirms that she does not know their names. She adds that it is not certain to her that the petitioners have fenced the land, although it is true that unscrupulous people deposit waste both there and in other places in the district of Tirrases, despite the fact that on several occasions, this municipal corporation has carried out cleaning and collection of garbage and waste. She affirms that the petitioners' allegations regarding contamination are not certain to her, but she states that she supposes the garbage produces flies and other things, aspects in which the municipality of Curridabat has tried to cooperate and solve by collecting the waste and placing signs prohibiting the dumping of garbage, but she believes that the Ministerio de Salud should take part in the matter. She affirms that according to the person in charge of the Sanitation Unit of this municipal corporation, on repeated occasions, the site and a great many other places in that canton, where people are accustomed to creating garbage dumps, have been cleaned. She requests that the appeal filed be dismissed.

3.- By a resolution at fifteen hours and thirty-six minutes of June thirteenth, two thousand five, an audience was granted to the Ministra de Salud to address the facts described by the petitioners (folio 12).

4.- Francisco Cubillo Martínez, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Salud (Ministro de Salud a.i.), states under oath (folio 14) that a report was requested from the Director of the Area Rectora de Salud de Curridabat regarding the petitioners' allegations, which was addressed through official communication DARSC-135-05 of June 21, 2005, in which the following was stated: that in that Area Rectora there is no case file on record; that the petitioner has not filed a formal complaint with that Area Rectora about the problem that arises, nor has requested the intervention of that Institution; that the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the responsibility of the Municipality of Curridabat, in accordance with Article 280 of the Ley General de Salud; that according to Article 282 of the Ley General de Salud, it is the responsibility of the owners of unoccupied lands to keep them fenced and in good hygienic conditions. For the foregoing reasons, he believes that the alleged violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights has not occurred, and thus requests that the present appeal be dismissed.

5.- The legal requirements have been observed in the procedures followed.

Drafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,

Considerando:

I.- Proven facts. Deemed important for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated, either because they have been thus accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them according to what was provided in the initial order:

• a)The petitioners, residing in Tirrases de Curridabat, have made efforts before the Municipality of that locality to clean up some lands that other neighbors use as a garbage deposit (uncontroverted fact).

II.- Purpose of the appeal. The promoters come to the Chamber via amparo and claim the violation of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, given the alleged omission of the municipal authorities in cleaning up lands used as unauthorized garbage deposits. Additionally, they allege a violation of the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitución Política, since they believe they have a better right to the property they occupy.

III.- On the alleged violation of the right to property. Regarding this point, the Chamber considers that in essence, the discussion falls within the better right of possession or property claimed by the petitioners concerning the properties that interest them, a situation that, besides being a matter involving aspects of legality, must be discussed in the administrative venue through the procedures established for that purpose, or once that venue is exhausted, in the corresponding ordinary jurisdictional venue. Therefore, and as this Court lacks the material and functional competence to hear and definitively resolve the conflict raised by the petitioners, the appeal is inadmissible regarding this point, and must be so declared.

IV.- On the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In judgment No. 6322-03, this Court developed the jurisprudential treatment given by the Chamber to this constitutional basis, which is summarized for purposes of study in this amparo and is complemented with other considerations. Prior to the reform of Article 50 of the Constitución Política, the Chamber's jurisprudence had already recognized the protection and preservation of the environment as a fundamental right (judgment number 2233-93), deriving it from the provisions of Articles 21 (right to health), 69 (constitutional requirement for "rational exploitation of the land"), and 89 (protection of natural beauties), all of the Constitution, based on the following considerations:

"V.)- Human life is only possible in solidarity with the nature that sustains and supports us, not only for physical nourishment, but also for psychological well-being: it constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free of contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. It is thus that Article 21 of the Constitución Política states: 'Human life is inviolable.' From this constitutional principle, the right to health, to physical, mental, and social well-being undeniably emerges, a human right that is inextricably linked to the right to health and the State's obligation to protect human life.

Likewise, from a psychological and intellectual point of view, one's state of mind also depends on nature, so when the landscape becomes a useful space for rest and free time, its preservation and conservation is an obligation. This last aspect is protected in Article 89 of the Constitution, which literally says: 'Among the cultural aims of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress.' Protecting nature from an aesthetic point of view is not to commercialize it or transform it into merchandise; it is to educate the citizen to learn to appreciate the aesthetic landscape for its intrinsic value" (judgment number 3705-93, at three p.m. on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three).

"XIII.- The term 'natural beauties' was the one used at the time the Constitution was promulgated (November 7, 1949), which today has developed as a specialty of law: environmental law, which recognizes the need to preserve the surroundings not only as a cultural end, but as a vital necessity for every human being. In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment overcomes the recreational or cultural interests that are also important aspects of life in society, and instead constitutes a capital requirement for life itself. [...]

[...]

Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, derived from the right to life, and through that, of a right to a healthy environment. By way of example, we can cite judgments 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment as a constitutionally protected individual right" (judgment number 6240-93, at two p.m. on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).

"Norm 69 of the Carta Política speaks of the 'rational exploitation of the land,' which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, such protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the indicated resources, are canons of the constitutional order" (judgment number 2233-93).

From Article 69 of the Carta Fundamental, the principle of rational exploitation of the land is derived, and it imposes upon both private individuals and the State in its broadest sense, the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources:

"II. The protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to all equally: to public institutions, enforcing existing legislation and promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; to private individuals, obeying those provisions and collaborating in the defense of soil, air, and water, for any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be harmful to the quality of human life" (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours and forty-one minutes of August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).

As this Court has already indicated, Article 50 of the Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412, of June third, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and grant citizens full standing to defend it, thereby giving express content within it to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from constitutional Articles 21, 69, and 89:

"[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason] it does not consider useless, much less objectionable, that it be recognized expressly and clearly individualized, [...]" (judgment number 1394-94, at fifteen hours and twenty-one minutes of March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four).

"II.- It is thus held that the position assumed by this Court in this respect is currently confirmed by the cited constitutional reform, a reform which is nothing but a reflection of the conception that man, while having the right to make use of the environment, also has the obligation to protect and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations" (judgment number 5668-94, at six p.m. of September twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-four).

The cited Article 50 also outlines the Social State of Law (Estado Social de Derecho), so we can conclude that the Constitución Política emphasizes that environmental protection is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve the quality of life for all, which necessitates the intervention of the Public Powers on factors that can alter its equilibrium and hinder a person from developing and unfolding in a healthy environment. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the State's activity finds its primary reason, first, because by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor of the same, and secondly, because the activity of the State is directed toward satisfying the interests of the community. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of "environment" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, that is, soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework is formed, without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to emphasize that this term has been understood in a more integral way, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects related to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:

"For the foregoing reason, Environmental Law (Derecho Ambiental) must not be associated only with nature, for nature is only a part of the environment. The policy of protecting nature also spills over into other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It is, therefore, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts out and thus manage to unify the legal complex we call Environmental Law" (judgment number 5893-95, at nine hours and forty-eight minutes of October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, cited above, and number 2988-99, at eleven hours and fifty-seven minutes of April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).

