Rejection of unconstitutionality action against San Isidro de Heredia Regulatory PlanRechazo de inconstitucionalidad contra Plan Regulador de San Isidro de Heredia

*070095410007CO* Res. No. 2010-003306 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-five minutes on February seventeenth, two thousand ten.

Unconstitutionality action filed by Erick Thompson Piñeres, of legal age, bearer of identity card number 1-287-928, representing the company Inversiones Sánchez Solera S.A., against articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005.

Resultando:

1. 1In a brief received at the Secretariat at fifteen hours fifty-five minutes on July twelfth, two thousand seven, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005, be declared. He considers that the norm is contrary to constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and inviolability of private property. He states that the rules are being challenged insofar as, in the petitioner's opinion, they imply the revocation and/or annulment of all procedures carried out by his represented party relating to the construction of the "Doña Marcela" housing project, by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements and, ultimately, by not including a transitory provision that would allow the petitioners to come into compliance with the new requirements.Specifically, he indicates that article 26 of the Regulatory Plan renders null and void all the technical requirements met by his represented party, having to process all permits and procedures before the Municipality again. Article 73 defines zones different from those existing when the project was processed in favor of his represented party and places them in a state of defenselessness against the norm. Article 74 defines a different zoning for the processing of land-use permits allowed in that zone. Article 76 establishes that all procedures already carried out to date are rendered null and void and new requirements must be met, also varying the size of the lots that had already been approved in their favor. Numeral 77 "freezes" the real estate under study and imposes restrictions that limit the maximum number of lots permitted in developments for each of the districts of the canton, lowering the land-use yield percentage from 70% to 60%. It indicates as the base matter the amparo appeal number 07-008797-0007-CO, filed against the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia.
2. 2In order to substantiate the standing he holds to file this unconstitutionality action, he indicates the existence of amparo appeal number 09-008797-0007-CO.
3. 3By resolution number 2007-012405 at fifteen hours thirteen minutes on August twenty-ninth, two thousand seven, this Chamber agreed: "... The action is dismissed out of hand insofar as it challenges articles 73 and 74 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005. It is ordered to give it course in all other respects..." (see folio 29-31 of the file).
4. 4By a resolution at nine hours and twenty-six minutes on September fourth, two thousand seven, the action was given course, granting a hearing to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia (see folio 33 of the file).
5. 5Attorney Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, Procuradora General de la República, answers the granted hearing at folio 39, stating that: a) Regarding the petitioner's standing: She states that the action is admissible because there is an Amparo Appeal filed by Mr. Manuel Morales Urbina before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is being processed under file No. 09-008797-0007-CO, currently pending resolution. b) Regarding the merits of the action: Articles 76 and 77 of the challenged zoning regulation do not violate the right to private property or the freedom of enterprise as they are not limitations that affect its essential content; they do not constitute "restrictions or limits that make its exercise impracticable, hinder it beyond what is reasonable, or strip it of the necessary protection." She says that the submission to the land use established by the zoning contained in the regulatory plan does not imply the loss of the powers inherent to an owner or a businessperson but rather their limitation due to the purposes that the zoning pursues.She says that one of the restrictions or obligations to which urban property is subjected is the subjection of the exercise of the right to build to the obtaining of a construction permit, license, or authorization, as a technique of administrative intervention through which the State carries out the subordination of private interests to public ones. Authorization, license, or permit fall into the group of administrative acts that expand the subjective rights or legitimate interests of their recipients. She adds that the feasibility of preliminary plans or a proposed design for the development generally constitutes an optional procedure, a service of mere guidance for the interested party, which does not authorize the developer to execute works or proceed to the sale of lots; therefore, it is subject to modifications to adapt it "to the urban planning provisions in force in the canton." She requests that the action be upheld only with respect to the cessation of effects of construction permits contained in article 26 of the regulatory plan.
6. 6Mrs. Elvia Dicciana Villalobos Arguello, Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia, answers the granted hearing at folio 57, stating that: a) Articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia are not Unconstitutional, since pursuant to article 5 of the Municipal Code, which indicates that generic municipal competence does not affect the attributions conferred on other entities of the Public Administration; b) The constituent included an indeterminate legal concept in article 169, by pointing out that it corresponds to the Municipality of each canton to administer local services and interests, it is required to be in contact with the reality for which it is intended, so the only way to define or distinguish what is local from what is not is through a legal text, that is, it is the law that must do so, or failing that, and depending on the case, it must be done through the jurisprudential interpretation that jurisdictional control makes of those contents; c) The petitioner submitted a preliminary project called Doña Marcela, which consisted of three parts, a Residential Condominium, a Commercial Condominium, and a Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), and according to the Urban Planning Law, the three preliminary projects cannot be treated as one since the Urban and legal requirements are different, as each stage must have independent cadastral plans and total independence from each other; d) Later, a preliminary project was submitted called El Portillo, with the urban planning corrections that had to be implemented to comply with the cited rules and laws; e) As it was larger, the streets were shortened, with a modification of the hydraulic response, since ten condominiums were submitted, which was not the one originally submitted, which was a single one, and as one can see the need for each project to have its own green areas, children's playgrounds, individual drainage outlets, channeling structures; f) The petitioner has not been clear in defining which project he wants to process, as the two are different; g) It should be the project structure called Doña Marcela which should adjust to the INVU's request, since being three, they could not be considered as one because they have very different legal requirements; h) The second one, called El Portillo, was submitted to analyze the rules pending compliance according to the Urban Planning Law, the National Subdivision Control Regulation (Reglamento para control Nacional de Fraccionamiento), the Constructions Law, for which the urban planning corrections were indicated to comply with the cited rules and laws; i) The problem is that the first project, divided into three, ended up being a plan with a mosaic of twelve properties; j) If this project is approved, it must have and comply with basic services, green areas, common zones, water drainage, a wastewater treatment plant, so it cannot be approved in stages as the petitioner intends, since each one must comply with the legal requirements demanded by law; k) The petitioner Never obtained the License or Construction permit for any of the preliminary projects submitted, and it was not that the Municipality of San Isidro ever rendered null and void any construction permit granted prior to the Regulatory Plan, as indicated by the Director of Urban Development in official communication DDU07-105, certification of October 3, 2007; l) According to ruling 2002-3723 of the Constitutional Chamber, which orders a resolution regarding the preliminary project, it does not indicate that the petitioner's request must be resolved favorably, and there is no disobedience since the permit was denied in agreement CM-292-2006 of September 2, 2006, because the petitioner presented a series of modifications that prevented said approval; m) With the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, no administrative act generating subjective rights in favor of the petitioner existed; n) As indicated in article 169, there is a series of functions in favor of local governments, to which total autonomy is granted, although subject to fiscal, financial, accounting, and legality control by the Contraloría General de la Republica. She requests that the action be declared without merit.
7. 7The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 191, 192, and 193 of the Boletín Judicial, on the 4th, 5th, and 8th of October 2007 (see folio 319 of the file).
8. 8In a brief received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at seventeen hours and fifteen minutes on October twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, Mr. Walter Hernández Fonseca, in his capacity as judicial and extrajudicial representative of the corporation La Señora, filed a request for joinder (coadyuvancia) (see folio 320 of the file).
9. 9In a brief received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at fourteen hours and twenty-one minutes on August seventh, two thousand nine, the petitioner requests prompt dispatch (see folio 332 of the file).
10. 10In a brief received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at eleven hours and fifty-four minutes on October second, two thousand nine, the petitioner files a request for dismissal (desistimiento) of the amparo appeal number 07-008797-0007-CO (see folio 336-338 of the file).
11. 11In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,

Considerando:

I. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION

GENERALITIES.- The unconstitutionality action is a procedure with certain formalities, which, if not met, make it impossible for the Chamber to hear the challenge made. This Chamber has previously considered in this regard:

"[...] it is a proceeding of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, meaning that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required - either before the courts of justice or in the proceeding to exhaust the administrative remedy - in order to access the constitutional remedy, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the main matter, such that what is resolved by the Constitutional Court has a positive or negative impact on said proceeding pending resolution, as it rules on the constitutionality of the rules that must be applied in said matter; and only by exception does the legislation allow direct access to this remedy - conditions of the second and third paragraphs of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction -" (judgment number 4190-95, at eleven hours thirty-three minutes on July twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-five).

Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions, and regulates three different situations. The first paragraph establishes the general rule and requires the existence of a matter pending resolution, either in a judicial forum - which includes habeas corpus or amparo appeals -, or in the administrative forum, only in the proceeding to exhaust this remedy, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the main matter. That provision states that "To file the unconstitutionality action, it is necessary that there be a matter pending resolution before the courts, including habeas corpus or amparo, or in the proceeding to exhaust the administrative remedy, in which said unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest that is considered injured." The requirement of the existence of this matter pending resolution has been interpreted by this Chamber in such a way that the mere existence of that matter is not sufficient, but rather its invocation in the main matter is required, so that it constitutes a "reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured," as provided in the norm under discussion, that is, the mere invocation of unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is not sufficient, rather it must be directly or indirectly applicable in the matter that supports the action; as this Chamber has repeatedly stated, among others, see judgments 01668-90, 04085-93, 00798-94, 03615-94, 00409-I-95, 00851-95, 04190-95, 00791-96.

In turn, the second and third paragraphs regulate exceptions to the general rule, establishing cases of direct action; that is, situations in which the base matter is not required, in the following assumptions: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or it involves the defense of diffuse interests, or those that concern the community as a whole; and b) when the action is filed by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes. In addition to what has already been stated, certain important formalities are required for filing the unconstitutionality action, such as the explicit determination of the challenged norms, duly reasoned, with a specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered infringed, authentication by an attorney of the filing brief, the necessary copies for the magistrates who are members of the Chamber, the Procuraduría, and the parties involved in the main matter, accreditation of the standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), and a literal certification of the challenging brief, which, if not provided by the petitioners, must be ordered for compliance by the President of the Chamber.

III. SUBJECT OF THE CHALLENGE

The petitioner challenges articles 26, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005, which indicate:

Article 26. The preliminary projects that as of the date of entry into force of the Regulatory Plan have the approval of the Municipal Engineering Department, as well as the land-use certificates and construction permits where construction has not begun and that were granted before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, shall be rendered null and void, the interested party having to process them again before the Municipality, without prejudice to the new provisions that, with the regulatory plan, may affect the property or the project.

Article 73. Definition. The urban expansion zone (zona de expansión urbana) is intended to guarantee the necessary spaces to accommodate the future population, allowing its orderly current location and expansion. They are lands planned for the development of future developments (urbanizaciones).

Article 74.—The GENERIC USES applicable to the entire space comprising the ZEU are the following, according to the list established in article 60 of this Regulation: Permitted uses: 1, 4, 8, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43, 48, 64, 72, 76, 78, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 101, 107, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 135, 137, 142, 144, 145, 146, 155, 170, 171, 172, 173 - 174.

Non-permitted or prohibited uses: All uses that have not been included as permitted uses shall be non-permitted or prohibited uses.

Article 76.—The permitted uses established for the ZEU must comply with the following minimum regulations, without prejudice to additional regulations that do not contradict those established in this article, which the DDU may adopt, via municipal agreement, with the objective of enforcing the Regulatory Plan. Likewise, all specific regulations established in the Subdivision and Development Regulations (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones) of the Urban Planning Law and other laws and regulations in force must be applied.

Article 77.—The process of developing developments until the year 2018 (validity of the regulatory plan), shall be governed by the following maximum number of lots permitted in developments for each of the districts:

| District | Number of lots | | --- | --- | | San Isidro | 1,250 | | San José | 875 | | San Francisco | 625 | | Santa Cecilia | 500 | The maximum number of lots has been considered based on the area available for urban expansion (ZEU), a minimum lot size of 300 m², and a land-use yield percentage of 60%, considering that 40% must be allocated to public roads, green areas, communal facilities, and protection areas. If in a four-year period quotas lower than those authorized are requested, the remainder (or even the total) may be accumulated and authorized for the following period, only in the corresponding district. In the event that the development process occurs with lots larger than 300 m², the Municipality will not authorize developments outside the ZEU, even if the quota corresponding to the total of lots for the period has not been met.

Article 124.—Effective date. This Regulation and its zoning maps are effective as of their approval and publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta.

The petitioner considers that it is unconstitutional because it contravenes constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and inviolability of private property. He states that the rules imply the revocation and/or annulment of all procedures carried out by his represented party relating to the construction of the "Doña Marcela" housing project, by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements, and ultimately, by not including a transitory provision that would allow the petitioners to come into compliance with the new requirements.

IV. THE RULES OF LEGITIMATION IN UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTIONS IN THE SPECIFIC CASE

As indicated in the first considering clause of this judgment, the pendency of a matter, whether in the exhaustion phase of the administrative remedy or in a judicial forum, is an admissibility requirement for the unconstitutionality action. The base proceeding for this action is an amparo appeal processed in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, under number 07-008797-0007-CO. In said proceeding, judgment number 2009-016540 was issued at seventeen hours forty-six minutes on October 27, 2009, ordering the archiving of the file given the request for dismissal filed by the petitioner. From that moment, the base proceeding for this action is considered concluded. Consequently, it is appropriate to dismiss out of hand the filed action for lacking a current interest.

Por tanto:

The action is dismissed out of hand.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Presidente a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa Esmeralda Blanco M. Roxana Salazar C.

Rodolfo Piza R. José Paulino Hernández G.

FCC/40/jcalderonm.- Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712.

Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional Res. No. 2010-003306 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at two fifty-five in the afternoon of February seventeenth, two thousand ten.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Erick Thompson Piñeres, of legal age, holder of identity card number 1-287-928, representing the company Inversiones Sánchez Solera S.A., against articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77 and 124 of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005.

