← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 16794-2006 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 21/11/2006
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber partially grants the amparo and orders ICE to broadly inform communities at least every six months about the most relevant scientific research on electromagnetic fields and their relationship to human health, rejecting the request to force the creation of a specialized department.La Sala declara parcialmente con lugar el amparo y ordena al ICE informar ampliamente, al menos semestralmente, a las comunidades sobre las investigaciones científicas más relevantes acerca de los campos electromagnéticos y su relación con la salud humana, rechazando la pretensión de crear un departamento especializado.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber reviews an amparo filed against the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) regarding the Miravalles-Liberia transmission line project, part of SIEPAC. The petitioner argues that ICE has not established a specialized department or an effective program to inform and guide affected communities about electromagnetic fields (EMF) and their potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. The Chamber holds that, although no causal link between EMF and health damage has been scientifically proven, ICE has a legal and constitutional duty to broadly inform communities at least every six months about relevant scientific research, as required by Executive Decree No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE and its own institutional policy. The Chamber finds that ICE breached this duty by failing to provide periodic and updated information after the 2004 public hearings. The ruling partially grants the amparo, orders ICE to comply with the semiannual reporting obligation, and rejects the request to force the creation of a specialized department as beyond the Chamber's powers.La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo presentado por un ciudadano contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) en relación con el proyecto de línea de transmisión Miravalles-Liberia, parte del SIEPAC. El recurrente alega que el ICE no ha establecido un departamento especializado ni un programa efectivo de información y orientación sobre los campos electromagnéticos (CEM) y sus posibles efectos en la salud humana y animal, así como en el ambiente, para las comunidades afectadas. La Sala determina que, aunque no se ha probado científicamente un nexo causal entre los CEM y daños a la salud, el ICE sí tiene una obligación legal y constitucional de informar ampliamente y al menos semestralmente a las comunidades sobre las investigaciones científicas relevantes, según lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE y en su propia política institucional. La Sala constata que el ICE incumplió esta obligación al no haber realizado dicha difusión de manera periódica y actualizada después de las audiencias públicas del 2004. La sentencia declara parcialmente con lugar el amparo, ordena al ICE cumplir con el deber de información semestral y rechaza la pretensión de obligar a la creación de un departamento especializado, por exceder las competencias de la Sala.
Key excerptExtracto clave
All of the above allows this Tribunal to conclude that the petitioner is correct in his claim. As has been stated, the right to citizen participation in environmental and health matters is of such importance that it demands a responsible and ongoing attitude from the administration towards those involved in its projects. This is so clear that the Ministry of Health and MINAE themselves imposed on ICE the provisions of Article 15 cited above, yet its non-compliance is evident, as the institute's report did not even mention its duty to at least every six months broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant scientific research and findings on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship to human health. It should be noted that this is not just any legal breach, but that the respondent institute is failing in a constitutional duty to cooperate with the rest of the public authorities responsible for safeguarding the right to health and the environment. It has been clearly established in previous rulings of this Tribunal that, although it has not been possible to conclusively prove a causal link between electromagnetic fields and serious health problems, research continues, and therefore this is a matter that must be monitored with the utmost responsibility and that requires constant updating, including for determining the respective load of high-tension lines.Todo lo anterior permite constatar a este Tribunal que el recurrente lleva razón en su alegato. Como ya se indicó el derecho de participación ciudadana en asuntos de índole ambiental así como de salud, son de tal relevancia que ameritan una actitud responsable y constante de la administración frente a los involucrados en sus proyectos. Lo anterior es tan claro, que el mismo Ministerio de Salud y el MINAE le impusieron al ICE lo dispuesto en el artículo 15 citado, sin embargo se constata su incumplimiento, pues ni siquiera hizo alusión en su informe al deber que tiene de al menos semestralmente, informar ampliamente a todos los interesados, de las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana. Nótese que no se trata de cualquier incumplimiento legal, sino que el instituto recurrido está faltando a un deber constitucional de colaboración con el resto de las autoridades públicas encargadas de velar por la protección del derecho a la salud y del ambiente. Ha quedado claramente establecido en sentencias anteriores de este Tribunal, que si bien no se ha logrado demostrar certeramente el nexo causal de los campos electromagnéticos con problemas graves de salud, las investigaciones continúan y por ello es un asunto que debe ser fiscalizado con la mayor responsabilidad y que amerita la actualización constante del mismo, incluso para determinar la carga respectiva de las líneas de alta tensión.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En materia del medio ambiente debemos trasladar este concepto sobre el derecho de información a una nueva perspectiva que tiene todo individuo o colectividad de solicitar información y de ser informado por cualquier ente estatal [información] que no puede ser obstruida por las instituciones estatales referentes a cualquier proyecto que pueda afectar el goce de su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado."
"In environmental matters we must transfer this concept of the right to information to a new perspective that every individual or community has to request information and be informed by any state entity, information that cannot be obstructed by state institutions regarding any project that may affect the enjoyment of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment."
Considerando IV
"En materia del medio ambiente debemos trasladar este concepto sobre el derecho de información a una nueva perspectiva que tiene todo individuo o colectividad de solicitar información y de ser informado por cualquier ente estatal [información] que no puede ser obstruida por las instituciones estatales referentes a cualquier proyecto que pueda afectar el goce de su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado."
Considerando IV
"El prestatario del servicio de transmisión está obligado a informar a los propietarios directamente afectados por la línea a construir, en forma detallada, sobre las características del proyecto. [...] Asimismo y al menos semestralmente, deberán informar ampliamente a todos los interesados, de las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana."
"The transmission service provider is obliged to inform the owners directly affected by the line to be built, in detail, about the characteristics of the project. [...] Likewise, and at least every six months, it must widely inform all interested parties of the most relevant scientific research and pronouncements made internationally on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health."
Considerando V (citando artículo 15 Decreto 29296)
"El prestatario del servicio de transmisión está obligado a informar a los propietarios directamente afectados por la línea a construir, en forma detallada, sobre las características del proyecto. [...] Asimismo y al menos semestralmente, deberán informar ampliamente a todos los interesados, de las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana."
Considerando V (citando artículo 15 Decreto 29296)
"La participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos puntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos ambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión a los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva participación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos."
"Citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information regarding environmental projects or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters."
Considerando IV
"La participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos puntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos ambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión a los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva participación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
*060118400007CO* CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at sixteen hours and thirty-four minutes on the twenty-first of November of two thousand six.
Amparo action processed under case file number 06-011840-0007-CO, filed by FRED GREINER, of legal age, psychiatrist, passport number 91819396, resident of Alajuela, of U.S. nationality, on behalf of Corporación Monte de Piedra S.A. and the communities of Barrio La Victoria in Liberia and the developments: La Carreta, Alaska, Las Brisas, El Peloncito, El Guanacaste, and Santa Lucía, against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.-
Whereas:
Drafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,
Considering:
I.Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent omitted to refer to them as required in the initial order:
II.Purpose of the action. The petitioner considers the fundamental rights of his represented party violated, as he alleges that the respondent institution has not established a Risk Management and Information Department on Electromagnetic Fields, in order to inform about the ways to prevent risks to human and animal health from electromagnetic fields, as well as environmental protection procedures, that provides timely, real, and effective attention to their inquiries.
III.On the merits. From the study of the case file records, it is found that the Miravalles-Liberia Transmission Line project in question is related to the Project for the Electrical Interconnection System for the Countries of Central America (SIEPAC). This project, in turn, aims for an electrical interconnection system for the Central American countries consisting of the creation of a Regional Electricity Market (MER) through the construction of 230 Kv electricity transmission lines and electrical substations, which will allow the exchange of electrical energy among MER agents. On December 30, 1996, the Governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama signed the Framework Treaty for the Central American Electricity Market, which was approved by Costa Rica through Law No. 7848 of November 20, 1998, and is currently being developed by ICE. It is in consideration of this project that the property of the protected company, No. 5-045776-000 located in Bagaces, was appraised so that ICE could acquire the easement (servidumbre) rights, which is under discussion in judicial proceedings.
Now, regarding the purpose of this amparo action, which is the community's right to remain adequately informed about the risks posed by Electromagnetic Fields, the respondent authorities reported under oath to this Court that the information was publicly disseminated when the respective hearings were held in the month of June 2004 related to the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), where brochures were also distributed to the communities through which the lines will pass, and that they currently channel any inquiry regarding them through the Dirección Gestión Integral de Riesgos, which indeed is not a specialized and specific center dedicated to this full time.