V.- The Chamber has indicated that the environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used adequately, requiring integrated action in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political order relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity for the present and future degrades, and the heritage of the coming generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the style of socioeconomic development adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the methods of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems that exceeds their regenerative capacity, leading to broad sectors of the population being harmed and generating a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; for precisely, the primary objective of using and protecting the environment is to achieve development and evolution favorable to human beings. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other equally important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that if man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this subject matter of the principle of "injury," already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others, and on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, as any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep operating the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. To speak of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak about the demand for natural resources at the individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this implies the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which Costa Rica is included, committed themselves, within the preservation of sustainable development, to the protection above all of the human being. It started from the principle that everyone has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; the right of present and future generations was included, ensuring that development be carried out in such a way as to satisfy their environmental and development needs; the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources was maintained while emphasizing their responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common responsibilities in that regard; thus, international cooperation in promoting and supporting economic growth and sustainable development will better enable addressing the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure their developed technologies and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment.

VI.- In the case before us, from the evidence on record and the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—taken as given under the solemnity of oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of an environmental contamination problem, originating from garbage and other waste that unknown persons deposit on unauthorized lands in the canton of Curridabat, is duly accredited. Now, under oath, the respondent Municipal Mayor affirms that on repeated occasions, several lands that neighbors use as garbage dumps have been cleaned, and that because it is a squatter settlement (precario), it is very difficult for them to control the dumping of garbage in open spaces. For her part, the Ministra de Salud asserts that she has no knowledge of the described situation, and that in any case, the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the responsibility of the municipalities. However, the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment to the detriment of the petitioners has indeed occurred. Indeed, regardless of the matter concerning the right of possession of the promoters, which, as already explained, is not appropriate to air in this venue, and even if the Municipality of Curridabat occasionally cleans the referenced lands, the contamination problem persists, as acknowledged by the respondent Mayor. It is opportune to keep in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Constitución Política itself, each municipality in its jurisdiction is to look after local interests and services, to the exclusion of any other interference incompatible with the concept of what is local, such that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.

Additionally, Article 74 of the current Código Municipal establishes:

"Municipalities shall collect fees and prices for the services they provide, which shall be set taking into consideration the effective cost plus a ten percent (10%) utility for developing them. Once set, they shall take effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.

Users shall pay for the services of public lighting, cleaning of public thoroughfares, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, as long as they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate an interest in such services.

In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them without causing harm to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Court, it is unacceptable that the petitioners, as neighbors, should see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring it, such as the respondent Municipality and the respondent Ministerio de Salud in this case, making their actions effective. Therefore, for all the reasons stated, the appeal is admissible. In the case under analysis, Articles 5, 10, and 186 of the Código Municipal are of special interest, insofar as they refer to the obligation of coordination that must exist between local governments, decentralized institutions, and the Poder Ejecutivo to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This duty of coordination cannot create a conflict due to antagonism or protagonism between the matter composing the general purpose of "local interests and services" and the "national" or "state" public interests and services, intrinsically distinct from one another, but which in reality are called to coexist; and this is so, because both types of interest may be, eventually, intermingled, and rather, it is frequent that, depending on the economic and organizational capacity of local governments, their own limitations lead to an expansion of the circle of those that appear as national or state, which shows that the distinction should not be immutable, but gradual or variable. In other words, the municipality is called upon to enter into cooperative relations with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coincident character—in many cases—of interests around a specific matter. There must exist a due and obligatory coordination between the State and local corporate entities, thus fulfilling what is ordered by this provision, without implying an invasion of municipal autonomy. This duty of coordination, in the specific case, requires both the Municipality of Curridabat and the Ministerio de Salud to join efforts to achieve a common goal, namely, to seek a solution to the contamination problem claimed by the petitioners in that canton, and thus offer effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided for in Article 50 of the Carta Magna. Consequently, for the reasons offered above, the amparo is admissible, as is hereby declared.

Por tanto:

The appeal is declared WITH MERIT (CON LUGAR) solely for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor of Curridabat, and Francisco Cubillo Martínez, in his capacity as Minister of Salud, or whoever exercises those positions in their stead, are ordered to resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited at Dirección02 in Curridabat, within a period of two months from the notification of this judgment. This under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prison term of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order to be fulfilled or enforced, issued in an amparo action, and does not fulfill it or have it fulfilled, provided the offense is not more severely punished. The State and the Municipality of Curridabat are condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in execution of judgment of the contencioso administrativo. In all other respects, the appeal is declared without merit. Let it be communicated.- NOTIFY this resolution to Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, and to Francisco Cubillo Martínez, or to whoever exercises those positions in their stead, PERSONALLY.

Luis Fernando Solano C.

Ana Virginia Calzada M. Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Teresita Rodríguez A. Alejandro Batalla B.