Whereas:

1. 1By brief received in the Secretariat at three fifty-five in the afternoon of July twelfth, two thousand seven, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77 and 124 of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005, be declared. He considers that the norm is contrary to constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and inviolability of private property. He states that the norms are challenged insofar as, in the petitioner's opinion, they entail the revocation and/or annulment of all the procedures carried out by his represented party relating to the construction of the "Doña Marcela" housing project, by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements and, ultimately, by not contemplating a transitional provision that would allow the applicants to comply with the new requirements.Specifically, he indicates that article 26 of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) renders null and void all the technical requirements fulfilled by his represented party, requiring all permits and procedures to be processed anew before the Municipality. Article 73 defines zones different from those existing when the project was processed in favor of his represented party and places the latter in a state of defenselessness against the norm. Article 74 defines a different zoning for the processing of land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelos) allowed in that zone. Article 76 establishes that all procedures already carried out to date are rendered null and void and new requirements must be met, also varying the size of the lots that were already approved in their favor. Numeral 77 "freezes" the real property under study and imposes restrictions that limit the maximum number of lots permitted in subdivisions (urbanizaciones) for each of the districts of the canton, lowering the land utility percentage from 70% to 60%. It indicates as the underlying matter the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) number 07-008797-0007-CO, filed against the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia.
2. 2For the purpose of substantiating the standing he holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, he points to the existence of amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) number 09-008797-0007-CO.
3. 3By resolution number 2007-012405 of three thirteen in the afternoon of August twenty-ninth, two thousand seven, this Chamber resolved: *"... The action is dismissed outright insofar as it challenges articles 73 and 74 of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005.*

It is ordered to proceed with the rest…” </i>(see folios 29-31 of the case file).

1. 4By resolution at nine hours and twenty-six minutes on September fourth, two thousand seven, the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia (see folio 33 of the case file).
2. 5Licensed Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, Attorney General of the Republic, responds at folio 39 to the hearing granted, stating that: a) Regarding the petitioner's standing: She states that the action is admissible because there exists a Recourse of Amparo filed by Mr. Manuel Morales Urbina before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is being processed under case file No. 09-008797-0007-CO, which is currently pending resolution. b) Regarding the merits of the action: Articles 76 and 77 of the contested zoning regulation do not violate the right to private property nor the freedom of enterprise insofar as they are not limitations that affect their essential content, they do not constitute *“restrictions or limits that make their exercise impracticable, hinder it beyond what is reasonable, or strip it of the necessary protection”*. She says that subjection to the land use established by the zoning contained in the regulatory plan does not imply the loss of the faculties inherent to a property owner or an entrepreneur, but rather their limitation due to the purposes that the zoning pursues.She says that one of the restrictions or obligations to which urban property is subject is the subjection of the exercise of the right to build to the obtaining of a construction permit (permiso de construcción), license, or authorization, as a technique of administrative intervention through which the State carries out the subordination of private interests to public ones. The authorization, license, or permit falls into the group of administrative acts that broaden the subjective rights or legitimate interests of their recipients. She adds that the feasibility of the preliminary plans or design proposal for the urbanization generally constitutes an optional procedure, a service of mere guidance for the interested party, which does not authorize the developer to execute works or proceed with the sale of lots; therefore, it is subject to modifications to adapt it “to the urban planning provisions in force in the canton.” She requests that the action be upheld only with regard to the cessation of effects of the construction permits contained in Article 26 of the regulatory plan.
3. 6Mrs. Elvia Dicciana Villalobos Arguello, Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia, responds at folio 57 to the hearing granted, stating that: a) Articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia are not unconstitutional, since according to Article 5 of the Municipal Code, which indicates that generic municipal competence does not affect the powers conferred on other entities of the Public Administration; b) The framers included an indeterminate legal concept in Article 169, by indicating that it corresponds to the Municipality of each canton to administer local services and interests; it is required to be in contact with the reality it is intended for, so that the only way to define or distinguish what is local from what is not is by means of a legal text, that is, it is the law that must do so, or failing that and depending on the case, it must be done through jurisprudential interpretation, of those contents, that jurisdictional control makes; c) The petitioner submitted a preliminary project called Doña Marcela, which consisted of three parts: Residential Condominium, Commercial Condominium, and Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), and according to the Urban Planning Law, the three preliminary projects cannot be treated as a single one since the urban planning and legal requirements are different, as each stage must have independent cadastre plans and each one of them must be fully independent; d) Later, a preliminary project called El Portillo was submitted, with the urban planning corrections that had to be implemented to comply with the cited norms and laws; e) Since it was larger, the streets were reduced, with a modification of the hydraulic response, given that ten condominiums were presented, which was not the one originally presented, which was a single one, and as can be seen, the need for each project to have its own green areas, children's playgrounds, individual drainage outlets, and channeling conduits; f) The petitioner has not been clear in defining which project is the one he wants to process, since the two are different; g) It should be the structure of the project called Doña Marcela that should adjust to the request from INVU, since being three, they could not be considered as a single one because they have very different legal requirements; h) The second, called El Portillo, was submitted to analyze the pending standards to be met according to the Urban Planning Law, the Regulation for National Control of Subdivisions (Reglamento para control Nacional de Fraccionamiento), and the Construction Law, for which the urban planning corrections were indicated to comply with the cited norms and laws; i) The problem is that the first project, divided into three, ended up being a plan with a mosaic of twelve farms; j) If this project were to be approved, it must have and comply with basic services, green areas, common zones, water drainage outlets, and a sewage treatment plant, so it cannot be approved in stages as the petitioner intends, since each one must comply with the legal requirements demanded by law; k) The petitioner never came to obtain the License or Construction Permit for any of the preliminary projects submitted, and it was not that the Municipality of San Isidro never rendered void any construction permit granted prior to the Regulatory Plan, as indicated by the Director of Urban Development in official communication DDU07-105, certification dated October 3, 2007; l) According to constitutional ruling 2002-3723 of the Constitutional Chamber, which orders a resolution regarding the preliminary project, it does not indicate that the petitioner's request must be resolved favorably, and there is no disobedience since the permit was denied in agreement CM-292-2006 of September 2, 2006, because the petitioner submitted a series of modifications that prevented said approval; m) With the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, no administrative act generated subjective rights in favor of the plaintiff; n) As indicated in Article 169, there exists a series of functions in favor of local governments, to which full autonomy is given, although subject to fiscal, financial, accounting, and legality oversight by the Comptroller General of the Republic. She requests that the action be dismissed.
4. 7The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 191, 192, and 193 of the Judicial Bulletin, on the 4th, 5th, and 8th of October 2007 (see folio 319 of the case file).
5. 8By writing received in the Secretariat of this Chamber at seventeen hours and fifteen minutes on October twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, Mr. Walter Hernández Fonseca, in his capacity as judicial and extrajudicial representative of the corporation La Señora, submitted a request for joinder (coadyuvancia) (see folio 320 of the case file).
6. 9By writing received in the Secretariat of this Chamber at fourteen hours and twenty-one minutes on August seventh, two thousand nine, the petitioner requests expedited dispatch (see folio 332 of the case file).
7. 10By writing received in the Secretariat of this Chamber at eleven hours and fifty-four minutes on October second, two thousand nine, the petitioner submits a request for withdrawal of the recurso de amparo number 07-008797-0007-CO (see folios 336-338 of the case file).
8. 11In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,

Considering:

I. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION

GENERALITIES.- The acción de inconstitucionalidad is a procedure with certain formalities, which, if not met, make it impossible for the Chamber to hear the challenge made. Previously, this Chamber has considered regarding this matter:

*"[...] it is a process of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required—whether before the courts of justice or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative remedy—in order to access the constitutional route, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered violated in the principal matter, so that what is resolved by the Constitutional Court has a positive or negative repercussion on said process pending resolution, insofar as it rules on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in said matter; and only by exception does the legislation allow direct access to this route—presuppositions of the second and third paragraphs of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction"* (judgment number 4190-95, at eleven hours and thirty-three minutes on July twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-five).

In Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the admissibility requirements for acciones de inconstitucionalidad are established, and three different situations are regulated. The first paragraph establishes the general rule and <u>requires the existence of a matter pending resolution</u>, whether in a judicial venue—which includes hábeas corpus or amparo recourses—or in the administrative venue, only in the process of exhausting this remedy, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked, as a reasonable means of protecting the right considered violated in the principal matter. That provision states that *"To file the acción de inconstitucionalidad it is necessary that there exists a matter pending resolution before the courts, including habeas corpus or amparo, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative remedy, in which that unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered violated."* The requirement of the existence of this matter pending resolution has been interpreted by this Chamber in such a way that the mere existence of that matter is not enough; rather, its invocation is required in the principal matter, in such a way that it constitutes *"a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered violated,"* just as the norm under comment provides, i.e., the mere invocation of unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is not enough; rather, it must be applicable—directly or indirectly—in the matter that supports the action; as this Chamber has repeatedly stated, among others, see judgments 01668-90, 04085-93, 00798-94, 03615-94, 00409-I-95, 00851-95, 04190-95, 00791-96.

In turn, in the second and third paragraphs, the exceptions to the general rule are regulated, establishing cases of direct action; that is, situations where the base matter is not required, under the following assumptions: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, or those that concern the community as a whole; and b) when the action is brought by the Attorney General of the Republic, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and the Ombudsman. In addition to what has already been said, the presentation of the acción de inconstitucionalidad requires certain important formalities, such as the explicit determination of the regulations challenged, duly substantiated, with a specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered infringed, authentication by a lawyer of the writ filing the action, the necessary copies for the magistrates comprising the Chamber, the Office of the Attorney General, and the parties involved in the principal matter, accreditation of standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), and a literal certification of the libel of challenge, which, if not provided by the petitioners, must be ordered for compliance by the President of the Chamber.

III. OBJECT OF THE CHALLENGE

The petitioner challenges Articles 26, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005, which indicate:

*Article 26. The preliminary projects that, as of the date of entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, have the approval of the Engineering Department of the Municipality, as well as land use certificates and construction permits when construction has not begun and that were granted before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, shall be rendered void, and the interested party must process them again before the Municipality, without prejudice to the new provisions that, with the regulatory plan, may affect the property or the project.* *Article 73. Definition. The urban expansion zone (zona de expansión urbana, ZEU) is intended to guarantee the necessary spaces to house the future population, allowing its orderly current location and expansion. They are lands designated for the development of future urbanizations.* *Article 74.—The GENERIC USES that are applicable to the entire space comprising the ZEU are the following, according to the list established in Article 60 of this Regulation: Permitted uses: 1, 4, 8, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43, 48, 64, 72, 76, 78, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 101, 107, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 135, 137, 142, 144, 145, 146, 155, 170, 171, 172, 173 - 174.* *Unpermitted or prohibited uses: All those that have not been included as permitted uses shall be unpermitted or prohibited uses.* *Article 76.—The permitted uses established for the ZEU must comply with the following minimum regulations, without detriment to additional regulations not contradicting those established in this article, which the DDU may adopt, via municipal agreement, with the objective of enforcing the Regulatory Plan.

Likewise, all specific regulations established in the Subdivision and Urbanization Regulations (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones) of the Urban Planning Law and other laws and regulations in force must be applied.*

*Article 77.—The development process for urbanizations up to the year 2018 (term of the regulatory plan) shall be governed by the following maximum number of lots permitted in urbanizations for each of the districts:*

*The maximum number of lots has been considered based on the area available for urban expansion (ZEU), a minimum lot size of 300 m², and a land utility percentage of 60%, considering that 40% must be destined for public roads, green areas, communal facilities, and protection areas. If in a four-year period quotas lower than those authorized are requested, the remainder (or even the total) may be accumulated and authorized for the next period, only in the corresponding district. In the event that the urbanization process occurs with lots larger than 300 m², the Municipality shall not authorize urbanizations outside the ZEU, even if the quota corresponding to the total lots for the period has not been met.* *Article 124.—<b>Effective Date.</b> This Regulation and its zoning maps become effective upon their approval and publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta.* The petitioner considers that it is unconstitutional because it contravenes constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and inviolability of private property.

He states that the norms imply the revocation and/or annulment of all procedures carried out by his represented party concerning the construction of the housing project “Doña Marcela,” by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements, and, ultimately, by not contemplating a transitory provision that would allow the managers to comply with the new requirements.

IV. THE STANDING RULES IN ACCIONES DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD IN THE SPECIFIC CASE

As indicated in the first considering of this judgment, the pendency of a matter, whether in the phase of exhausting the administrative remedy, or in a judicial venue, is a requirement for the admissibility of the acción de inconstitucionalidad. The base process for this action is a recurso de amparo processed in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, under number 07-008797-0007-CO. In said process, judgment number 2009-016540 was issued at seventeen hours and forty-six minutes on October 27, 2009, ordering the closing of the case file due to the request for withdrawal submitted by the petitioner. From that moment, the base process for this action is considered concluded. Consequently, it is appropriate to dismiss the filed action outright for lacking a current interest.

Therefore:

The action is dismissed outright.

Acting President Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa Esmeralda Blanco M. Roxana Salazar C.

Rodolfo Piza R. José Paulino Hernández G.

FCC/40/jcalderonm.- Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712.

Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional *070095410007CO* Res. Nº 2010-003306 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-five minutes on February seventeenth, two thousand ten.

An action of unconstitutionality brought by Erick Thompson Piñeres, of legal age, bearer of identity card number 1-287-928, representing the company Inversiones Sánchez Solera S.A., against Articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005.

Considering:

1. 1In a brief received at the Secretariat at fifteen hours and fifty-five minutes on July twelfth, two thousand seven, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of Articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 on December 15, 2005, be declared. He considers that the norm is contrary to constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and the inviolability of private property. He states that the norms are challenged in that, in the petitioner's opinion, they imply the revocation and/or annulment of all the procedures carried out by his represented party relating to the construction of the “Doña Marcela” housing project, by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements, and, ultimately, by not including a transitional provision that would allow the applicants to comply with the new requirements.Specifically, he indicates that Article 26 of the Regulatory Plan nullifies all the technical requirements fulfilled by his represented party, requiring them to process all permits and procedures anew before the Municipality. Article 73 defines different zones from those existing when the project was approved for his represented party and places the latter in a state of defenselessness against the norm. Article 74 defines a different zoning for the processing of permitted land-use permits in that zone. Article 76 establishes that all procedures already completed to date are nullified and new requirements must be met, also varying the size of the lots that were already approved in their favor. Numeral 77 “freezes” the real property under study and imposes restrictions that limit the maximum number of lots allowed in developments (urbanizaciones) for each of the districts of the canton, reducing the land profitability percentage from 70% to 60%.

It indicates as the underlying matter the amparo appeal number 07-008797-0007-CO, filed against the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia.