IV.Citizen participation in environmental matters: This Court has already previously referred to the subject matter under study, regarding which it has determined that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information relating to environmental projects, or those that could cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in the decision-making process on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation but must promote and respect it when it occurs (see decisions number 2001-10466 and 2003-6322). Thus, it is of great importance to make available to interested parties the information that public offices have on the matter, such as that related to environmental impact assessments (evaluaciones de impacto ambiental) handled by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or the information required for the approval of regulatory plans by the respective municipalities or sanitary landfills, as is the case. It was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:
"The best way to deal with environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every person should have adequate access to environmental information held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided." From this principle, the importance given internationally to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, was clearly evidenced. Thus, as Costa Rica is a signatory State to this instrument, it is certainly bound and conditioned, for that is the consequence of its subscription, as this Court considered in decision number 8319-2000, of eight hours and eighteen minutes on September eight of two thousand:
"Thus, its purpose is for governmental decisions to be the result of a discussion that is not restricted to small official circles or partial interests, but rather that other opinions are taken into consideration, with the necessary openness to create expanded debate, while still complying, of course, with the requirements established by the corresponding legislation. It is not a matter of de-constitutionalizing the principle of legality of the Public Administration, although it certainly is a more democratic form of government, which expands the forums for debate on topics such as environmental protection, and by virtue of which, they are open to citizen intervention and opinion. We are, then, facing an option already widely accepted in the evolution of the concept of democracy, and this amparo action offers a magnificent opportunity to give it clear and effective validity, so that it does not remain mere discourse. For this very reason, the environmental issue is a matter that this Chamber has already recognized as one that grants private individuals special standing, and which is recognized as a 'reactional right' (see decisions 2233-93 and 3705-93 of this Chamber).
"In environmental law, the procedural requirement of standing tends to extend and broaden in such a dimension that it necessarily leads to the abandonment of the traditional concept, it being understood that, in general terms, any person may be a party and that their right does not emanate from property titles, rights, or specific actions they could exercise according to the rules of conventional law, but rather their procedural action responds to what modern commentators call the diffuse interest, by which the original standing of the legitimate interested party, or even the simple interested party, is diffused among all the members of a certain category of persons who are thus equally affected by the illegal acts that violate them. In the case of environmental protection, the typically diffuse interest that legitimizes the subject to bring legal action transforms, by virtue of its incorporation into the list of human rights, into a true 'reactional right,' which, as its name indicates, empowers its holder to 'react' against violations originating from illegitimate acts or omissions." (see decision 3705-93) It is for this reason that, through Law 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In this matter, then, there is standing to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. In this manner, when the Political Constitution mentions that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation is not limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or the aspiration to achieve a public office through popular election, but also, and in this new vision, that people should be offered the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these have national significance or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1 and 50 of the Constitution, therefore, is rescued the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic state, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities, just as the petitioners indicate.
The precept commented on, then, incorporates the cited principle through access to available information and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. Certainly, in the matter we now analyze, our legal system already provides that individuals may request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by the interested communities are taken into account in the decision-making that affects the environment, which has been incorporated into the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and its Regulations, as the respondent authority reported." Precisely, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente recognizes this principle in Article 6, which textually provides, where relevant:
"Artículo 6.
Participation of the inhabitants The State and the municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic in decision-making and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment." Likewise, in the Regulation on procedures of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), this principle is also enshrined, as set forth in Chapter IV, which regulates the public hearing provided for within the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) procedure (Articles 35 to 40), where the active participation of both civil society and the municipalities—in their capacity as an entity "[...] constituted by the group of resident neighbors of a same canton, who promote and administer their own interests through the municipal government" (Article 1 of the Municipal Code) —is contemplated.
A similar rule is found in the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), regarding the approval by the municipalities of regulatory plans, by obligating them to "1) Convene a public hearing through the Official Gazette and the necessary additional dissemination, indicating the location, date, and time to review the project, and for the verbal or written observations that neighbors or interested parties may deem appropriate to formulate. The scheduling must be done at least fifteen business days in advance" (Article 17 of the Urban Planning Law).
This principle of citizen participation in environmental matters originates and is justified precisely by the application of the positivization of the democratic principle—enshrined in Article 1 of the Political Constitution. It is important to emphasize that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups of a private nature, as well as through local governments, to which, by their competence assigned in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that may in some way affect the community of their jurisdiction, and indeed, if they fail to do so, they would be failing to fulfill one of the duties assigned to them by the constituent assembly, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
"Municipalities shall foster the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in the decision-making processes of the local government. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).
It is clear that citizen and municipal participation is of transcendental importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, surveillance, and protection of the environment and natural resources. It is not merely a right of participation, but a duty of the community and municipality in the decision-making and discussions regarding the location of a landfill (relleno sanitario). In this same vein, in judgment number 2000-10466, at ten hours and seventeen minutes of November twenty-fourth, two thousand, the Chamber indicated that in no way:
"[...] can the human being—who will receive the effects of governmental decisions on environmental matters—be excluded from participating in the decision on issues linked to this matter." Previously, this Court recognized the importance of the participation of local governments in this type of process under the following considerations:
"[...] Moreover, municipal competences regarding the preservation and protection of the environment cannot be limited to the organization of the public hearing—which by legal provision corresponds to SETENA—but go much further, such as raising awareness among citizens about citizen participation, the filing of complaints—with technical evidence—before administrative entities and courts of justice, the proper management of garbage and industrial waste, the control and oversight to ensure that environmental laws are enforced, and the promotion of pertinent legal remedies, such as the request for suspension of administrative acts deemed harmful to the environment, not in the constitutional jurisdiction, but in the contentious-administrative and civil jurisdiction of the Treasury, among other duties" (judgment number 2001-5737, at fourteen hours and forty-one minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand one).
The Chamber also clarified that it is an indispensable requirement that the hearing be held in a place where the neighbors can attend, and preferably at the site of the events, since otherwise, the holding of the hearing ordered by the Administration would fail to achieve its purpose, where obviously the lack of resources cannot constitute an obstacle to bringing to the record all the evidentiary elements that the Administration requires to make a decision on matters of such fundamental importance, as it will necessarily have implications for the environment and the community. Community participation in environmental decision-making forms part of the procedure to which the State must adhere, and is at the same time an integral part of the fundamental right of every person, under the terms provided in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. For this reason, constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held that the right to a hearing is part of substantive due process and is a form of expression of participatory democracy. Regarding the issue of information in environmental matters, it has also been stated:
"In environmental matters, we must transfer this concept of the right to information to a new perspective that every individual or community has to request information and to be informed by any state entity—[information] that cannot be obstructed by state institutions regarding any project that may affect the enjoyment of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This is, then, the guarantee that will allow any individual or community to participate, making use of diffuse interests of access to participation, within the decision-making processes that affect that right, since the contrary would be illusory and the constitutional norm would be superfluous [...]" (judgment number 2331-96, cited supra).
In this special matter, every person must have adequate information about materials and activities or projects that may imply a danger or threat to communities (right to health), and to the conservation and preservation of the environment (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment), as well as for the effective opportunity to participate in the processes of adopting such decisions; since, when dealing with the right to the environment, standing corresponds to the human being as such, because the injury to this fundamental right is suffered by both the community—as a whole—and the individual in particular. Therefore, the Administration must facilitate and foster population awareness and participation by making information available to everyone, not only the members of the community, but also the general citizenry, as in environmental matters the existence of a genuine diffuse interest has been considered (as previously noted in this judgment).
V.In previous cases where the Chamber has had the opportunity to rule on the alleged danger posed by electromagnetic fields, the majority of this Court held that it had not been possible to determine with scientific certainty whether a causal link existed between the deterioration of health and the presence of high-tension lines near dwellings. However, in judgment No. 1998-2806, reiterated in No. 2002-8554, this Court clearly held that the Chamber understood that rules had been established imposing operational limits on high-tension lines, as well as regarding the magnitude of the electromagnetic field they generate, and the necessary updating of permissible limits based on advances in scientific knowledge, among other conditions. Hence, the amparo actions were dismissed, imposing on the respondent Institute (ICE) the responsibility to verify the permissible limits and assuming that the regulation that had been established for such purpose would be complied with as ordered.
Well then, in session No. 4912 of October 21, 1997, Article 15, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the "Institutional Policy and Strategy for the treatment of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines," which regulated, among other things, the obligation to disseminate available information, as well as the permanent updating of existing information on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (CEM-feb). In addition to the above, on February 12, 2001, the Regulation to Regulate Electric and Magnetic Fields in Electric Energy Transmission Works No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE was published, which clearly establishes in Article 15:
"Article 15.-Obligation of providers of the public electricity transmission service to inform community members about new projects for citizen participation purposes. Without prejudice to the obligation of the Municipalities to inform community members who may be affected by the construction of a new transmission line, the transmission service provider is obligated to inform the property owners directly affected by the line to be constructed, in a detailed manner, about the characteristics of the project. To this effect, as soon as a preliminary route for the line is established, the provider must take the necessary measures to establish individual communication with each of these property owners.
Likewise, and at least semi-annually, they must broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and statements on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health. To this end, any of the available technological or communication means shall be used so that the information reaches those affected." According to what has been indicated by the respondent authorities themselves, the project already has a preliminary line route, as ICE is even in the stage of administrative and judicial proceedings aimed at acquiring the corresponding easement (servidumbre) rights. However, it admits that the occasion on which it provided information publicly to the communities involved with electromagnetic fields was in June 2004, when public hearings were held in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Subsequent to that, they reported that the only thing done is the evacuation of individual inquiries, for which they acknowledge they do not have a specialized office on the matter.