That they also believe this land belongs to them and should be occupied by their families, and therefore their possession of it must be respected, in accordance with the provisions of articles 23 and 45 of the Political Constitution. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">2.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Luz de los Angeles, also known as Lucy Retana Chinchilla, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor of Curridabat, reports under oath (folio 8) that she cannot attest to whether the petitioners are neighbors of the area, since it is actually a locality of squatters (precaristas), and therefore she states that she does not know their names. She adds that she cannot attest that the petitioners have fenced the land, although it is true that unscrupulous people deposit waste both there and in other places in the district of Tirrases, despite the fact that on several occasions, this municipal corporation has carried out cleaning and collection of garbage and waste. She assures that she cannot attest to the claims made by the petitioners regarding contamination, but affirms that she assumes the garbage produces flies and other issues, aspects in which the municipality of Curridabat has tried to collaborate and solve by collecting waste and posting signs prohibiting littering, but she believes the Ministry of Health should take part in the matter. She assures that according to the head of the Health Unit of that municipal corporation, cleaning has been carried out on repeated occasions in that location and a great many other places in that canton, where people are accustomed to creating garbage dumps. She requests that the appeal filed be dismissed.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">3.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> By resolution issued at fifteen hours and thirty-six minutes on June thirteenth, two thousand five, a hearing was granted to the Minister of Health to address the facts described by the petitioners (folio 12).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">4.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Francisco Cubillo Martínez, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Health, reports under oath (folio 14) that a report was requested from the Director of the Health Area of Curridabat regarding the petitioners' allegations, which was addressed via official communication DARSC-135-05 dated June 21, 2005, in which the following was stated: that this Health Area does not have a case file on the matter; that the petitioner has not filed a formal complaint with this Health Area about the problem occurring nor has he requested intervention by this Institution; that the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the responsibility of the Municipality of Curridabat, in accordance with article 280 of the General Health Law; that according to article 282 of the General Health Law, it is the responsibility of the owners of vacant lots to keep them fenced and in good hygienic conditions. For the foregoing reasons, he believes that the alleged violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights has not occurred, and therefore requests that the present appeal be dismissed.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">5.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings conducted.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Drafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Considering:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">I.- Proven facts.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">a) The petitioners, who reside in Tirrases de Curridabat, have taken steps before the Municipality of that locality to have some lots cleaned that other neighbors use as a garbage deposit (uncontested fact).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">II.- Purpose of the appeal. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">The promoters come before the Chamber via amparo, and claim violation of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, due to the alleged omission by municipal authorities in cleaning lots used as an unauthorized garbage deposit. Additionally, they allege violation of the provisions of article 45 of the Political Constitution, as they believe they have a better right to the property they occupy.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">III.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Regarding the alleged violation of the right to property. As to this point, the Chamber considers that, in essence, the discussion is framed within the better right of possession or property that the protected parties claim over the properties of interest to them, a situation that, besides being a matter dealing with aspects of legality, must be discussed through administrative channels via the procedures established for that purpose, or once said channel has been exhausted, in the corresponding ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore, and since this Court lacks material and functional competence to hear and definitively resolve the conflict raised by the protected parties, the appeal is inadmissible on this point, and must be declared as such.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">IV.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This Court, in judgment No. 6322-03, developed the jurisprudential treatment that the Chamber has given to this constitutional foundation, which is summarized for the purposes of study in this amparo and supplemented with other considerations. Prior to the reform of article 50 of the Political Constitution, the jurisprudence of the Chamber had already recognized the protection and preservation of the environment as a fundamental right (judgment number 2233-93), deriving it from the provisions of articles 21 (right to health), 69 (constitutional requirement for \"rational exploitation of the land\"), and 89 (protection of natural beauties), all of the Constitution, based on the following considerations:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"V.)- Human life is only possible in solidarity with the nature that underpins and sustains us, not only for physical nourishment, but also for psychological well-being: it constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free of contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. This is how article 21 of the Political Constitution states: 'Human life is inviolable.' It is from this constitutional principle that the right to health, to physical, mental, and social well-being, undeniably derives, a human right that is indissolubly linked to the right to health and the obligation of the State to protect human life.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Likewise, from the psychological and intellectual point of view, one's state of mind also depends on nature, so when the landscape becomes a useful space for rest and leisure time, its preservation and conservation is obligatory. This latter aspect is protected in article 89 of the Constitution, which literally says: 'Among the cultural purposes of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, to conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and to support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress.' Protecting nature from the aesthetic point of view is not to commercialize it or transform it into merchandise; it is to educate the citizen to learn to appreciate the aesthetic landscape for its intrinsic value\" (judgment number 3705-93, at fifteen hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"XIII.- The term 'natural beauties' was the one employed at the time of promulgating the Constitution (November 7, 1949), which today has developed as a specialty of law: environmental law, which recognizes the need to preserve the environment not only as a cultural end, but as a vital necessity of every human being. In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment surpasses recreational or cultural interests, which are also important aspects of life in society, and furthermore constitutes a fundamental requirement for life itself. [...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">[...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, drawn from the right to life, and through it, a right to a healthy environment. As an example, we can cite judgments 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment as a constitutionally protected individual right\" (judgment number 6240-93, at fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"Norm 69, of the Political Charter, speaks of the 'rational exploitation of the land,' which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, that protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the indicated resources, are canons of the constitutional order\" (judgment number 2233-93).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">From article 69 of the Fundamental Charter derives the principle of rational exploitation of the land, and the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources is imposed on both individuals and the State in its broadest sense:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"II. The protection of the environment is a task that falls equally to everyone: to public institutions, by enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; to individuals, by abiding by those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, air, and water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be detrimental to the quality of human life\" (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours and forty-one minutes on August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">As this Court has already indicated, article 50 of the Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412, of June third, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and granting citizens full standing to defend it, thus giving express content therein to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from articles 21, 69, and 89 of the Constitution:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason] it does not consider it useless nor, much less, objectionable that it be recognized expressly and clearly individualized, [...]\" (judgment number 1394-94, at fifteen hours and twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"II.- It is then held that the position taken by this Court on the matter is currently confirmed by the cited constitutional reform, a reform that is nothing but a reflection of the conception that while man has the right to make use of the environment, he also has the obligation to protect it and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations\" (judgment number 5668-94, at eighteen hours on September twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">The cited article 50 also outlines the Social State of Law, so we can conclude that the Political Constitution emphasizes that environmental protection is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve everyone's quality of life, which makes necessary the intervention of Public Powers over factors that can alter its balance and hinder the person's development and unfolding in a healthy environment. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within State activity finds its primary reason for being, firstly, in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor thereof, and, secondly, because State activity is directed towards satisfying the interests of the community. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of \"environment\" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, be it the soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework is formed, without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more comprehensive manner, establishing a \"macro-environmental\" concept, by also encompassing aspects referring to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"For the foregoing reasons, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, since nature is only part of the environment. The policy of protecting nature also extends to other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It is, then, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts aside and thus achieve unification of the legal set we call Environmental Law\" (judgment number 5893-95, at nine hours and forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, supra cited, and number 2988-99, at eleven hours and fifty-seven minutes on April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The Chamber has indicated that the environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, requiring an integrated approach in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future is degraded, and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the modalities of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their capacity for regeneration, which leads to broad sectors of the population being harmed and generating a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that although man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is no more than the translation to this matter of the principle of \"injury,\" already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep operating the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. The soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and landscape form the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. Speaking of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak of the demand for natural resources at the individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer products, production goods, and export items. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this means the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which Costa Rica figures, committed themselves, within the preservation of sustainable development, to the protection above all of the human being. They started from the principle that every person has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; they included the right of present and future generations for development to be carried out in a way that satisfies their environmental and progress needs; they maintained the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure that activities carried out within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common responsibilities in that sense; in this way, international cooperation in the promotion and support of economic growth and sustainable development will better address the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure that the technologies they develop and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> In the case before us, from the evidence in the record, and from the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—which are deemed given under the solemnity of oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of a problem of environmental contamination, caused by garbage and other waste that unknown persons deposit on unauthorized land for that purpose, in the canton of Curridabat, is duly accredited. Now, under oath, the respondent Municipal Mayor assures that on repeated occasions, several lots that neighbors use as garbage dumps have been cleaned, and because it is a squatter settlement (precario), it is difficult for them to control the dumping of garbage in open spaces. For her part, the Minister of Health asserts that she has no knowledge of the described situation, and that in any case, the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the responsibility of the municipalities. However, the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred to the detriment of the protected parties. Indeed, regardless of the matter relating to the right of possession of the promoters, which as already explained is not to be aired through this channel, and even though the Municipality of Curridabat occasionally cleans the referred lots, the contamination problem persists, as acknowledged by the respondent Mayor. It is appropriate to keep very much in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, each municipality in its jurisdiction is responsible for looking after local interests and services to the exclusion of any other interference incompatible with the concept of the local, such that everything relating to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Additionally, article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">\"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees and prices, which shall be fixed taking into consideration the effective cost plus ten percent (10%) utility for developing them. Once fixed, they shall become effective thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Users must pay for the services of public lighting, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other municipal urban or non-urban service established by law, insofar as they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them, without causing an injury to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Court, it is unacceptable that the protected parties, as neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring it, such as the respondent Municipality and the respondent Ministry of Health in this case, making their actions effective, and therefore, for all the reasons stated, the appeal is admissible. In the case under analysis, articles 5, 10, and 186 of the Municipal Code are of special interest, insofar as they refer to the obligation of coordination that must exist between local governments, decentralized institutions, and the Executive Branch, to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This duty of coordination cannot create a conflict due to antagonism or protagonism between the matter comprising the general purpose of 'local interests and services' and 'national' or 'state' public interests and services, intrinsically distinct from one another, but which are actually meant to coexist; and this is so, because both types of interest can be, eventually, intermingled and rather, it is frequent that, depending on the economic and organizational capacity of local governments, their own limitations lead to expanding the circle of those appearing as national or state interests, which shows that the distinction should not be immutable, but gradual or variable. In other terms, the municipality is called upon to enter into cooperative relations with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coincident nature—in many cases—of interests around a specific matter. There must be due and obligatory coordination between the State and local corporate entities, thus complying with what is ordered by this provision, without this implying an invasion of municipal autonomy. This duty of coordination, in the specific case, means that both the Municipality of Curridabat and the Ministry of Health must join efforts to achieve a common goal, which is to seek a solution to the contamination problem claimed by the petitioners in that canton, and thus offer effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, set forth in article 50 of the Magna Carta. Consequently, for the reasons offered above, the amparo is admissible, as is hereby declared.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Therefore:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">The appeal is declared WITH MERITS solely for the violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Luz de los Angeles, also known as Lucy Retana Chinchilla, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor of Curridabat, and Francisco Cubillo Martínez, in his capacity as Minister of Health, or whomever holds those positions in their stead, are ordered to resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited at Dirección02, Curridabat, within a term of two months counted from the notification of this judgment. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and fails to comply with it or fails to enforce it, provided that the offense is not more severely punished. The State and the Municipality of Curridabat are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In all other respects, the appeal is declared without merit. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Let it be communicated.- NOTIFY this resolution to Luz de los Angeles, also known as Lucy Retana Chinchilla, and to Francisco Cubillo Martínez, or whomever holds those positions in their stead, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">in PERSONAL form</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial">Luis Fernando Solano C. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial">President </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Ana Virginia Calzada M. Gilbert Armijo S. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Teresita Rodríguez A. Alejandro Batalla B.</span></p> In the case before us, from the evidence in the record and from the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—which are given under oath, with timely warning of the consequences, even criminal, provided for in Article 44 of the Law that governs this jurisdiction—the existence of a problem of environmental contamination, caused by garbage and other waste that unknown persons deposit on unauthorized lands in the canton of Curridabat, has been duly accredited. Now then, under oath, the respondent Municipal Mayor assures that on repeated occasions, several lands that neighbors use as garbage dumps have been cleaned; because it involves a precarious settlement, it is difficult for them to control garbage being thrown in open spaces. For her part, the Minister of Health asserts that she has no knowledge of the situation described, and that in any case, the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the responsibility of the municipalities. Nevertheless, this Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred to the detriment of the petitioners. In effect, regardless of what relates to the petitioners' right of possession, which, as already explained, is not appropriate to address in this venue, and even though the Municipality of Curridabat occasionally cleans the referenced lands, the contamination problem persists, as acknowledged by the respondent Mayor. It is opportune to keep in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, it is the responsibility of each municipality in its jurisdiction to watch over local interests and services, to the exclusion of any other interference incompatible with the concept of what is local, such that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.

Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:

"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees and prices, which shall be set taking into consideration the effective cost plus ten percent (10%) profit for developing them. Once set, they shall take effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.

Users must pay for public lighting services, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green zones, municipal police services, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, to the extent they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services." In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them without causing an injury to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Tribunal it is unacceptable that the petitioners, as neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality and the respondent Ministry of Health in this case, making their actions effective; therefore, based on everything stated, the recourse is admissible. In the case under analysis, Articles 5, 10, and 186 of the Municipal Code are of special interest, insofar as they refer to the obligation of coordination that must exist between local governments, decentralized institutions, and the Executive Branch, to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This duty of coordination cannot create a conflict due to antagonism or protagonism between the subject matter that integrates the general purpose of "local interests and services" and "national" or "state" public interests and services, intrinsically distinct from one another, but which in reality are called upon to coexist; and this is so, because both types of interest can be, eventually, intermingled, and rather, it is frequent that, depending on the economic and organizational capacity of local governments, their own limitations lead to broadening the circle of those that appear as national or state, which shows that the distinction should not be immutable, but gradual or variable. In other terms, the municipality is called to enter into cooperative relations with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coincident nature—in many cases—of interests around a specific matter. There must be a due and obligatory coordination between the State and local corporate entities, thus complying with what is ordered by this provision, without this implying an invasion of municipal autonomy. This duty of coordination, in the specific case, means that both the Municipality of Curridabat and the Ministry of Health must combine efforts to achieve a common goal, namely finding a solution to the contamination problem claimed by the petitioners in said canton, and thereby offer effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, set forth in Article 50 of the Magna Carta. Consequently, for the reasons set forth above, the amparo is admissible, and it is hereby so declared.