1. 2For the purpose of substantiating the legal standing held to bring this unconstitutionality action, it points to the existence of amparo appeal number 09-008797-0007-CO.
2. 3By resolution number 2007-012405 of fifteen hours thirteen minutes on August twenty-ninth, two thousand seven, this Chamber agreed: “... The action is rejected outright insofar as it challenges articles 73 and 74 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005. It is ordered to proceed in all other respects...” (see folio 29-31 of the case file).
3. 4By resolution of nine hours twenty-six minutes on September fourth, two thousand seven, the action was allowed to proceed, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia (see folio 33 of the case file).
4. 5Attorney Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, Attorney General of the Republic, responds at folio 39 to the granted hearing, stating that: a) On the petitioner's legal standing: She states that the action is admissible because there is an Amparo Appeal filed by Mr. Manuel Morales Urbina before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is being processed under case file No. 09-008797-0007-CO, and which is currently pending resolution. b) On the merits of the action: Articles 76 and 77 of the challenged zoning regulation do not violate the right to private property nor the freedom of enterprise insofar as these are not limitations affecting their essential content; they do not constitute “restrictions or limits that make their exercise impracticable, hinder it beyond what is reasonable, or strip it of the necessary protection.” She says that submission to the land use established by the zoning contained in the regulatory plan does not imply the loss of the faculties inherent to an owner or an entrepreneur, but rather their limitation due to the purposes that zoning pursues.She says that one of the restrictions or obligations to which urban property is subjected is the subjection of the exercise of the right to build to obtaining a construction permit (permiso de construcción), license, or authorization, as a technique of administrative intervention through which the State carries out the subordination of private interests to public ones. The authorization, license, or permit falls within the group of administrative acts that broaden the subjective rights or legitimate interests of their recipients. She adds that the feasibility of preliminary plans or the proposed design of the urban development generally constitutes an optional procedure, a merely advisory service for the interested party, which does not authorize the developer to execute works or proceed with the sale of lots; therefore, it is subject to modifications to adapt it “to the urban planning provisions in force in the canton.” She requests that the action be upheld only with respect to the cessation of effects of construction permits contained in article 26 of the regulatory plan.
5. 6Mrs. Elvia Dicciana Villalobos Arguello, Municipal Mayor of San Isidro de Heredia, responds at folio 57 to the granted hearing, stating that: a) Articles 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia are not unconstitutional, since according to article 5 of the Municipal Code, which indicates that generic municipal competence does not affect the powers conferred on other Public Administration entities; b) The constitutional framers included an indeterminate legal concept in article 169, by stating that the Municipality of each canton is responsible for administering local services and interests; being in contact with the reality for which it is intended is required, so that the only way to define or distinguish what is local from what is not, is by means of a legal text, that is, it is the law that must do so, or failing that, and depending on the case, it must be done through the jurisprudential interpretation of those contents carried out by judicial review; c) The petitioner presented a preliminary project called Doña Marcela, which consisted of three parts, Residential Condominium, Commercial Condominium and Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), and according to the Urban Planning Law, the three preliminary projects cannot be treated as one since the urban planning and legal requirements are different, as each phase must have independent cadastral plans and complete independence from one another; d) Subsequently, a preliminary project El Portillo was presented, with the urban planning corrections that had to be implemented to comply with the cited regulations and laws; e) Given that it was larger, the streets were reduced, with a modification of the hydraulic response, since ten condominiums were presented, which was not the one originally presented, which was a single one, and thus the need is seen for each project to have its own green areas, children's playgrounds, individual outfalls, channeling; f) The petitioner has not been clear in defining which project he intends to process, since the two are different; g) It should be the project structure called Doña Marcela which should adjust to the INVU application, since being three they could not be considered as one because they have very different legal requirements; h) The second one, called El Portillo, was presented to analyze the regulations pending compliance according to the Urban Planning Law, Regulations for National Control of Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), Construction Law, to which the urban planning corrections were indicated to comply with the cited regulations and laws; i) The problem is that the first project, divided into three, ended up being a plan with a mosaic of twelve farms; j) If this project is approved, it must have and comply with basic services, green areas, common areas, water outfalls, a wastewater treatment plant, so it cannot be approved in phases as the petitioner intends since each one must comply with the legal requirements demanded by law; k) The petitioner never obtained the Construction License or Permit for any of the presented preliminary projects, and it was not that the Municipality of San Isidro ever rendered null and void any construction permit granted prior to the Regulatory Plan, as indicated by the Director of Urban Development in official letter DDU07-105, certification dated October 3, 2007; l) According to ruling 2002-3723 of the Constitutional Chamber, which orders a decision regarding the preliminary project, it does not state that the petitioner's request must be resolved favorably, and there is no disobedience since the permit was denied in agreement CM-292-2006 of September 2, 2006, because the petitioner presented a series of modifications that prevented said approval; m) With the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, no administrative act generated subjective rights in favor of the petitioner; n) As article 169 indicates, there exists a series of functions in favor of local governments, to which total autonomy is given, although subject to financial, accounting, and legality control by the Comptroller General of the Republic. She requests that the action be dismissed.
6. 7The notices referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 191, 192, and 193 of the Judicial Bulletin, on the 4th, 5th, and 8th of October 2007 (see folio 319 of the case file).
7. 8By document received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at seventeen hours fifteen minutes on October twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, Mr. Walter Hernández Fonseca, in his capacity as judicial and extrajudicial representative of the corporation La Señora, presented a request for intervention as coadjuvant (see folio 320 of the case file).
8. 9By document received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at fourteen hours twenty-one minutes on August seventh, two thousand nine, the petitioner requests prompt dispatch (see folio 332 of the case file).
9. 10By document received at the Secretariat of this Chamber at eleven hours fifty-four minutes on October second, two thousand nine, the petitioner presents a request for withdrawal of amparo appeal number 07-008797-0007-CO (see folio 336-338 of the case file).
10. 11In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Judge Cruz Castro; and,

Considering:

I. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION

GENERALITIES.- The unconstitutionality action is a procedure with certain formalities, which, if not fulfilled, prevent the Chamber from hearing the challenge made. This Chamber has previously considered in this regard:

"[...] it is a procedure of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required -whether before the courts of justice or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route- in order to access the constitutional route, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the main matter, so that what is decided by the Constitutional Court positively or negatively impacts said pending process, since it rules on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in that matter; and only by exception does the legislation allow direct access to this route - assumptions of the second and third paragraphs of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction-" (judgment number 4190-95, of eleven hours thirty-three minutes on July twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-five).

Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions, and three different situations are regulated. The first paragraph establishes the general rule and requires the existence of a matter pending resolution, whether in a judicial venue -which includes habeas corpus or amparo appeals- or in the administrative venue, only in the procedure for exhausting this route, in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm is invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right considered injured in the main matter. That provision states: "To file an unconstitutionality action it is necessary that there exists a matter pending resolution before the courts, including habeas corpus or amparo, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route, in which said unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered injured." The requirement of the existence of this matter pending resolution has been interpreted by this Chamber in such a way that the mere existence of that matter is not sufficient, but rather its invocation in the main matter is required, so that it constitutes a "reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured," as provided by the norm in question, that is, the mere invocation of unconstitutionality of the challenged norm is not sufficient, but it must be applicable -directly or indirectly- in the matter that provides the basis for the action; as this Chamber has repeatedly stated, among others, see judgments 01668-90, 04085-93, 00798-94, 03615-94, 00409-I-95, 00851-95, 04190-95, 00791-96.