All of the foregoing allows this Court to confirm that the appellant is right in his claim. As already indicated, the right to citizen participation in matters of an environmental nature as well as health are of such relevance that they merit a responsible and constant attitude from the administration towards those involved in its projects. The foregoing is so clear that the Ministry of Health and MINAE themselves imposed on ICE the provisions of cited Article 15; however, its non-compliance is verified, as it did not even allude in its report to the duty it has to, at least semi-annually, broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and statements on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health. Note that this is not just any legal non-compliance, but rather the respondent institute is failing in a constitutional duty of collaboration with the rest of the public authorities responsible for ensuring the protection of the right to health and the environment.
It has been clearly established in previous judgments of this Court that, although the causal link between electromagnetic fields and serious health problems has not been proven with certainty, research continues and, therefore, it is a matter that must be monitored with the greatest responsibility and deserves constant updating, even to determine the respective load of high-tension lines. This is how the Ministry of Health and MINAE seem to have understood it when they issued the aforementioned decree; however, the respondent Institute did not, considering that the dissemination of information carried out in 2004 was sufficient. Regardless of whether the protected company is discussing the appraisal amount through judicial channels, the fact is that the subject matter of this appeal is based on an injury to a fundamental right whose standing is of a diffuse nature, since what is discussed—dissemination of adequate and updated information on scientific research conducted regarding electromagnetic fields—concerns not only the members of the community but also the general citizenry, as it is an environmental matter.
It is for this reason that the amparo is granted, inasmuch as this Court considers that ICE's omission violates Articles 11, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution. However, granting this appeal does not entail granting what was requested by the protected party, in the sense that the Chamber force ICE to create a specialized Department to provide the information in question, since this constitutes an administrative matter that exceeds the powers of this Court; consequently, the appellant's claim in this regard is rejected.
Therefore:
The appeal is partially granted. Consequently, Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés, in his capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, is ordered to, immediately upon notification of this judgment, broadly inform the respective communities about the most relevant international scientific research and statements conducted on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health, which must be done at least semi-annually. 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 fulfilled or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not fulfill it or does not enforce it, provided the offense is not subject to a more severe penalty. The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.
The appellant's claim, which consists of forcing ICE to create a Risk Management and Information Department on Electromagnetic Fields, is rejected outright. Notify this resolution personally to Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés, in his capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, or to whomever holds the position in his stead, and to the President of the Municipal Council of Liberia. Let it be communicated.- Luis Fernando Solano C.
Luis Paulino Mora M. Ana Virginia Calzada M.
Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.
Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.
This is because ICE has a comprehensive risk department, which in a bureaucratic manner provides superficial and generic information that does not satisfy the information demands for the specific case of each affected community, and ICE often shifts the duty to inform onto SETENA, and not merely for the installation of the towers on said properties, as was indicated.
Drafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,
Considering:
I.Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been thus accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:
II.Object of the appeal. The petitioner considers that the fundamental rights of his represented party have been violated, because he accuses the respondent institution of not having established a Department of Risk Management and Information on Electromagnetic Fields, for the purpose of informing about ways to prevent risks to human and animal health from electromagnetic fields, as well as environmental protection procedures, that provides them with timely, real, and effective attention to their inquiries.
III.On the merits. From the study of the case file, it is found that the Miravalles-Liberia Transmission Line project in question is related to the Electrical Interconnection System Project for the Countries of Central America (SIEPAC). This project, in turn, aims for an electrical interconnection system for the Central American countries, consisting of the creation of a Regional Electricity Market (MER) through the construction of 230 Kv electricity transmission lines and electrical substations, which will allow the exchange of electrical energy between the agents of the MER. On December 30, 1996, the Governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama signed the Framework Treaty for the Central American Electricity Market, which was approved by Costa Rica through law No. 7848 of November 20, 1998, and is currently developed by ICE. It is in attention to this project that the property of the protected company No. 5-045776-000, located in Bagaces, was valued so that ICE could acquire the easement (servidumbre) rights, which is currently under judicial discussion.
Now, regarding the object of this amparo, which is the community's right to stay adequately informed about the risks involved with Electromagnetic Fields, the respondent authorities reported under oath to this Tribunal that the information was publicly disseminated when the respective hearings were held in June 2004 related to the environmental impact study, where brochures were also distributed to the communities through which the lines will pass, and that they currently channel any inquiry regarding them through the Dirección Gestión Integral de Riesgos, which indeed is not a specialized and specific center dedicated to this full-time.
IV.Citizen participation in environmental matters: This Tribunal has previously referred to the subject matter under study, regarding which it has stipulated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information relating to environmental projects, or those that could cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation but must promote it and respect it when it occurs (see rulings number 2001-10466 and 2003-6322). Thus, it is of great importance to make available to interested parties the information that public offices have on the matter, such as the environmental impact studies in charge of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or the information required for the approval of regulatory plans by the respective municipalities or sanitary landfills, as is the case. It was the Rio Convention that, in principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:
*"Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided."* From this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, was clearly evidenced. Thus, since Costa Rica is a signatory State to this instrument, it is certainly obliged and conditioned, for that is the consequence of its signature, as this Tribunal considered, in ruling number 8319-2000, of ten hours and eighteen minutes of September eight, two thousand:
"Its purpose, then, is for governmental decisions to be the consequence of a discussion that is not restricted to small official circles or biased interests, but rather that other opinions are taken into consideration, with the necessary openness to create broadened debate, while still complying, of course, with the requirements established by the corresponding legislation. It is not a matter of deconstitutionalizing the principle of legality of the Public Administration, though it is certainly a more democratic form of government, which expands the forums for debate on topics such as environmental protection, and by virtue of that, they are open to citizen intervention and opinion. We are, then, facing a very accepted option in the evolution of the concept of democracy, and this amparo offers a magnificent opportunity to give it clear and effective validity, so that it does not remain mere discourse. For this very reason, the environmental issue is a topic that this Chamber has already recognized as one of those that grant individuals a special standing, and which is recognized as a "reactional right" (vid. rulings 2233-93 and 3705-93 of this Chamber).
"In environmental law, the procedural requirement of standing tends to extend and broaden to such a dimension that it necessarily leads to the abandonment of the traditional concept, it being understood that, in general terms, any person can be a party and that their right does not emanate from property titles, rights, or specific actions they might exercise according to the rules of conventional law, but rather that their procedural action responds to what modern jurists call the diffuse interest, through which the original standing of the legitimate interested party, or even the simple interested party, diffuses among all members of a certain category of persons who are thus equally affected by the illegal acts that violate them. In the case of environmental protection, the typically diffuse interest that legitimizes the subject to sue is transformed, by virtue of its incorporation into the list of human rights, becoming a true 'reactional right', which, as its name indicates, empowers its holder to 'react' against the violation originating from illegitimate acts or omissions." (vid. ruling 3705-93) It is for this reason that, through Law 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In this matter, therefore, standing exists to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. In this way, when the Political Constitution mentions that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of attaining a public office of popular election, but rather, in this new vision, also to offering people the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these have national significance, or could eventually affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1 and 50 of the Constitution, then, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic state is rescued, in which they can at least have access to the information on the environment held by public authorities, as the petitioners indicate.
The commented precept, then, encompasses the cited principle through access to the information held and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not limited to a restricted group of interests. Certainly, in the matter we now analyze, our legal system already provides that individuals may request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by the interested communities are taken into account in the decision-making process affecting the environment, which has been incorporated into the Organic Environmental Law and its Regulations, as reported by the respondent authority." Precisely, the Organic Environmental Law recognizes this principle in Article 6, which textually stipulates in the relevant part:
*"Article 6. Participation of the inhabitants* *The State and municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic in decision-making and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment."* Likewise, in the Regulation on procedures of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, this principle is also encompassed, stipulating in Chapter IV, which regulates matters relating to the public hearing provided for within the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) procedure (articles 35 to 40), which provides for the active participation of both civil society and municipalities –in their condition as an entity "[...] constituted by the group of resident neighbors of the same canton, who promote and administer their own interests through the municipal government" (article 1 of the Municipal Code).
A similar rule exists in the Urban Planning Law, regarding the approval by municipalities of regulatory plans, obligating it to "1) Convene a public hearing through the Official Gazette and the additional dissemination necessary indicating the venue, date, and time to discuss the project and the verbal or written observations that neighbors or interested parties may wish to formulate. The notice must be made no less than fifteen business days in advance" (article 17 of the Urban Planning Law).