In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment surpasses recreational or cultural interests, which are also important aspects of life in society, but rather constitutes a capital requirement for life itself. [...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">[...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, derived from the right to life and thereby a right to a healthy environment. As an example, we can cite rulings 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment as an individually protected constitutional right" (ruling number 6240-93, at fourteen hours on the twenty-sixth of November, nineteen ninety-three).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"Rule 69, the Political Charter speaks of the 'rational exploitation of the land,' which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, that protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the resources indicated, are canons of the constitutional order" (ruling number 2233-93).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">From Article 69 of the Fundamental Charter, the principle of rational exploitation of the land is derived, and the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources is imposed, both on individuals and on the State in its broadest sense:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"II. Environmental protection is a task that corresponds to all equally: to public institutions, by enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; to individuals, by complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, the air, and the water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in their composition, content, or quality will also be detrimental to the quality of human life" (ruling number 4480-94, at ten hours forty-one minutes on the nineteenth of August, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">As this Court has already indicated, Article 50 of the Constitution was amended by Law number 7412, of the third of June, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and grant citizens full standing to defend it, thus giving express content to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which, in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from Articles 21, 69, and 89 of the Constitution:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason] it does not consider useless nor, much less, objectionable that it be recognized in an express and clearly individualized manner, [...]" (ruling number 1394-94, at fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on the sixteenth of March, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"II.- It is thus held that the position assumed by this Tribunal in this regard is currently confirmed by the cited constitutional amendment, an amendment which is but a reflection of the conception that man, while having the right to make use of the environment, also has the obligation to protect and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations" (ruling number 5668-94, at eighteen hours on the twenty-eighth of September, nineteen ninety-four).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">The aforementioned Article 50 also outlines the Social State under the Rule of Law, so we can conclude that the Political Constitution emphasizes that environmental protection is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve the quality of life for all, which makes the intervention of the Public Powers necessary regarding the factors that can alter its balance and hinder a person's development and flourishing in a healthy environment. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the State's activity finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals, but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor thereof, and, secondly, because the State's activity is directed toward satisfying the interests of the community. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of "environment" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, be they soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework is formed, without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more integral manner, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects relating to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"Therefore, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, since nature is only part of the environment. Nature protection policy also extends to other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It is, then, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts outside and thus achieve the unification of the legal body we call Environmental Law" (ruling number 5893-95, at nine hours forty-eight minutes on the twenty-seventh of October, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, rulings number 3705-93, supra cited, and number 2988-99, at eleven hours fifty-seven minutes on the twenty-third of April, nineteen ninety-nine).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The Chamber has indicated that the environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, requiring action in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, since, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future is degraded and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems arise when the modes of exploitation of natural resources give rise to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their capacity for regeneration, which leads to broad sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost resulting in a deterioration of the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain a development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that while man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of "lesión" (abuse of rights), already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. The soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. To speak of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak of the demand for natural resources at the individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this means the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which Costa Rica is included, committed themselves, within the preservation of sustainable development, to the protection above all of the human being. It proceeded from the principle that every person has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; the right of present and future generations for development to be carried out in a way that satisfies their environmental and progress needs was included; the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources was maintained, stressing their responsibility to ensure that activities carried out within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common responsibilities in that regard; in this way, international cooperation in the promotion and support of economic growth and sustainable development will allow for a better address of the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure that the technologies they develop and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> In the case at hand, from the evidence in the record, and from the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—which are considered given under the gravity of oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of an environmental contamination problem, caused by trash and other waste that unknown persons deposit on unauthorized properties, in the canton of Curridabat, is duly accredited. Now, under oath, the respondent Municipal Mayor assures that cleaning has been carried out on several occasions on various properties that neighbors use as garbage dumps; because it is a precarious settlement, it is difficult for them to control the dumping of garbage in open spaces. For her part, the Minister of Health asserts that she has no knowledge of the described situation, and that in any case, the collection, transport, and final disposal of waste is the competence of the municipalities. However, the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred to the detriment of the protected parties. In effect, regardless of the matter relating to the petitioners' right of possession, which, as already explained, is not appropriate to be heard in this venue, and even though the Municipality of Curridabat occasionally cleans the referred properties, the contamination problem persists, as recognized by the respondent Mayor. It is opportune to keep in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, it corresponds to each municipality within its jurisdiction to look after local interests and services to the exclusion of any other interference that is incompatible with the concept of the local, such that everything relating to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees (tasas) and prices (precios), which shall be fixed taking into consideration the effective cost plus ten percent (10%) profit to develop them. Once fixed, they shall enter into force thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Users shall pay for public lighting services, public thoroughfare cleaning, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green zones, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, insofar as they are provided, even if they demonstrate no interest in such services.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them, without causing harm to the fundamental rights of the appellants. For this Tribunal, it is unacceptable that the protected parties, as neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality and the respondent Ministry of Health in this case, making their actions effective, for which reason, based on all the above, the appeal is granted. In the case under analysis, Articles 5, 10, and 186 of the Municipal Code are of special interest, insofar as they refer to the coordination obligation that must exist between local governments, decentralized institutions, and the Executive Branch, to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This duty of coordination cannot create a conflict due to antagonism or protagonism between the matter that constitutes the general purpose of "local interests and services" and "national" or "state" public interests and services, intrinsically distinct from one another, but which in reality are called to coexist; and this is so, because both types of interest may be, eventually, intermingled, and indeed, it is frequent that, depending on the economic and organizational capacity of local governments, their own limitations lead to expanding the circle of those that appear as national or state, which shows that the distinction should not be immutable, but gradual or variable. In other terms, the municipality is called to enter into cooperative relationships with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coinciding nature—in many cases—of interests surrounding a concrete matter. There must be proper and obligatory coordination between the State and local corporate entities, thus complying with what is ordered by this provision, without this implying an invasion of municipal autonomy. This duty of coordination, in the specific case, requires that both the Municipality of Curridabat and the Ministry of Health combine efforts to achieve a common goal, which is to seek a solution to the contamination problem claimed by the appellants in said canton, and thus offer effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided for in Article 50 of the Magna Carta. Consequently, for the reasons set forth above, the amparo is granted, as is hereby declared.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Por tanto:</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">The appeal is declared WITH MERITS solely for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Luz de los Angeles, also known as Lucy Retana Chinchilla, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor of Curridabat; and Francisco Cubillo Martínez, in his capacity as Minister of Health, or whoever exercises those positions in their stead, are ordered to resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited at Dirección02 of Curridabat, within a term of two months counted from the notification of this judgment. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that they must fulfill or enforce, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not fulfill it or does not enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely punished. The State and the Municipality of Curridabat are condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative proceeding. In all other respects, the appeal is declared without merit. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Let it be communicated.- Let this resolution be NOTIFIED to Luz de los Angeles, also known as Lucy Retana Chinchilla, and to Francisco Cubillo Martínez, or to whoever exercises those positions in their stead, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">PERSONALLY</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial">Luis Fernando Solano C. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial">Presidente </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Ana Virginia Calzada M. Gilbert Armijo S. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Teresita Rodríguez A. Alejandro Batalla B. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>"

*050040980007CO* *050040980007CO* Res. Nº 2005010290 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las once horas y seis minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil cinco.

Recurso de amparo interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula número CED01, Nombre02, cédula número CED02, y Nombre03, cédula número CED03, contra LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CURRIDABAT.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 16:00 horas del 8 de abril del 2005, la recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CURRIDABAT, y manifiesta que ellos son vecinos de Tirrases de Curridabat, Dirección01, junto al primer tanque del A y A. Que durante quince años han poseído un predio que han considerado como parte del patio de sus casas, pues colinda con el mismo. El terreno se ha cercado en varias ocasiones, pero siempre se destruyen las cercas para amontonar grandes cantidades de basura, incluido tierra, lastre, motores viejos, lavadoras, refrigeradoras inservibles y desechos hospitalarios. Que tal basura produce como consecuencia moscas, mosquitos de dengue, ratas, cucarachas y otras alimañas, las que invaden sus propiedades y les causan enfermedades. Que constantemente se ha solicitado a la Municipalidad recurrida que quite esa basura, pero no ha actuado para solucionar el problema, en infracción a sus derechos fundamentales. Que también estiman que ese terrero les pertenece y debe ser ocupado por sus familias, por lo que debe respetarse su posesión respecto del mismo, en atención a lo dispuesto en los artículos 23 y 45 de la Constitución Política.