In turn, the second and third paragraphs regulate the exceptions to the general rule, establishing cases of direct action; that is, situations where the underlying matter is not required, under the following assumptions: a) when due to the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct injury, or it involves the defense of diffuse interests, or those that concern the community as a whole; and b) when the action is brought by the Attorney General of the Republic, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and the Ombudsperson. In addition to the foregoing, the presentation of the unconstitutionality action requires certain important formalities, such as the explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered infringed, authentication by an attorney of the filing document, the necessary copies for the magistrates members of the Chamber, the Attorney General's Office, and the parties intervening in the main matter, the accreditation of standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), and a literal certification of the challenge petition, which, if not provided by the petitioners, must be ordered for compliance by the President of the Chamber.

III. OBJECT OF THE CHALLENGE

The petitioner challenges articles 26, 76, 77, and 124 of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, published in La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005, which state:

Article 26. Preliminary projects that, as of the entry into force date of the Regulatory Plan, have the approval of the Municipality's Engineering Department, as well as land use certificates and construction permits when construction has not begun and that were granted before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, shall be rendered null and void, and the interested party must process them again before the Municipality, without prejudice to the new provisions that with the regulatory plan may affect the property or the project.

Article 73. Definition. The urban expansion zone's purpose is to guarantee the necessary spaces to accommodate the future population, allowing their orderly current location and expansion. They are lands intended for the development of future urbanizations.

Article 74.—The GENERIC uses that are applicable to all the space comprising the ZEU are the following, according to the list established in article 60 of this Regulation: Permitted uses: 1, 4, 8, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43, 48, 64, 72, 76, 78, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 101, 107, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 135, 137, 142, 144, 145, 146, 155, 170, 171, 172, 173 - 174.

Unpermitted or prohibited uses: All those uses that have not been included as permitted uses shall be unpermitted or prohibited uses.

Article 76.—The permitted uses established for the ZEU must comply with the following minimum regulations, without detriment to additional regulations that do not contradict those established in this article, which the DDU may adopt, via municipal agreement, with the objective of enforcing the Regulatory Plan. Likewise, all specific regulations established in the Subdivision and Urban Development Regulations (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones) of the Urban Planning Law and other current laws and regulations must be applied.

Article 77.—The urban development process until the year 2018 (validity of the regulatory plan) shall be governed by the following maximum number of lots permitted in urban developments for each of the districts:

The maximum number of lots has been considered based on the available area for urban expansion (ZEU), a minimum lot size of 300 m², and a land use percentage of 60%, considering that 40% must be allocated to public roads, green areas, community facilities, and protection areas. If in a four-year period quotas lower than those authorized are requested, the remainder (or even the total) may be accumulated and authorized for the following period, only in the corresponding district. In the event that the urbanization process occurs with lots larger than 300 m², the Municipality shall not authorize urban developments outside the ZEU, even if the corresponding quota for the total lots for the period has not been met.

Article 124.—Effective. This Regulation and its zoning maps are effective as of their approval and publication in the Official Journal La Gaceta.

The petitioner considers it unconstitutional because it contravenes constitutional principles and guarantees, including non-retroactivity, legal certainty, prompt and complete justice, good faith, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, freedom of choice, freedom of commerce, and inviolability of private property. He states that the regulations imply the revocation and/or annulment of all procedures carried out by his represented party related to the construction of the housing project "Doña Marcela," by not recognizing the permits already processed, changing the zones, demanding new requirements, and, ultimately, by not including a transitional provision allowing the applicants to comply with the new requirements.

IV. THE RULES OF STANDING IN UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTIONS IN THE SPECIFIC CASE

As indicated in the first considering clause of this judgment, the pendency of a matter, either in the phase of exhausting the administrative route, or in a judicial venue, is an admissibility requirement for the unconstitutionality action. The underlying proceeding for this action is an amparo appeal processed in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, under number 07-008797-0007-CO. In said proceeding, judgment number 2009-016540 was issued at seventeen hours forty-six minutes on October 27, 2009, ordering the archiving of the case file in response to the withdrawal request presented by the appellant. From that moment on, the underlying proceeding for this action is considered finalized. Consequently, it is appropriate to reject outright the action filed for lacking current interest.

Therefore:

The action is summarily dismissed.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Acting President Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa Esmeralda Blanco M. Roxana Salazar C.

Rodolfo Piza R. José Paulino Hernández G.

FCC/40/jcalderonm.-

*070095410007CO* Res. Nº 2010-003306 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas y cincuenta y cinco minutos del diecisiete de febrero del dos mil diez.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Erick Thompson Piñeres, mayor, portador de la cédula de identidad número 1-287-928, en representación de la sociedad Inversiones Sánchez Solera S.A., contra los artículos 26, 73, 74, 76, 77 y 124 del Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, publicado en La Gaceta 242 del 15 de diciembre del 2005.