This principle of citizen participation in environmental matters is born from and precisely justified by the application of the positivization of the democratic principle - enshrined in Article 1 of the Political Constitution. It is important to highlight that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups of a private nature, as well as through local governments, who, due to their assigned competence in Article 169 of the Constitution, are recognized as having full competence to promote it in matters that may somehow affect the community within their jurisdiction, and moreover, if they do not do so, they would be failing to fulfill one of the duties assigned by the constitutional framers, which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
*"Municipalities shall foster the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in local government decision-making. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled" (article 5 of the Municipal Code).* It is clear that citizen and municipal participation is of transcendental importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to contribute to decision-making by the institutions responsible for the preservation, surveillance, and protection of the environment and natural resources. It is not only a right of participation, but a duty of the community and municipality in the decision-making and discussions on the location of a sanitary landfill.
In this same vein, in judgment number 2000-10466, at ten hours and seventeen minutes of November twenty-fourth, two thousand, the Chamber indicated that in no way:
"[...] can the human being who will receive the effects of governmental decisions on environmental matters be excluded from their participation in deciding matters linked to this area." Previously, this Court recognized the importance of participation by local governments in this type of process under the following considerations:
"[...] Moreover, municipal competencies regarding the preservation and protection of the environment cannot be limited to the organization of the public hearing—which by legal provision corresponds to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA)—but go much further, such as raising awareness among citizens for public participation, the reporting—with technical evidence—to administrative entities and courts of justice, adequate management of garbage and industrial waste, control and oversight so that environmental laws are complied with, and the promotion of pertinent legal remedies, such as the request for suspension of administrative acts deemed harmful to the environment, but not through the constitutional avenue, but in the contentious-administrative and civil Treasury jurisdiction, among other tasks" (judgment number 2001-5737, at fourteen hours and forty-one minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand one).
The Chamber also specified that it is an indispensable requirement that the hearing be held in a place where neighbors can attend, and preferably at the place of the events, since otherwise, the celebration of the hearing ordered by the Administration would not achieve its purpose, where obviously the lack of resources cannot constitute an obstacle to bringing to the case file all the evidentiary elements that the Administration requires to make a decision in matters of such fundamental importance, as it will necessarily have implications for the environment and the community. Community participation in environmental decision-making forms part of the procedure to which the State must subject itself, and at the same time is an integral part of the fundamental right of every person, under the terms provided in Article 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). For this reason, constitutional case law has repeatedly held that the right to a hearing is part of substantive due process and is a form of expression of participatory democracy. On the topic of information in environmental matters, it has furthermore been indicated:
"In the matter of the environment, we must transfer this concept of the right to information to a new perspective that every individual or community has: to request information and to be informed by any state entity [information] that cannot be obstructed by state institutions regarding any project that may affect the enjoyment of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This, then, is the guarantee that will allow any individual or community to participate, making use of diffuse interests for access to participation, within the decision-making processes that affect that right, because the opposite would be illusory and the constitutional norm would be superfluous [...]" (judgment number 2331-96, cited above).
In this special matter, every person must have adequate information about materials and activities or projects that may imply a danger or threat to communities (right to health), and to the conservation and preservation of the environment (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment), as well as for the effective opportunity to participate in the processes of adopting such decisions; given that, concerning the right to the environment, standing corresponds to the human being as such, since the injury to this fundamental right is suffered both by the community—as a whole—and by the individual in particular. Therefore, the Administration must facilitate and promote awareness and participation of the population by making information available to all, not only to the members of the community, but also to the citizenry in general, insofar as in environmental matters the existence of a true diffuse interest has been considered (as previously noted in this judgment).
V.In previous cases where the Chamber has had the opportunity to pronounce on the alleged danger posed by electromagnetic fields, the majority of this Tribunal determined that it had not been possible to determine with scientific certainty whether a causal link existed between the deterioration of health and the presence of high-tension lines in the vicinity of homes. However, in judgment No. 1998-2806, reiterated in No. 2002-8554, this Tribunal clearly stated that the Chamber understood that norms had been established that imposed operational limits on high-tension lines, as well as regarding the magnitude of the electromagnetic field these generate and the necessary updating of permissible limits due to advances in scientific knowledge, among other conditions. Hence the amparo remedies were dismissed, imposing on the respondent Institute the responsibility of verifying the permissible limits and counting on the fact that the regulation that had been established for that purpose would be complied with as ordered.
Indeed, in session No. 4912 of October 21, 1997, Article 15, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the "Institutional Policy and Strategy for the Treatment of Electromagnetic Fields from Transmission Lines" ("Política y Estrategia Institucional para el tratamiento de campos electromagnéticos de líneas de transmisión"), where it regulated, among other things, the obligation to disseminate available information, as well as the permanent updating of existing information on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (CEM-feb). In addition to the above, on February 12, 2001, the Regulation to Regulate Electric and Magnetic Fields in Electric Energy Transmission Works No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE (Reglamento para Regular Campos Eléctricos y Magnéticos en Obras de Transmisión de Energía Eléctrica) was published, which clearly establishes in Article 15:
"Article 15.- Obligation of the providers of the public electricity transmission service to inform community members about new projects for purposes of public participation. Without prejudice to the obligation of the Municipalities to inform the members of the community who may be affected by the construction of a new transmission line, the transmission service provider is obligated to inform the property owners directly affected by the line to be built, in a detailed manner, about the characteristics of the project. To that effect, as soon as a preliminary line route has been established, the provider must take the necessary measures to establish individual communication with each of these property owners.
Likewise, and at least semi-annually, they must broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and findings carried out on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health. To that effect, any of the technological or communication means available shall be used so that the information reaches those affected." According to what was indicated by the respondent authorities themselves, the project already has a preliminary line route, since ICE is even in the stage of administrative and judicial proceedings aimed at acquiring the corresponding easement (servidumbre) rights. However, it admits that the occasion on which it provided information publicly to the communities involved regarding electromagnetic fields was in June 2004, when public hearings were held in relation to the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental).
Subsequent to that, they stated that only individual consultations have been evacuated, for which they acknowledge they do not have an office specialized in the matter. All of the above allows this Tribunal to verify that the petitioner is correct in their argument. As already indicated, the right of public participation in matters of an environmental nature as well as health are of such relevance that they merit a responsible and constant attitude from the administration towards those involved in its projects. The foregoing is so clear that the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) and MINAE themselves imposed on ICE what is set forth in cited Article 15; however, its non-compliance is verified, as it did not even mention in its report the duty it has to, at least semi-annually, broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and findings carried out on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health.
Note that this is not just any legal non-compliance, but that the respondent institute is failing in a constitutional duty of collaboration with the rest of the public authorities charged with ensuring the protection of the right to health and the environment. It has been clearly established in previous judgments of this Tribunal that, although the causal link of electromagnetic fields with serious health problems has not been conclusively proven, research continues, and therefore it is a matter that must be monitored with the greatest responsibility and that merits its constant updating, including to determine the respective load of high-tension lines. This is how the Ministry of Health and MINAE seem to have understood it when they issued the cited decree; however, the respondent Institute did not, considering that the dissemination of information carried out in 2004 is sufficient. Regardless of whether the protected company is discussing the appraisal amount through judicial channels, the truth is that the object of study in this remedy is based on an injury to a fundamental right whose standing is of a diffuse nature, since what is discussed—dissemination of adequate and updated information on the scientific research conducted regarding electromagnetic fields—pertains not only to the members of the community, but also to the citizenry in general, as it deals with environmental matters.
It is for this reason that the amparo remedy is deemed admissible, in that this Tribunal, due to the omissive conduct of ICE, considers Articles 11, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution to have been violated. However, the granting of this remedy does not entail granting what was requested by the protected party, in the sense that the Chamber forces ICE to create a specialized Department to provide the information in question, as this constitutes a matter of administrative purview that exceeds the powers of this Tribunal; consequently, the petitioner's claim in this regard is rejected.
Therefore (Por tanto):
The remedy is declared partially with merit. Consequently, Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés, in his capacity as Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), is ordered, immediately upon notification of this judgment, to broadly inform the respective communities of the most relevant international scientific research and findings carried out on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health, which must be done at least semi-annually. The above under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on whoever receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo remedy, and does not comply with it or enforce it, provided that the offense is not more severely punished.
The Costa Rican Electricity Institute is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The petitioner's claim, consisting of forcing ICE to create a Risk Management and Information on Electromagnetic Fields Department, is outright rejected. Notify this resolution to Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés in his capacity as Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute, or to whoever holds the position in his stead, personally, and to the President of the Municipal Council of Liberia. Let it be communicated.- Luis Fernando Solano C.
Luis Paulino Mora M. Ana Virginia Calzada M.
Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.
Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.
"V.- In previous cases where this Chamber has had the opportunity to express its opinion regarding the alleged danger posed by electromagnetic fields, the majority of this Court determined that it had not been possible to establish with scientific certainty whether a causal link existed between the deterioration of health and the presence of high-voltage lines in the vicinity of dwellings. However, in Judgment No. 1998-2806, reiterated in No. 2002-8554, this Court clearly ruled that the Chamber understood that regulations had been enacted imposing operational limits for high-voltage lines, as well as regarding the magnitude of the electromagnetic field they generate and the necessary updating of permissible limits due to advances in scientific knowledge, among other conditions. Hence, the amparo actions were dismissed, with the respondent Institute being assigned the responsibility of verifying the permissible limits, relying on the fact that the regulation established for that purpose would be complied with as ordered.