2.- Informa bajo juramento Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, en su condición de Alcaldesa Municipal de Curridabat (folio 8), que no le consta si los recurrentes con vecinos de la zona, pues en realidad es una localidad de precaristas, por lo que afirma que desconoce sus nombres. Agrega que no le consta que los recurrentes hayan cercado el terreno, aunque sí es cierto que gente inescrupulosa deposita desechos tanto allí como en otros lugares del distrito de Tirrases, pese a que en varias ocasiones, esa corporación municipal ha realizado limpieza y recolección de basura y desechos. Asegura que no le consta lo alegado por los recurrentes sobre la contaminación, pero afirma que supone que la basura produce moscas y otros, aspectos en los que la municipalidad de Curridabat ha tratado de colaborar, y solucionar, haciendo recolección de los desechos y colocando rótulos que prohíben botar basura, pero estima que el Ministerio de Salud debería tomar parte en el asunto. Asegura que de conformidad con el encargado de la Unidad de Sanidad de esa corporación municipal, en reiteradas ocasiones se ha limpiado y otra gran cantidad de lugares de ese cantón, donde la gente, acostumbra hacer botaderos de basura. Solicita que se desestime el recurso planteado.

3.- Mediante resolución de las quince horas treinta y seis minutos del trece de junio del dos mil cinco, se otorgó audiencia a la Ministra de Salud para que se refiriera a los hechos descritos por los recurrentes (folio 12).

4.- Informa bajo juramento Francisco Cubillo Martínez, en su condición de Ministro de Salud a.i. (folio 14), que se solicitó informe al Director del Area Rectora de Salud de Curridabat, en cuanto a los alegatos de los recurrentes, el cual fue atendido mediante oficio DARSC-135-05 del 21 de junio del 2005, en el cual expuso lo siguiente: que en esa Area Rectora no se cuenta con expediente del caso; que el recurrente no ha presentado formal denuncia ante esa Area Rectora sobre el problema que se suscita ni ha solicitado la intervención por parte de esa Institución; que la recolección, acarreo y disposición final de desechos es competencia de la Municipalidad de Curridabat, de acuerdo con el artículo 280 de la Ley General de Salud; que según el artículo 282 de la Ley General de Salud, es responsabilidad de los propietarios de los terrenos desocupados mantenerlos cercados y en buenas condiciones higiénicas. Por lo anterior, estima que no se ha producido la alegada violación a los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes, por lo que solicita que se desestime el presente recurso.

5.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta la Magistrada Calzada Miranda; y,

Considerando:

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

• a)Los recurrentes, que residen en Tirrases de Curridabat, han realizado gestiones ante la Municipalidad de esa localidad para que de limpieza a algunos terrenos que otros vecinos utilizan como depósito de basura (hecho no controvertido).

II.- Objeto el recurso. Los promoventes acuden a la Sala en la vía de amparo, y reclaman la violación de su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, ante la supuesta omisión de las autoridades municipales en limpiar terrenos que se utilizan como depósito no autorizado de basura. Adicionalmente, alegan la violación a lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que creen tener mejor derecho sobre el inmueble que ocupan.

III.- Sobre la alegada violación al derecho de propiedad. En cuanto a este extremo, la Sala estima que en el fondo, la discusión se enmarca en el mejor derecho de poseer o a la propiedad que alegan los amparados respecto de los inmuebles que les interesan, situación que, además de ser un asunto que versa sobre aspectos de legalidad, debe ser discutido en vía administrativa mediante los procedimientos establecidos al efecto, o una vez agotada dicha vía, en la jurisdiccional ordinaria correspondiente. Por ello, y al carecer este Tribunal de competencia material y funcional para conocer y resolver en definitiva el conflicto planteado por los amparados, el recurso resulta improcedente en cuanto a este extremo, y así debe declararse.

IV.- Sobre el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 6322-03 desarrolló el tratamiento jurisprudencial que le ha dado la Sala a este fundamento constitucional, el cual se resume para los efectos de estudio en este amparo y se complementa con otras consideraciones. De previo a la reforma del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, la jurisprudencia de la Sala ya había reconocido la protección y preservación del medio ambiente como un derecho fundamental (sentencia número 2233-93), al derivarlo de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21 (derecho a la salud), 69 (exigencia constitucional a la "explotación racional de la tierra") y 89 (protección de las bellezas naturales), todos de la Constitución, con fundamento en las siguientes consideraciones:

"V.)- La vida humana sólo es posible en solidaridad con la naturaleza que nos sustenta y nos sostiene, no sólo para alimento físico, sino también como bienestar psíquico: constituye el derecho que todos los ciudadanos tenemos de vivir en un ambiente libre de contaminación, que es la base de una sociedad justa y productiva. Es así como el artículo 21 de la Constitución Política señala: "La vida humana es inviolable." Es de este principio constitucional de donde innegablemente se desprende el derecho a la salud, al bienestar físico, mental y social, derecho humano que se encuentra indisolublemente ligado al derecho de la salud y a la obligación del Estado de proteger de la vida humana.

Asimismo, desde el punto de vista psíquico e intelectual, el estado de ánimo depende también de la naturaleza, por lo que también al convertirse el paisaje en un espacio útil de descanso y tiempo libre es obligación su preservación y conservación. Aspecto este último que está protegido en el artículo 89 constitucional, el cual literalmente dice: "Entre los fines culturales de la República están: proteger las bellezas naturales, conservar y desarrollar el patrimonio histórico y artístico de la Nación, y apoyar la iniciativa privada para el progreso científico y artístico". Proteger la naturaleza desde el punto de vista estético no es comercializarla ni transformarla en mercancía, es educar al ciudadano para que aprenda a apreciar el paisaje estético por su valor intrínseco" (sentencia número 3705-93, de las quince horas del treinta de julio de mil novecientos noventa y tres).

"XIII.- El término "bellezas naturales" era el empleado al momento de promulgarse la Constitución (7 de noviembre de 1949) que hoy se ha desarrollado como una especialidad del derecho: el derecho ambiental que reconoce la necesidad de preservar el entorno no como un fin cultural únicamente, sino como una necesidad vital de todo ser humano. En este sentido, el concepto de derecho al ambiente sano, supera los intereses recreativos o culturales que también son aspectos importantes de la vida en sociedad, sino que además constituye un requisito capital para la vida misma. [...]

[...]

De manera que es claro que ya no existe duda sobre la protección constitucional del derecho a la salud jalonado del derecho a la vida y por allí de un derecho al ambiente sano. A manera de ejemplo podemos citar las sentencias 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; que han reconocido el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano, como un derecho individual constitucionalmente protegido" (sentencia número 6240-93, de las catorce horas del veintiséis de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres).

"La norma 69, la Carta Política habla de la "explotación racional de la tierra" lo que constituye un principio fundamental. En consecuencia, son cánones del orden constitucional, aquella protección y preservación, así como la explotación racional de los recursos que se han indicado" (sentencia número 2233-93).

Del artículo 69 de la Carta Fundamental se deriva el principio de explotación racional de la tierra, y se impone, tanto a los particulares como al Estado en su acepción más amplia, la obligación de proteger y preservar los recursos naturales renovables:

"II. La protección del medio ambiente es una tarea que corresponde a todos por igual: a las instituciones públicas, haciendo respetar la legislación vigente y promoviendo esfuerzos que prevengan o eliminen peligros para el medio ambiente; a los particulares, acatando aquellas disposiciones y colaborando en la defensa del suelo, el aire y el agua, pues todo cambio nocivo resultante de un acto humano en la composición, contenido o calidad de éstos resultará también perjudicial para la calidad de vida del humano" (sentencia número 4480-94, de las diez horas cuarenta y un minutos del diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).

Como ya ha indicado este Tribunal, el artículo 50 de la Constitución fue reformado mediante Ley número 7412, de tres de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, precisamente con el objetivo de hacer una declaratoria de la obligación del Estado de proteger el ambiente y otorgar a los ciudadanos plena acción para defenderlo, dando así contenido expreso en ella al derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que en su desarrollo jurisprudencial, esta Sala había reconocido como derivado de los artículos 21, 69 y 89 constitucionales:

"[...], esta Sala ha establecido que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado es un derecho fundamental, como tal ya consagrado y garantizado por el Derecho de la Constitución, [motivo por el que] no considera inútil ni, mucho menos, objetable que se reconozca de manera expresa y claramente individualizado, [...]" (sentencia número 1394-94, de las quince horas veintiún minutos del dieciséis de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).

"II.- Se tiene entonces que la posición asumida por este Tribunal al respecto, se ve confirmada en la actualidad por la reforma constitucional de cita, reforma esta que no es sino reflejo de la concepción de que el hombre si bien tiene derecho a hacer uso del medio ambiente, tiene también la obligación de protegerlo y preservarlo para el disfrute de generaciones futuras" (sentencia número 5668-94, de las dieciocho horas del veintiocho de septiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).

El artículo 50 citado, también perfila el Estado Social de Derecho, por lo que podemos concluir que la Constitución Política enfatiza que la protección del ambiente es un mecanismo adecuado para tutelar y mejorar la calidad de vida de todos, lo que hace necesaria la intervención de los Poderes Públicos sobre los factores que pueden alterar su equilibrio y obstaculizar que la persona se desarrolle y desenvuelva en un ambiente sano. La incidencia que tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado dentro de la actividad del Estado, encuentra su primera razón de ser, en que por definición, los derechos no se limitan a la esfera privada de los individuos, sino que tienen asimismo trascendencia en la propia estructura del Estado, en su papel de garante de los mismos y, en segundo término, porque la actividad del Estado se dirige hacia la satisfacción de los intereses de la colectividad. En la jurisprudencia constitucional el concepto de "ambiente", no ha sido limitado a los elementos primarios de la naturaleza, sea el suelo, el aire, el agua, los recursos marinos y costeros, los minerales, los bosques, la diversidad biológica en la flora y fauna, y el paisaje; a partir de los cuales se conforma el marco ambiental sin el cual las demandas básicas -como la alimentación, energía, vivienda, sanidad y recreación- serían imposibles. Es importante resaltar que este término se ha entendido de una manera más integral, estableciéndose un concepto "macro-ambiental", al comprender también aspectos referentes a la economía, a la generación de divisas a través del turismo, la explotación agrícola y otros:

"Por lo anterior, el Derecho Ambiental no debe asociarse sólo con la naturaleza, pues ésta es únicamente parte del ambiente. La política de protección a la naturaleza se vierte también sobre otros aspectos como la protección de la caza, de los bosques, de los parques naturales y de los recursos naturales. Se trata, entonces, de un concepto macro-ambiental, para no dejar conceptos importantes por fuera y así lograr unificar el conjunto jurídico que denominamos Derecho Ambiental" (sentencia número 5893-95, de las nueve horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del veintisiete de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y cinco; y en igual sentido, las número 3705-93, supra citada, y número 2988-99, de las once horas cincuenta y siete minutos del veintitrés de abril de mil novecientos noventa y nueve).

V.- La Sala ha indicado que el ambiente, debe ser entendido como un potencial de desarrollo para utilizarlo adecuadamente, debiendo actuarse de modo integrado en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político, ya que, en caso contrario, se degrada su productividad para el presente y el futuro y podría ponerse en riesgo el patrimonio de las generaciones venideras. Los orígenes de los problemas ambientales son complejos y corresponden a una articulación de procesos naturales y sociales en el marco del estilo de desarrollo socioeconómico que adopte el país. Por ejemplo, se producen problemas ambientales cuando las modalidades de explotación de los recursos naturales dan lugar a una degradación de los ecosistemas superior a su capacidad de regeneración, lo que conduce a que amplios sectores de la población resulten perjudicados y se genere un alto costo ambiental y social que redunda en un deterioro de la calidad de vida; pues precisamente el objetivo primordial del uso y protección del ambiente es obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable al ser humano. La calidad ambiental es un parámetro fundamental de esa calidad de vida; otros parámetros no menos importantes son salud, alimentación, trabajo, vivienda, educación, etc., pero más importante que ello es entender que si bien el hombre tiene el derecho de hacer uso del ambiente para su propio desarrollo, también tiene el deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras, lo cual no es tan novedoso, porque no es más que la traducción a esta materia, del principio de la "lesión", ya consolidado en el derecho común, en virtud del cual el legítimo ejercicio de un derecho tiene dos límites esenciales: Por un lado, los iguales derechos de los demás y, por el otro, el ejercicio racional y el disfrute útil del derecho mismo. Nuestro país ha dependido y seguirá dependiendo, al igual que cualquier otra nación, de sus recursos naturales y su medio para llenar las necesidades básicas de sus habitantes y mantener operando el aparato productivo que sustenta la economía nacional, cuya principal fuente la constituye la agricultura y, en los últimos años, el turismo, especialmente en su dimensión de ecoturismo. El suelo, el agua, el aire, los recursos marinos y costeros, los bosques, la diversidad biológica, los recursos minerales y el paisaje conforman el marco ambiental sin el cual las demandas básicas -como espacio vital, alimentación, energía, vivienda, sanidad y recreación- serían imposibles. De igual modo, nuestra economía también está íntimamente ligada al estado del ambiente y de los recursos naturales. Por otro lado, las metas del desarrollo sostenible tienen que ver con la supervivencia y el bienestar del ser humano y con el mantenimiento de los procesos ecológicos esenciales, es decir, de la calidad ambiental y de la sobrevivencia de las otras especies. Hablar de desarrollo sostenible en términos de satisfacción de las necesidades humanas presentes y futuras y del mejoramiento de la calidad de vida es hablar de la demanda de los recursos naturales a nivel individual y de los medios directos o de apoyo necesarios para que la economía funcione generando empleo y creando los bienes de capital, que a su vez hagan posible la transformación de los recursos en productos de consumo, de producción y de exportación. La declaración que se hizo en la Cumbre de la Tierra en 1992, se proclamó y reconoció la naturaleza integral e independiente del planeta, ello significa la aceptación de ciertos principios que informan la transición de los actuales estilos de desarrollo a la sostenibilidad. Los Estados signatarios, entre los que figura Costa Rica, se comprometieron, dentro de la preservación del desarrollo sostenible, a la protección sobre todo del ser humano. Se partió del principio de que toda persona tiene derecho a una vida saludable y productiva en armonía con la naturaleza; se incluyó el derecho de las generaciones presentes y futuras a que el desarrollo se realice de modo tal que satisfaga sus necesidades ambientales y de progreso; se mantuvo la potestad soberana de los Estados de explotar sus recursos, recalcando su responsabilidad de asegurar que las actividades que realicen dentro de su jurisdicción y control no causen daños ambientales a otros Estados o áreas más allá de los límites de su jurisdicción nacional. Establecieron el deber de los Estados de cooperar en la conservación, protección y restauración del ambiente y sus responsabilidades comunes en ese sentido; de ese modo la cooperación internacional en la promoción y apoyo del crecimiento económico y el desarrollo sostenible permitirá abordar mejor los problemas de la degradación ambiental. Asimismo, se impuso un deber especial a los países desarrollados fundado en su responsabilidad en la búsqueda del desarrollo sostenible, dada la evidente presión que ejercen en el ambiente global las tecnologías que desarrollan y los recursos financieros que poseen.

VI.- En el caso que nos ocupa, de la prueba que obra en autos, y de los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas -que se tienen dados bajo la gravedad de juramento, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias incluso penales previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta jurisdicción-, se tiene debidamente acreditada la existencia de un problema de contaminación ambiental, originado por la basura y otros desechos que personas desconocidas depositan en terrenos no autorizados para ello, en el cantón de Curridabat. Ahora bien, bajo juramento, la Alcaldesa Municipal recurrida asegura que en reiteradas ocasiones se ha dado limpieza a varios terrenos que vecinos utilizan como botaderos de basura, por tratarse de un precario, les resulta difícil controlar que se tire basura en espacios abiertos. Por su parte, la Ministra de Salud asevera que no tiene conocimiento de la situación descrita, y que en todo caso, la recolección, acarreo y disposición final de desechos es competencia de las municipalidades. No obstante, la Sala estima que en el presente caso, sí se ha producido una violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en perjuicio de los amparados. En efecto, independientemente de lo relativo al derecho de posesión de los promoventes, que como ya se explicó no corresponde ventilar en esta vía, y aún cuando ocasionalmente la Municipalidad de Curridabat de limpieza a los terrenos referidos, el problema de contaminación persiste, tal y como lo reconoce la Alcaldesa recurrida. Resulta oportuno tener muy presente que de acuerdo con nuestro sistema democrático y según lo establece la propia Constitución Política, corresponde a cada municipalidad en su jurisdicción velar por los intereses y servicios locales con exclusión de toda otra interferencia que sea incompatible con el concepto de lo local, de manera que todo lo relativo a la recolección, tratamiento y disposición de las basuras y desechos sólidos pertenece a la esfera de los intereses y servicios locales.

Adicionalmente, el artículo 74 del vigente Código Municipal establece:

"Por los servicios que preste, la municipalidad cobrará tasas y precios, que se fijarán tomando en consideración el costo efectivo más un diez por ciento (10%) de utilidad para desarrollarlos. Una vez fijados, entrarán en vigencia treinta días después de su publicación en La Gaceta.

Los usuarios deberán pagar por los servicios de alumbrado público, limpieza de vías públicas, recolección de basuras, mantenimiento de parques y zonas verdes, servicio de policía municipal y cualquier otro servicio municipal urbano o no urbano que se establezcan por ley, en el tanto se presten, aunque ellos no demuestren interés en tales servicios.

De conformidad con lo anterior, las entidades municipales no pueden rehuir los deberes que constitucionalmente les han sido encargados, sin causar una lesión a los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes. Para este Tribunal resulta inaceptable que los amparados, como vecinos, vean afectada su salud y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, por tener que soportar este tipo de situaciones, sin que las instituciones responsables para velar por ello, como lo son la Municipalidad recurrida y el Ministerio de Salud recurrido en este caso, haga efectivas sus actuaciones, por lo que en razón de todo lo expuesto, el recurso resulta procedente. En el caso bajo análisis resultan de especial interés los artículos 5, 10 y 186 del Código Municipal, en el tanto se refieren a la obligación de coordinación que debe existir entre los gobiernos locales, las instituciones descentralizadas y el Poder Ejecutivo, para llevar a cabo las funciones que les han sido encomendadas. Este deber de coordinación, no puede crear un conflicto por antagonismo o protagonismo entre la materia que integra el fin general de "los intereses y servicios locales" de los intereses y servicios públicos "nacionales" o "estatales", intrínsecamente distintos unos de otros, pero que en realidad están llamados a coexistir; y ello es así, porque ambos tipos de interés pueden estar, eventualmente, entremezclados y más bien, es frecuente que, dependiendo de la capacidad económica y organizativa de los gobiernos locales, sus limitaciones propias conduzcan a ampliar el círculo de los que aparecen como nacionales o estatales, lo que hace ver que la distinción no debe ser inmutable, sino gradual o variable. En otros términos, la municipalidad está llamada a entrar en relaciones de cooperación con otros entes públicos, y viceversa, dado el carácter concurrente o coincidente -en muchos casos-, de intereses en torno a un asunto concreto. Debe existir una debida y obligada coordinación entre el Estado y los entes corporativos locales, cumpliéndose así lo ordenado por esta disposición, sin que ello implique una invasión a la autonomía municipal. Este deber de coordinación, en el caso concreto, que tanto la Municipalidad de Curridabat como el Ministerio de Salud, reúnan esfuerzos para la consecución de un fin común, como lo es buscar una solución al problema de contaminación reclaman los recurrentes en dicho cantón, y así ofrecer una efectiva tutela del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Carta Magna. En consecuencia, por los motivos ofrecidos anteriormente, el amparo resulta procedente, como en efecto se declara.

Por tanto:

Se declara CON LUGAR el recurso únicamente por violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En consecuencia, se ordena a Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, en su condición de Alcaldesa Municipal de Curridabat; y a Francisco Cubillo Martínez, en su condición de Ministro de Salud o a quienes en sus lugares ejerzan esos cargos, resolver el problema ocasionado por la basura que se deposita en Dirección02 de Curridabat, dentro del plazo de dos meses contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Lo anterior, bajo el apercibimiento de que, con base en lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado y a la Municipalidad de Curridabat al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. Comuníquese.- NOTIFIQUESE esta resolución a Luz de los Angeles, c.c. Lucy Retana Chinchilla, y a Francisco Cubillo Martínez o a quienes en sus lugares ejerzan esos cargos en forma PERSONAL.

Luis Fernando Solano C.

Ana Virginia Calzada M. Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Teresita Rodríguez A. Alejandro Batalla B.