Resultando:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría a las quince horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del doce de julio del dos mil siete el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 26, 73, 74, 76, 77 y 124 del Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, publicado en La Gaceta 242 del 15 de diciembre del 2005. Estima que la norma es contraria a los principios y garantías constitucionales, incluyendo la irretroactividad, seguridad jurídica, justicia pronta y cumplida, buena fe, razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, igualdad, libertad de elección, libertad de comercio e inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada. Manifiesta que las normas se impugnan en cuanto, en criterio del accionante, implican la revocación y/o anulación de todos los trámites realizados por su representada relativos a la construcción del proyecto habitacional “Doña Marcela”, al no reconocer los permisos ya tramitados, cambiar las zonas, exigir nuevos requisitos y, en última instancia, al no contemplar un transitorio que permitiera a los gestionantes ponerse a derecho con los nuevos requerimientos.En concreto, indica que el artículo 26 del Plan Regulador deja sin efecto todos los requisitos técnicos cumplidos por su representada, debiendo tramitar de nuevo ante la Municipalidad todos los permisos y gestiones. El artículo 73 define distintas zonas a las existentes cuando se tramitó el proyecto a favor de su representada y coloca a ésta en estado de indefensión frente a la norma. El artículo 74 define una zonificación distinta para la tramitación de permisos de uso de suelos permitidos en esa zona. El artículo 76 establece que todos los trámites ya efectuados hasta la fecha quedan sin efecto y deben cumplirse nuevos requisitos, variando además el tamaño de los lotes que ya estaban aprobados a su favor. El numeral 77 “congela” el bien inmueble objeto del estudio e impone restricciones que limitan el número máximo de lotes permitidos en urbanizaciones para cada uno de los distritos del cantón, bajando el porcentaje de utilidad de la tierra de un 70% a un 60%. Señala como asunto base el recurso de amparo número 07-008797-0007-CO, interpuesto contra la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia.
2. 2A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, señala la existencia del recurso de amparo número 09-008797-0007-CO.
3. 3Por resolución número 2007-012405 de las quince horas trece minutos del veintinueve de agosto del dos mil siete esta Sala acordó: “… Se rechaza de plano la acción en cuanto impugna los artículos 73 y 74 del Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, publicado en La Gaceta N°242 del 15 de diciembre del 2005. Se ordena darle curso en lo demás…” (ver folio 29-31 del expediente).
4. 4Por resolución de las nueve horas con veintiséis minutos del cuatro de setiembre del dos mil siete se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Alcalde Municipal de San Isidro de Heredia (ver folio 33 del expediente).
5. 5La licenciada Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, Procuradora General de la República contesta a folio 39 la audiencia concedida, manifestado que: a) De la legitimación del recurrente: Manifiesta que la acción resulta admisible porque existe un Recurso de Amparo planteado por el señor Manuel Morales Urbina ante la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, el cual se tramita bajo el expediente N° 09-008797-0007-CO, el cual actualmente se encuentra pendiente de resolver. b) Sobre el fondo de la acción: Los artículos 76 y 77 del reglamento de zonificación impugnados no quebrantan el derecho de propiedad privada ni la libertad de empresa en tanto no se trata de limitaciones que afecten su contenido esencial, no constituyen “ restricciones o límites que hagan impracticable su ejercicio, lo dificulten más allá de lo razonable o lo despojen de la necesaria protección”. Dice que el sometimiento al uso del suelo establecido por la zonificación contenida en el plan regulador, no implica la pérdida de las facultades propias de un propietario o un empresario, sino su limitación en razón de los fines que la zonificación persigue.Dice que una de las restricciones u obligaciones a las que se encuentra sometida la propiedad urbanística es la sujeción del ejercicio del derecho a edificar a la obtención del permiso de construcción, licencia o autorización, como técnica de intervención administrativa por medio de la cual el Estado lleva a cabo la subordinación de los intereses privados a los públicos. La autorización, la licencia o permiso se inscriben en el grupo de los actos administrativos que amplían los derechos subjetivos o intereses legítimos de sus destinatarios. Agrega que la factibilidad de los planos preliminares o propuesta de diseño de la urbanización, constituye generalmente un trámite opcional, un servicio de mera orientación para el interesado, que no autoriza al urbanizador para ejecutar obras o proceder a la venta de lotes, por lo tanto está sujeto a modificaciones para adecuarlo “a las disposiciones urbanísticas vigentes en el cantón”. Solicita estimar la acción únicamente en lo que respecta a la cesación de efectos de los permisos de construcción contenida en el artículo 26 del plan regulador.
6. 6La señora Elvia Dicciana Villalobos Arguello, Alcaldesa Municipal de San Isidro de Heredia, contesta a folio 57 la audiencia concedida, manifestando que: a) Los artículos 26, 73, 74, 76, 77, y 124 del Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, no son Inconstitucionales, ya que de acuerdo al artículo 5 del Código Municipal, el cual indica que la competencia municipal genérica no afecta las atribuciones conferida a otras entidades de la Administración Publica; b) El constituyente incluyo un concepto jurídico indeterminado en el articulo 169, al señalar que le corresponde a la Municipalidad de cada cantón administrar los servicios e intereses locales, se requiere, estar en contacto con la realidad a la que va destinado de manera que la única forma de definir o de distinguir lo local de lo que no lo es, es por medio de un texto legal, es decir es la ley la que debe hacerlo, o en su defecto y según sea el caso, deberá hacerse por medio de la interpretación jurisprudencial, que de esos contenidos haga el control jurisdiccional; c) La recurrente presentó un anteproyecto llamado Doña Marcela, el cual constaba con tres partes, Condominio Residencial, Condominio Comercial y Fraccionamiento, y de acuerdo a la Ley de Planificación Urbana no puede tratarse los tres anteproyectos como uno solo ya que los requisitos Urbanísticos y legales son diferentes ya que cada etapa debe contar con planos de catastro independientes y con independencia total cada uno de ellos; d) Luego se presentó un anteproyecto El Portillo, con las correcciones urbanísticas que debían de implementar para cumplir con las normas y leyes citadas; e) Dado que era mas grande se recortaron las calles , con una modificación de la respuesta hidráulica, ya que se presentaron diez condominios, el cual no era el que se presentó originalmente, el cual era uno solo, y como se ve la necesidad de que cada proyecto cuente con sus propias áreas verdes, juegos infantiles desfogues individuales, canalizadores; f) El recurrente no ha sido claro en definir cual proyecto es el que quiere tramitar, ya que los dos son diferentes; g) Debería ser la estructura de proyecto denominado Doña Marcela el cual debería ajustarse a la solicitud del INVU, ya que al ser tres no podrían considerarse como uno solo pues tienen requisitos legales muy diferentes; h) El segundo denominado El Portillo, fue presentado para analizar las normas pendientes de cumplir según la Ley de Planificación Urbana.Reglamento para control Nacional de Fraccionamiento Ley de Construcciones, al cual se le indicaron las correcciones urbanísticas para cumplir con las normas y leyes citadas; i) El problema es que el primer proyecto divido en tres, termino siendo un plano con un mosaico de doce fincas; j) De aprobarse este proyecto deberá contar y cumplir con los servicios básicos, áreas verdes, zonas comunes desfogues de aguas, planta de tratamiento de aguas negras, por lo que no se puede como pretende el recurrente ser aprobado por etapas ya que cada una debe cumplir con los requisitos legales exigidos por ley; k) El recurrente Nunca llego a obtener la Licencia o Permiso de construcción para ninguno de los anteproyectos presentados, y no fue que la Municipalidad de San Isidro nunca dejo sin efecto ningún permiso de construcción otorgado con anterioridad al Plan Regulador, como lo indica el Director de Desarrollo Urbano en el oficio DDU07-105 constancia de 3 de octubre 2007; l) De acuerdo al voto 2002-3723 de la Sala Constitución que ordena resolver respecto del anteproyecto, no indica que debe resolverse favorablemente la petición del recurrente, y no existe desobediencia ya que el permiso fue denegado en acuerdo CM-292-2006 del 2 de septiembre de 2006, ya que el recurrente presento una serie de modificaciones que impedían dicha aprobación; m) Con la entrada en vigencia del Plan Regulador ningún acto administrativo que genere en derechos subjetivos a favor de la accionante; n) Tal y como lo indica el artículo 169 existe una serie de funciones a favor de los gobiernos locales, a lo cual se da total autonomía aunque sujeta a un control fiscal financiero contable y de legalidad de la Contraloría General de la Republica. Solicita que se declare sin lugar la acción.
7. 7Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los números 191, 192 y 193 del Boletín Judicial, de los días 04, 05 y 08 de octubre del 2007 (ver folio 319 del expediente).
8. 8Por escrito recibido en la Secretaria de esta Sala a las diecisiete horas quince minutos del veinticinco de octubre del dos mil siete el señor Walter Hernández Fonseca en su condición de representante judicial y extrajudicial de la sociedad anónima La Señora presento solicitud de coadyuvancia (ver folio 320 del expediente).
9. 9Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de esta Sala a las catorce horas veintiún minutos del siete de agosto del dos mil nueve el accionante solicita pronto despacho (ver folio 332 del expediente).
10. 10Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de esta Sala a las once horas cincuenta y cuatro minutos del dos de octubre del dos mil nueve el accionante presenta solicitud de desistimiento del recurso de amparo número 07-008797-0007-CO (ver folio 336-338 del expediente).
11. 11En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta el magistrado Cruz Castro; y,

Considerando:

I. SOBRE LA ADMISIBILIDAD DE LA ACCIÓN

GENERALIDADES.- La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un procedimiento con determinadas formalidades, que si no se reúnen, imposibilitan a la Sala conocer de la impugnación que se hace. Ya con anterioridad esta Sala ha considerado al respecto:

"[...] se trata de un proceso de naturaleza incidental, y no de una acción directa o popular, con lo que se quiere decir que se requiere de la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver -sea ante los tribunales de justicia o en el procedimiento para agotar la vía administrativa- para poder acceder a la vía constitucional, pero de tal manera que, la acción constituya un medio razonable para amparar el derecho considerado lesionado en el asunto principal, de manera que lo resuelto por el Tribunal Constitucional repercuta positiva o negativamente en dicho proceso pendiente de resolver, por cuanto se manifiesta sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas que deben ser aplicadas en dicho asunto; y únicamente por excepción es que la legislación permite el acceso directo a esta vía -presupuestos de los párrafos segundo y tercero del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional-" (sentencia número 4190-95, de las once horas treinta y tres minutos del veintiocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa y cinco).