Well, in Session No. 4912 of October 21, 1997, Article 15, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the "Institutional Policy and Strategy for the treatment of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines," which regulated, among other things, the obligation to disseminate available information, as well as the permanent updating of existing information on extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (CEM-feb). In addition to the above, on February 12, 2001, the Regulation to Regulate Electric and Magnetic Fields in Electrical Energy Transmission Works No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE was published, which clearly establishes in Article 15:
"*Article 15.-Obligation of providers of the public electricity transmission service to inform community members about new projects for citizen participation purposes. Without prejudice to the obligation of the Municipalities to inform community members who may be affected by the construction of a new transmission line, the transmission service provider is obligated to inform the property owners directly affected by the line to be constructed, in a detailed manner, about the characteristics of the project. To this end, as soon as a preliminary line route has been established, the provider must take the necessary measures to establish individual communication with each of these property owners.
Likewise, and at least every six months, they must widely inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and pronouncements regarding electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health. For this purpose, any available technological or communication means shall be utilized to ensure the information reaches those affected."* According to what the respondent authorities themselves have indicated, the project already has a preliminary line route, as ICE is even in the stage of administrative and judicial proceedings aimed at acquiring the corresponding easement rights. However, it admits that the occasion on which it publicly provided information to the communities involved regarding electromagnetic fields was in June 2004, when the public hearings were held concerning the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental, EIA).
Subsequent to that, they stated that the only thing carried out has been responding to individual inquiries, for which they acknowledge they do not have an office specialized in the matter. All of the above allows this Court to verify that the petitioner's claim is well-founded. As previously indicated, the right of citizen participation in matters of an environmental and health nature is of such relevance that it warrants a responsible and constant attitude from the administration towards those involved in its projects. The foregoing is so clear that the Ministry of Health and MINAE themselves imposed upon ICE the provisions set forth in Article 15 cited above; however, its non-compliance is evident, since ICE did not even allude in its report to the duty it has, at least every six months, to widely inform all interested parties of the most relevant international scientific research and pronouncements on electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health.
Note that this is not just any legal non-compliance, but that the respondent institute is failing in a constitutional duty of collaboration with the rest of the public authorities charged with ensuring the protection of the right to health and the environment. It has been clearly established in previous judgments of this Court that, although it has not been possible to demonstrate with certainty the causal link between electromagnetic fields and serious health problems, research continues, and therefore it is a matter that must be monitored with the utmost responsibility and which warrants its constant updating, even to determine the respective load of high-voltage lines. The Ministry of Health and MINAE seem to have understood it this way when they issued the cited decree; however, the respondent Institute did not, considering that the disclosure of information it carried out in 2004 is sufficient.
Regardless of whether the protected company is discussing the appraisal amount in court, the fact remains that the subject matter of this amparo action is based on an injury to a fundamental right whose legal standing is of a diffuse nature, since what is being discussed—dissemination of adequate and updated information on scientific research conducted regarding electromagnetic fields—concerns not only the members of the community but also the general citizenry, as it deals with environmental matters. For this reason, the amparo action is upheld, in that this Court considers that Articles 11, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been violated due to ICE's omission. However, the granting of this amparo action does not entail the granting of what was requested by the petitioner, in terms that this Chamber compel ICE to create a specialized Department to provide the information in question, since this constitutes an administrative matter that exceeds the powers of this Court; therefore, the petitioner's claim in this regard is rejected." and from the communities of Barrio La Victoria in Liberia and the Developments (Urbanizaciones): La Carreta, Alaska, las Brisas, el Peloncito, El Guanacaste, and Santa Lucía against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.- <p align=center style='text-align:center'><b>Resultando:</b> </p> <p><b> 1.-</b> By a writing filed at 3:10 p.m. on September 26, 2006, the petitioner states that the protected company is the owner of the farm in the Partido de Guanacaste, recorded under real folio number 5-045776-000.
He indicates that the respondent Institute years ago began construction of a project called SIEPAC (Miravalles-Liberia Transmission Line), starting at the Miravalles Geothermal Project and ending at the Substation located in Barrio La Cruz de Guanacaste, with a length of 32.8 kilometers. <span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>The route of said project includes both the land where its farm is located, as well as the communities of Liberia, Guanacaste, Barrio La Victoria, where the high-tension lines will pass just a few meters from houses, in which children and adults live, and where there are schools, churches, and all the infrastructure typical of a community. In the particular case of the protected company's farm, ICE has even already performed the corresponding appraisal in order to establish the easement (servidumbre) and tower sites that will affect the property in terms of house construction, crop planting, preservation of vegetation, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), storage of flammable materials, and accumulation of materials with a height exceeding 5 meters, which will have a length of 815 meters and a width of 30 meters, with two tower sites (see folios 9, 10, and 13-23 of the case file).
Faced with this real and imminent threat of infringement upon its rights, an evident fear arises due to the existence of so-called EMF (electromagnetic fields), a force regarding which there has been a worldwide controversy (see folios 11 and 12 of the case file), as the community is not informed of the technological advances on the matter and the office that ICE has provides very superficial and outdated information. He considers the rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution to be violated, since they are not being duly informed of the scope of the electromagnetic fields. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'> 2.-</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'> Juan Carlos Torres Rodríguez, in his capacity as Director of the SIEPAC Project, reports under oath (folio
"*Article 6. Participation of the inhabitants* *The State and the municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic in decision-making and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment.*" Likewise, in the Regulations on Procedures of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, this principle is also incorporated, as provided in Chapter IV, which regulates matters relating to the public hearing provided for within the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) procedure (Articles 35 to 40), in which the active participation of both civil society and the municipalities is contemplated —in their capacity as an entity "[...] constituted by the group of resident neighbors of the same canton, who promote and administer their own interests through the municipal government" (Article 1 of the Municipal Code).
The Urban Planning Law has a similar norm, regarding the approval by municipalities of regulatory plans, by obligating them to "1) Convene a public hearing by means of the Official Gazette and the additional dissemination necessary, indicating the location, date, and time to learn about the project and any verbal or written observations that the neighbors or interested parties may wish to formulate. The notice must be made no fewer than fifteen business days in advance" (Article 17 of the Urban Planning Law).
This principle of citizen participation in environmental matters is born and justified precisely from the application of the positivization of the democratic principle —enshrined in Article 1 of the Political Constitution—. It is important to highlight that this participation can be achieved individually, through private associative groups, as well as through local governments, which, by their competence assigned in Article 169 of the Constitution, are recognized as having full competence to promote it in matters that in some way may affect the community of their jurisdiction. Moreover, if it does not do so, it would be failing to fulfill one of the tasks that the constituent power assigned to it, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:
"*Municipalities shall foster the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in local government decision-making. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly complied with*" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).
It is clear that citizen and municipal participation is of transcendental importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to contribute to the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, oversight, and protection of the environment and natural resources. It is not only a right of participation, but a duty of the community and municipality in the decision-making and discussions regarding the location of a landfill (relleno sanitario). In this same sense, in judgment number 2000-10466, at ten hours seventeen minutes of November twenty-fourth, two thousand, the Chamber indicated that in no way:
"[...] can the human being who will receive the effects of governmental decisions in environmental matters be excluded from participating in the decision of affairs linked to this matter." Previously, this Tribunal recognized the importance of the participation of local governments in this type of process under the following considerations:
"[...] Furthermore, municipal competences regarding the preservation and protection of the environment cannot be seen as limited to organizing the public hearing —which by legal provision is the responsibility of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat— but go much further, such as raising awareness among the municipal inhabitants regarding citizen participation, reporting —with technical evidence— to administrative entities and the courts of justice, the proper handling of garbage and industrial waste, the control and oversight so that environmental laws are complied with, and the promotion of pertinent legal remedies, such as the request for suspension of administrative acts deemed harmful to the environment, but not through the constitutional channel, but rather in the contentious-administrative and civil Treasury jurisdiction, among other duties" (judgment number 2001-5737, at fourteen hours forty-one minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand one).
The Chamber also specified that it is an indispensable requirement that the hearing be held in a place where the neighbors can attend, and preferably at the location of the events, since otherwise, the holding of the hearing ordered by the Administration would not achieve its purpose, where obviously the lack of resources cannot constitute an obstacle to bringing to the case file all the evidentiary elements that the Administration requires to make a decision on matters of such fundamental importance, since it will necessarily have implications for the environment and the community. Community participation in environmental decision-making forms part of the procedure to which the State must adhere, and at the same time, it is an integral part of the fundamental right of every person, in the terms provided in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Therefore, constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held that the right to a hearing forms part of substantive due process and that it is a form of expression of participatory democracy. On the topic of information in environmental matters, it has also been indicated:
"In environmental matters, we must transfer this concept of the right to information to a new perspective that every individual or community has to request information and to be informed by any state entity [information] that cannot be obstructed by state institutions regarding any project that may affect the enjoyment of their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This, then, is the guarantee that will allow any individual or community to participate, making use of diffuse interests regarding access to participation, within the decision-making processes that affect that right, because the opposite would be illusory and the constitutional norm would be superfluous [...]" (judgment number 2331-96, cited above).
In this special matter, every person must have adequate information about materials and activities or projects that may pose a danger or threat to communities (right to health), and for the conservation and preservation of the environment (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment), as well as for the effective opportunity to participate in the processes of adopting such decisions; given that, when dealing with the right to the environment, standing belongs to the human being as such, because the injury to this fundamental right is suffered by both the community —as a whole— and the individual in particular. Therefore, the Administration must facilitate and foster the sensitivity and participation of the population by making information available to all, not only to the members of the community, but also to the citizenry in general, insofar as in environmental matters the existence of a true diffuse interest has been considered (as was previously noted in this judgment).
V.In previous cases where the Chamber had the opportunity to express itself regarding the alleged danger posed by electromagnetic fields, the majority of this Tribunal determined that it had not been possible to determine with scientific certainty whether a causal link existed between the deterioration of health and the presence of high-tension lines in the vicinity of homes. However, in Judgment No. 1998-2806, reiterated in No. 2002-8554, this Tribunal clearly established that the Chamber understood that norms had been put in place that imposed operational limits for high-tension lines, as well as limits regarding the magnitude of the electromagnetic field these generate and the necessary updating of permissible limits based on advances in scientific knowledge, among other conditions. Hence, the amparo (amparo) actions were dismissed, imposing upon the respondent Institute the responsibility of verifying the permissible limits and relying on the fact that the regulation that had been established for this purpose would be complied with as ordered.
Well, in Session No. 4912 of October 21, 1997, Article 15, the Board of Directors of ICE approved the "Institutional Policy and Strategy for the treatment of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines," where it regulated, among other things, the obligation to disseminate the available information, as well as the permanent updating of existing information on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF). In addition to the foregoing, on February 12, 2001, the Regulation to Regulate Electric and Magnetic Fields in Electric Energy Transmission Works No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE was published, which clearly establishes in Article 15:
"*Article 15.—Obligation of the providers of the public electricity transmission service to inform community members about new projects for the purposes of citizen participation. Without prejudice to the obligation of Municipalities to inform members of the community who may be affected by the construction of a new transmission line, the provider of the transmission service is obligated to inform the owners directly affected by the line to be built, in a detailed manner, about the characteristics of the project. To this end, as soon as a preliminary route for the line has been established, the provider must take the necessary measures to establish individual communication with each of these owners.* *Likewise, and at least every six months, they must broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant scientific research and findings carried out internationally regarding electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health.
To this end, any available technological or communication means shall be used so that the information reaches those affected.*" According to what was indicated by the respondent authorities themselves, the project already has a preliminary line route, as ICE is even at the stage of administrative and judicial proceedings aimed at acquiring the corresponding easement (servidumbre) rights. However, it admits that the occasion on which it provided information publicly to the communities involved regarding electromagnetic fields was in the month of June 2004, when public hearings were held in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Subsequent to that, they reported that the only thing carried out was the handling of individual consultations, for which they acknowledge they do not have a specialized office on the matter. All of the foregoing allows this Tribunal to verify that the appellant is correct in his claim.
As already indicated, the right to citizen participation in matters of an environmental and health nature is of such relevance that it merits a responsible and constant attitude from the administration vis-à-vis those involved in its projects. The foregoing is so clear that the Ministry of Health and MINAE themselves imposed upon ICE the provisions of Article 15 cited above; however, its non-compliance is confirmed, since the Institute did not even allude in its report to the duty it has to, at least every six months, broadly inform all interested parties of the most relevant scientific research and findings carried out internationally regarding electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health. It should be noted that this is not just any legal violation, but that the respondent institute is failing in a constitutional duty of collaboration with the other public authorities charged with ensuring the protection of the right to health and the environment.
It has been clearly established in previous judgments of this Tribunal that, although the causal link of electromagnetic fields with serious health problems has not been conclusively demonstrated, research continues, and therefore, it is a matter that must be monitored with the utmost responsibility and that merits its constant updating, even to determine the respective load of high-tension lines. This is how the Ministry of Health and MINAE seem to have understood it when they issued the cited decree; however, the respondent Institute did not, considering that the dissemination of information it carried out in 2004 is sufficient. Regardless of whether the protected company is judicially contesting the appraisal amount, the fact remains that the object of study of this recurso (recurso) is based on an injury to a fundamental right whose standing is diffuse in nature, since what is being discussed —the dissemination of adequate and updated information on the scientific research carried out concerning electromagnetic fields— concerns not only members of the community, but also the citizenry in general, as it is an environmental matter.
It is for this reason that the amparo is upheld, inasmuch as this Tribunal considers that Articles 11, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been violated by the omission of ICE. However, the granting of this recurso does not entail the awarding of what was requested by the amparado (amparado), in the sense that the Chamber should force ICE to create a specialized Department to provide the information in question, because this constitutes a matter of administrative purview that exceeds the powers of this Tribunal; therefore, the appellant's claim in this regard is rejected.
Por tanto:
The recurso is partially granted. Consequently, Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés, in his capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, is ordered to, immediately upon notification of this judgment, broadly inform the respective communities about the most relevant scientific research and findings carried out internationally regarding electric and magnetic fields and their relationship with human health, which must be carried out at least every six months. The foregoing under warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment from 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 fulfilled or enforced, issued in an amparo proceeding, and does not fulfill it or does not have it fulfilled, provided that the crime is not more severely punished.
The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The appellant's claim, consisting of forcing ICE to create a Department of Risk Management and Information on Electromagnetic Fields, is rejected outright. Notify this resolution to Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés in his capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, or to whomever holds the position in his stead, personally, and to the President of the Municipal Council of Liberia. Let it be communicated.— Luis Fernando Solano C.
Luis Paulino Mora M. Ana Virginia Calzada M.
Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.
Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.
*060118400007CO* *060118400007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las dieciséis horas y treinta y cuatro minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis.
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 06-011840-0007-CO, interpuesto por FRED GREINER, mayor, psiquiatra, pasaporte número 91819396, vecino de Alajuela, de nacionalidad estadounidense, a favor de Corporación Monte de Piedra S.A. y de las comunidades de Barrio La Victoria en Liberia y Urbanizaciones: La Carreta, Alaska, las Brisas, el Peloncito, El Guanacaste y Santa Lucía contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.-
Resultando:
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:
II.Objeto del recurso. El recurrente estima vulnerados los derechos fundamentales de su representada, por cuanto acusa que la institución recurrida no ha dispuesto de un Departamento de Gestión de Riesgos e Información sobre los Campos Electromagnéticos, con el fin de informar las formas de prevenir riesgos a la salud humana y animal por los campos electromagnéticos, así como de procedimientos de protección al ambiente, que les brinde atención oportuna, real y efectiva a sus consultas.
III.Sobre el fondo. Del estudio de los autos se tiene que el Proyecto de Línea de Transmisión Miravalles-Liberia en cuestión, está relacionado con el Proyecto del Sistema de Interconexión Eléctrica para los Países de América Central (SIEPAC). Este proyecto a su vez, intenta un sistema de interconexión eléctrica para los países de América Central que consiste en la creación de un Mercado Eléctrico Regional (MER) mediante la construcción de líneas de transmisión de electricidad de 230 Kv. y subestaciones eléctricas, que permitirán el intercambio de energía eléctrica entre los agentes del MER. El 30 de diciembre de 1996, los Gobiernos de Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica y Panamá suscribieron el Tratado Marco del Mercado Eléctrico de América Central, el cual fue aprobado por Costa Rica mediante ley No. 7848 del 20 de noviembre de 1998 y actualmente es desarrollado por el ICE.
Es en atención a este proyecto, que la propiedad de la empresa amparada No. 5-045776- 000 ubicada en Bagaces, fue valorada con el fin de que el ICE adquiriese los derechos de servidumbre, lo cual se encuentra en discusión en vía judicial. Ahora bien, en lo que respecta al objeto de este amparo, que es el derecho que tiene la comunidad de mantenerse informado adecuadamente sobre los riesgos que implican los Campos Electromagnéticos, las autoridades recurridas informaron bajo juramento a este Tribunal, que la información se difundió públicamente cuando se realizaron las audiencias respectivas en el mes de junio del 2004 relacionadas con el estudio de impacto de ambiental, donde se repartieron además folletos a las comunidades por donde pasarán las líneas y que actualmente canalizan toda consulta respecto a las mismas a través de la Dirección Gestión Integral de Riesgos, que efectivamente no es un centro especializado y específico que se dedique a ello tiempo completo.
IV.Participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales: Este Tribunal ya se ha referido anteriormente al tema objeto de estudio, sobre lo cual ha dispuesto que la participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos puntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos ambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión a los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva participación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos. Por ello, el Estado costarricense no sólo debe invitar a la participación ciudadana, sino que debe promoverla y respetarla cuando se produzca (ver sentencias número 2001-10466 y 2003-6322). De esta suerte, resulta de gran importancia la puesta a disposición de los interesados de la información que en la materia tengan en las oficinas públicas, caso de la relativa a los estudios de impacto ambiental a cargo de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, o la requerida para la aprobación de los planes reguladores de las respectivas municipalidades o de los rellenos sanitarios, como es el caso. Fue la Convención de Río la que en el principio 10 elevó esta participación a rango de principio en materia ambiental, al señalar
"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda. En el plano nacional, toda persona debe tener adecuada formación sobre el medio ambiente que dispongan las autoridades públicas, incluida la información sobre los materiales y las actividades que encierran peligro en sus comunidades, así como la oportunidad de participar en los procesos de adopción de decisiones. Los Estados deberán facilitar y fomentar la sensibilización y la participación de la población poniendo la información a disposición de todos. Deberá proporcionarse acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos, entre éstos el resarcimiento de daños y los recursos pertinentes." De este principio, se evidenció claramente, la importancia que a nivel internacional se da a las cuestiones ambientales, y en general, sobre todo, a la participación de la sociedad civil en decisiones de gran trascendencia para la comunidad. De modo que, al ser Costa Rica un Estado signatario de este instrumento, ciertamente se le obliga y condiciona, pues esa es la consecuencia de su suscripción, según lo consideró este Tribunal, en sentencia número 8319- 2000, de las diez horas dieciocho minutos del ocho de setiembre del dos mil:
"Así, su propósito es que las decisiones gubernamentales sean consecuencia de una discusión que no se constriña a pequeños núcleos oficiales o de intereses parcializados, sino que sean tomadas en consideración otras opiniones, con la apertura necesaria para crear el debate ampliado, aunque sin dejar de cumplirse, claro, los requisitos que establece la legislación correspondiente. No se trata de una desconstitucionalización del principio de legalidad de la Administración Pública, aunque sí por supuesto, de una forma de gobierno más democrático, que amplía los foros de debate sobre temas como el de la protección al medio ambiente, y que por virtud de ello, quedan abiertos a la intervención y opinión ciudadana. Estamos, pues, ante una opción ya muy aceptada en la evolución del concepto de democracia y este amparo ofrece una magnífica oportunidad de darle clara y efectiva vigencia, para que no se quede en el mero discurso. Por eso mismo es que la cuestión ambiental es un tema que ya la Sala ha reconocido como aquellos que otorgan a los particulares una legitimación especial, y de la que se reconoce como un "derecho reaccional" (vid. sentencia 2233-93 y 3705-93 de esta Sala).
"En el derecho ambiental, el presupuesto procesal de la legitimación tiende a extenderse y ampliarse en una dimensión tal, que lleva necesariamente al abandono del concepto tradicional, debiendo entender que en términos generales, toda persona puede ser parte y que su derecho no emana de títulos de propiedad, derechos o acciones concretas que pudiera ejercer según las reglas del derecho convencional, sino que su actuación procesal responde a lo que los modernos tratadistas denominan el interés difuso, mediante el cual la legitimación original del interesado legítimo o aún del simple interesado, se difunde entre todos los miembros de una determinada categoría de personas que resultan así igualmente afectadas por los actos ilegales que los vulneran. Tratándose de la protección del ambiente, el interés típicamente difuso que legitima al sujeto para accionar, se transforma, en virtud de su incorporación al elenco de los derechos de la persona humana, convirtiéndose en un verdadero "derecho reaccional", que, como su nombre lo indica, lo que hace es apoderar a su titular para "reaccionar" frente a la violación originada en actos u omisiones ilegítimos." (vid. sentencia 3705-93) Es por ello, que por Ley 7412 del 03 de junio de 1994, la Asamblea Legislativa reformó el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, garantizando a toda persona el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
En esta materia, entonces, existe la legitimación para denunciar actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado, a través del acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos. De esta manera, cuando la Constitución Política hace mención de que el Gobierno de la República es popular, representativo, alternativo y responsable, hemos de tener claro que la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, o a la aspiración de alcanzar un cargo público de elección popular, sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población. De los artículos 1 y 50 Constitucionales se rescata pues, la consideración que los ciudadanos merecen en un estado democrático, en el cual puedan al menos tener acceso a la información sobre el medio ambiente de que dispongan las autoridades públicas, tal y como lo señalan los recurrentes.
El precepto comentado, entonces, recoge el principio citado a través del acceso a la información de que se dispone y a la divulgación de ella, para que la toma de decisiones no se circunscriba a un limitado grupo de intereses. Ciertamente, que en la materia que ahora analizamos, nuestro ordenamiento jurídico ya prevé que los particulares pueden solicitar a la SETENA llevar a cabo audiencias públicas, para efecto de que se tomen en cuenta las posiciones formuladas por las comunidades interesadas en la toma de decisiones que afectan el ambiente, lo que ha sido recogido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y de su Reglamento, como informó la autoridad recurrida." Precisamente, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente reconoce este principio en el artículo 6, que textualmente dispone en lo que interesa:
"Artículo 6. Participación de los habitantes El Estado y las municipalidades, fomentarán la participación activa y organizada de los habitantes de la República, en la toma de decisiones y acciones tendientes a proteger y mejorar el ambiente." Asimismo, en el Reglamento sobre procedimientos de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, también se recoge este principio, al disponerse en el Capítulo IV, en el que se regula lo relativo a la audiencia pública prevista dentro del procedimiento del estudio de impacto ambiental (artículos 35 a 40), en el que se tiene prevista la participación activa, tanto de la sociedad civil como de las municipalidades -en su condición de ente "[...] constituido por el conjunto de vecinos residentes de un mismo cantón, que promueven y administran sus propios intereses por medio del gobierno municipal" (artículo 1° del Código Municipal).
Norma similar tiene la Ley de Planificación Urbana, en lo relativo a la aprobación por las municipalidades de los planes reguladores, al obligarlo a "1) Convocar a una audiencia pública por medio del Diario Oficial y la divulgación adicional necesaria con la indicación de local, fecha y hora para conocer el proyecto y de las observaciones verbales o escritas que tengan a bien formular los vecinos o interesados. El señalamiento deberá hacerse con antelación no menor de quince días hábiles" (artículo 17 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana).
Este principio de la participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales, nace y se justifica precisamente de la aplicación de la positivización del principio democrático - consagrado en el artículo 1° de la Constitución Política-. Es importante resaltar que esta participación se puede lograr en forma individual, a través de grupos asociativos de orden particular, así como también a través de los gobiernos locales, a quienes, por su competencia asignada en el artículo 169 de la Constitución, se les reconoce plena competencia para promoverla en los asuntos que de algún modo puedan afectar la comunidad de su jurisdicción, y más bien, si no lo hace, estaría incumpliendo uno de sus cometidos que el constituyente le asignó, y que ha sido desarrollada en la legislación ordinaria:
"Las municipalidades fomentarán la participación activa, consciente y democrática del pueblo en las tomas de decisiones del gobierno local. Las instituciones públicas estarán obligadas a colaborar para que estas decisiones se cumplan debidamente" (artículo 5 del Código Municipal).
Queda claro que la participación ciudadana y de las municipalidades es de trascendental importancia a fin de promover la conciencia en los problemas ambientales y para coadyuvar en la toma de decisiones de las instituciones encargadas de la preservación, vigilancia y protección del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. No se trata únicamente de un derecho de participación, sino de un deber de la comunidad y municipalidad en la toma de decisiones y discusiones sobre la ubicación de un relleno sanitario. En este mismo sentido, en la sentencia número 2000-10466, de las diez horas diecisiete minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil, la Sala señaló que en modo alguno:
"[...] puede excluirse al ser humano que recibirá los efectos de las decisiones gubernamentales en materia ambiental-, de su participación en la decisión de asuntos vinculados con esta materia." Con anterioridad, este Tribunal, reconoció la importancia de la participación de los gobiernos locales en este tipo de procesos bajo las siguientes consideraciones:
"[...] Por lo demás, las competencias municipales en lo que respecta a la preservación y protección del medio ambiente no pueden verse limitadas a la organización de la audiencia pública -que por disposición legal le corresponde a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental-, sino que va mucho más allá, como lo es la concientización de los munícipes en la participación ciudadana, la denuncia -con pruebas técnicas- ante entidades administrativas y los tribunales de justicia, el manejo adecuado de la basura y de los desechos industriales, el control y fiscalización para que las leyes ambientales se cumplan, y la promoción de los recursos legales pertinentes, como lo sería la solicitud de suspensión de los actos administrativos que estimen nocivos para el ambiente, pero no en la vía constitucional, sino en la jurisdicción contenciosa- administrativa y civil de Hacienda, entre otros cometidos" (sentencia número 2001-5737, de las catorce horas cuarenta y un minutos del veintisiete de junio del dos mil uno).
La Sala precisó también que es requisito indispensable que la audiencia se lleve a cabo en el lugar donde los vecinos puedan asistir, y con preferencia en el lugar de los hechos, ya que de lo contrario, la celebración de la audiencia ordenada por la Administración no lograría cumplir su finalidad, donde obviamente la falta de los recursos no puede constituirse en un obstáculo para hacer llegar al expediente todos los elementos probatorios que la Administración requiere para tomar una decisión en asuntos de tan fundamental importancia, ya que necesariamente tendrá implicaciones sobre el medio ambiente y la comunidad. La participación comunal en la toma de decisiones en materia ambiental forma parte del procedimiento al que debe sujetarse el Estado, y a la vez es integrante del derecho fundamental de toda persona, en los términos previstos en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Por ello, reiteradamente la jurisprudencia constitucional ha sostenido que el derecho de audiencia hace parte del debido proceso sustantivo y que es una forma de expresión de la democracia participativa. Sobre el tema de información en materia de ambiente, se ha indicado además:
"En materia del medio ambiente debemos trasladar este concepto sobre el derecho de información a una nueva perspectiva que tiene todo individuo o colectividad de solicitar información y de ser informado por cualquier ente estatal [información] que no puede ser obstruida por las instituciones estatales referentes a cualquier proyecto que pueda afectar el goce de su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Es entonces esta, la garantía que permitirá participar a cualquier individuo o colectividad, haciendo uso de los intereses difusos del acceso a la participación, dentro de los procesos de toma de decisiones que afecten ese derecho, pues lo contrario sería ilusorio y la norma constitucional resultaría superflua [...]" (sentencia número 2331-96, supra citada).
En esta especial materia, toda persona debe tener adecuada información sobre los materiales y las actividades o proyectos que pueden implicar un peligro o amenaza para las comunidades (derecho a la salud), y para la conservación y preservación del medio ambiente (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado), así como para la efectiva oportunidad de participar en los procesos de adopción de tales decisiones; toda vez que tratándose del derecho al ambiente, la legitimación corresponde al ser humano como tal, pues la lesión a este derecho fundamental la sufre tanto la comunidad -como un todo-, como el individuo en particular. Por ello, la Administración debe facilitar y fomentar la sensibilidad y la participación de la población poniendo la información a disposición de todos, no sólo de los miembros de la comunidad, sino también de la ciudadanía en general, en tanto en materia ambiental se ha considerado la existencia de un verdadero interés difuso (según se había anotado anteriormente en esta sentencia).
V.En casos anteriores donde la Sala ha tenido oportunidad de manifestarse respecto al peligro alegado que implican los campos electromagnéticos, la mayoría de este Tribunal dispuso que no había sido posible determinar con certeza científica, si existía un nexo causal entre el desmejoramiento de la salud y la presencia de líneas de alta tensión en las proximidades de las viviendas. Sin embargo, en la sentencia No. 1998-2806 reiterada en la No. 2002-8554, este Tribunal dispuso claramente que la Sala entendía que se habían dispuesto normas que han impuesto límites operativos de las líneas de alta tensión, así como respecto de la magnitud del campo electromagnético que estas generen y la necesaria actualización de los límites permisibles en razón del avance en el conocimiento científico, entre otras condiciones. De ahí que fueron desestimados los amparos, imponiéndole al Instituto recurrido la responsabilidad de verificar los límites permisibles y contando con que la regulación que había sido establecida para tal efecto sería cumplida según se había dispuesto.
Pues bien, en sesión No. 4912 del 21 de octubre de 1997, artículo 15, el Consejo Directivo del ICE aprobó la "Política y Estrategia Institucional para el tratamiento de campos electromagnéticos de líneas de transmisión", donde reguló entre otras cosas la obligación de diseminar la información disponible, así como la actualización permanente de la información existente sobre campos electromagnéticos de frecuencia extremadamente baja (CEM-feb). Aunado a lo anterior, el 12 de febrero del 2001 fue publicado el Reglamento para Regular Campos Eléctricos y Magnéticos en Obras de Transmisión de Energía Eléctrica No. 29296-SALUD-MINAE, que establece claramente en el artículo 15:
"Artículo 15.-Obligación de los prestatarios del servicio público de transmisión de electricidad de informar a los miembros de la comunidad sobre proyectos nuevos para efectos de participación ciudadana. Sin perjuicio de la obligación que tienen las Municipalidades de informar a los miembros de la comunidad que puedan verse afectados por la construcción de una línea de transmisión nueva, el prestatario del servicio de transmisión está obligado a informar a los propietarios directamente afectados por la línea a construir, en forma detallada, sobre las características del proyecto. A tal efecto, tan pronto se tenga establecido un trazado preliminar de la línea, el prestatario deberá tomar las medidas necesarias para establecer comunicación individual con cada uno de estos propietarios.
Asimismo y al menos semestralmente, deberán informar ampliamente a todos los interesados, de las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana. A tal efecto se aprovechará cualquiera de los medios tecnológicos o de comunicación de que se disponga, para que la información llegue a los afectados." Según lo indicado por las mismas autoridades recurridas el proyecto ya tiene un trazado preliminar de línea, pues incluso el ICE está en la etapa de las diligencias administrativas y judiciales tendentes a la adquisición de los derechos de servidumbre correspondientes. Sin embargo, admite que la ocasión en la que brindó información en forma pública a las comunidades involucradas con los campos electromagnéticos fue en el mes de junio del 2004, cuando se realizaron las audiencias públicas con relación al estudio de impacto ambiental.
Posterior a ello, refirieron que lo único realizado es la evacuación de consultas individuales, para lo cual reconocen que no tienen una oficina especializada en el asunto. Todo lo anterior permite constatar a este Tribunal que el recurrente lleva razón en su alegato. Como ya se indicó el derecho de participación ciudadana en asuntos de índole ambiental así como de salud, son de tal relevancia que ameritan una actitud responsable y constante de la administración frente a los involucrados en sus proyectos. Lo anterior es tan claro, que el mismo Ministerio de Salud y el MINAE le impusieron al ICE lo dispuesto en el artículo 15 citado, sin embargo se constata su incumplimiento, pues ni siquiera hizo alusión en su informe al deber que tiene de al menos semestralmente, informar ampliamente a todos los interesados, de las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana.
Nótese que no se trata de cualquier incumplimiento legal, sino que el instituto recurrido está faltando a un deber constitucional de colaboración con el resto de las autoridades públicas encargadas de velar por la protección del derecho a la salud y del ambiente. Ha quedado claramente establecido en sentencias anteriores de este Tribunal, que si bien no se ha logrado demostrar certeramente el nexo causal de los campos electromagnéticos con problemas graves de salud, las investigaciones continúan y por ello es un asunto que debe ser fiscalizado con la mayor responsabilidad y que amerita la actualización constante del mismo, incluso para determinar la carga respectiva de las líneas de alta tensión. Así parece haberlo entendido el Ministerio de Salud y el MINAE cuando emitieron el decreto citado, sin embargo el Instituto recurrido no, al considerar que es suficiente la divulgación de la información que realizó en el año 2004.
Independientemente de que la empresa amparada esté discutiendo en vía judicial el monto del avalúo, lo cierto es que el objeto de estudio de este recurso se ampara en una lesión a un derecho fundamental cuya legitimación es de carácter difuso, pues lo discutido -difusión de adecuada y actualizada información sobre las investigaciones científicas realizadas alrededor de los campos electromagnéticos-, atañe no sólo a los miembros de la comunidad, sino también de la ciudadanía en general, por tratarse de materia ambiental. Es por ello que el amparo resulta estimatorio, en tanto este Tribunal por conducta omisiva del ICE se consideran violentados los artículos 11, 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política. No obstante, la estimatoria de este recurso no conlleva el otorgamiento de lo pedido por el amparado, en el sentido de que la Sala obligue al ICE a crear un Departamento especializado para brindar la información en cuestión, por cuanto ello constituye un asunto de resorte administrativo que excede las potestades de este Tribunal, por consiguiente se rechaza la pretensión del recurrente en este sentido.
Por tanto:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso. En consecuencia, se ordena a Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés en su condición de Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, que de forma inmediata a la comunicación de esta sentencia informe ampliamente a las comunidades respectivas sobre las investigaciones y pronunciamientos científicos más relevantes que a nivel internacional se realicen sobre los campos eléctricos y magnéticos y su relación con la salud humana, lo cual deberá realizar al menos semestralmente. 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 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. Se rechaza de plano la pretensión del recurrente, que consiste en obligar al ICE a crear un departamento de Gestión de Riesgos e Información sobre los Campos Electromagnéticos. Notifíquese esta resolución a Pedro Pablo Quirós Cortés en su condición de Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, o a quien en su lugar ejerza el cargo, en forma personal y al Presidente del Concejo Municipal de Liberia. Comuníquese.- Luis Fernando Solano C.
Luis Paulino Mora M. Ana Virginia Calzada M.
Adrián Vargas B. Gilbert Armijo S.
Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.