En el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se establecen los presupuestos de admisibilidad para las acciones de inconstitucionalidad, y se regulan tres situaciones distintas. En el párrafo primero se establece la norma general y se exige la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sea en sede judicial -en el que se incluyen los recursos de hábeas corpus o de amparo-, o en la administrativa, únicamente en el procedimiento de agotamiento de esta vía, en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho que se considera lesionado en el asunto principal. Expresa esa disposición que "Para interponer la acción de inconstitucionalidad es necesario que exista un asunto pendiente de resolver ante los tribunales, inclusive de hábeas corpus o de amparo, o en el procedimiento para agotar la vía administrativa, en que se invoque esa inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado." El requisito de la existencia de este asunto pendiente de resolver, ha sido interpretado por esta Sala de manera tal que, no basta la mera existencia de ese asunto, sino que se requiere de su invocación en el asunto principal, de manera que constituya "medio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés considerado lesionado", tal y como lo dispone la norma en comentario, es decir, no basta la mera invocación de inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, sino que la misma debe ser de aplicación -directa o indirecta- en el asunto que le da sustento a la acción; tal y como lo ha manifestado en forma reiterada esta Sala, entre otras, ver las sentencias 01668-90, 04085-93, 00798-94, 03615-94, 00409-I-95, 00851-95, 04190-95, 00791-96.

A su vez, en los párrafos segundo y tercero, se regulan las excepciones a la regla general, estableciendo casos de acción directa; es decir, las situaciones en las que no se requiere del asunto base, en los siguientes supuestos: a) cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista lesión individual y directa, o se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos, o que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto; y b) cuando la acción sea promovida por el Procurador General de la República, el Contralor General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes. Además de lo ya dicho, para la presentación de la acción de inconstitucionalidad se requiere de ciertas formalidades importantes, como la determinación explícita de la normativa impugnada, debidamente fundamentada, con cita concreta de las normas y principios constitucionales que se consideren infringidos, autenticación por abogado del escrito de interposición de la gestión, las copias necesarias para los magistrados integrantes de la Sala, la Procuraduría y las partes que intervienen en el asunto principal, la acreditación de las condiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), y certificación literal del libelo de impugnación, los cuales, en caso de no ser aportadas por los accionantes, deben ser prevenidos para su cumplimiento por el Presidente de la Sala.

III. OBJETO DE LA IMPUGNACIÓN

El accionante impugna los artículos 26, 76, 77 y 124 del Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, publicado en La Gaceta 242 del 15 de diciembre del 2005, los cuales indican:

Artículo 26. Los anteproyectos que a la fecha de entrada en vigencia del Plan Regulador cuenten con el visto bueno del Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad, así como los certificados de usos del suelo y los permisos de construcción cuando no haya iniciado la construcción y que hayan sido otorgados antes de la entrada en vigencia del Plan Regulador, quedarán sin efecto, debiendo interesado tramitarlos nuevamente ante la Municipalidad, sin perjuicio de las nuevas disposiciones que con el plan regulador puedan afectar al predio o al proyecto.

Artículo 73. Definición. La zona de expansión urbana tiene por propósito garantizar los espacios necesarios para albergar a la población futura, permitiendo su ordenada ubicación actual y expansión. Son terrenos previstos para el desarrollo de urbanizaciones futuras.

Artículo 74.—Los USOS genéricos que son aplicables a todo el espacio que comprende la ZEU son los siguientes, conforme a la lista establecida en el artículo 60 del presente Reglamento: Usos permitidos: 1, 4, 8, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43, 48, 64, 72, 76, 78, 82, 83, 86, 89, 92, 101, 107, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 135, 137, 142, 144, 145, 146, 155, 170, 171, 172, 173 - 174.

Usos no permitidos o prohibidos: Serán usos no permitidos o prohibidos, todos aquellos que no han sido incluidos como usos permitidos.

Artículo 76.—Los usos permitidos establecidos para la ZEU, deberán cumplir con las siguientes regulaciones mínimas, sin detrimento de regulaciones adicionales que no contradigan las establecidas en este artículo, que pueda adoptar la DDU, vía acuerdo municipal, con el objetivo de hacer cumplir el Plan Regulador. Asimismo, deberán aplicarse todas las regulaciones específicas establecidas en el Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y otras leyes y reglamentos vigentes.

Artículo 77.—El proceso de desarrollo de urbanizaciones hasta el año 2018 (vigencia del plan regulador), se regirá por el siguiente número de lotes máximo permitidos en urbanizaciones para cada uno de los distritos:

El número de lotes máximo se ha considerado con base en el área disponible para expansión urbana (ZEU), un tamaño mínimo de lote de 300 m² y un porcentaje de utilidad de la tierra del 60%, considerando que un 40% debe ser destinado a vías públicas, zonas verdes, facilidades comunales y áreas de protección. Si en un cuatrienio se solicitan cuotas menores a las autorizadas, el remanente (o el total incluso) podrá acumularse y autorizarse para el siguiente periodo, únicamente en el distrito correspondiente. En caso de que el proceso de urbanización ocurra con lotes mayores a los 300 m², la Municipalidad no autorizará urbanizaciones fuera de la ZEU, aún cuando no se haya cumplido la cuota correspondiente al total de lotes del periodo.

Artículo 124.—Rige. El presente Reglamento y sus mapas de zonificación, rigen a partir de su aprobación y publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta.

Estima el accionante que es inconstitucional pues contraviene los principios y garantías constitucionales, incluyendo la irretroactividad, seguridad jurídica, justicia pronta y cumplida, buena fe, razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, igualdad, libertad de elección, libertad de comercio e inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada. Manifiesta que las normas implican la revocación y/o anulación de todos los trámites realizados por su representada relativos a la construcción del proyecto habitacional “Doña Marcela”, al no reconocer los permisos ya tramitados, cambiar las zonas, exigir nuevos requisitos y, en última instancia, al no contemplar un transitorio que permitiera a los gestionantes ponerse a derecho con los nuevos requerimientos.

IV. LAS REGLAS DE LEGITIMACIÓN EN LAS ACCIONES DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD EN EL CASO CONCRETO

Tal y como se indicó en el considerando primero de esta sentencia la pendencia de un asunto, ya sea en la fase de agotamiento de la vía administrativa, o bien, en sede judicial, es requisito de admisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. El proceso base de esta acción es un recurso de amparo tramitado en la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, con el número 07-008797-0007-CO. En dicho proceso se dictó la sentencia número 2009-016540 de las diecisiete horas cuarenta y seis minutos del 27 de octubre del 2009, ordenando el archivo del expediente ante la solicitud de desistimiento presentada por el recurrente. Desde ese momento el proceso base de esta acción se tiene por finalizado. En consecuencia, procede rechazar de plano la acción interpuesta por carecer de interés actual.

Por tanto:

Se rechaza de plano la acción.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa Esmeralda Blanco M. Roxana Salazar C.

Rodolfo Piza R. José Paulino Hernández G.

FCC/40/jcalderonm.- 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional