← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 12207-2010 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 20/07/2010
OutcomeResultado
The amparo action is denied because no violation of fundamental rights was proven.Se declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo por no comprobarse afectación a derechos fundamentales.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denied an amparo action filed by residents of Parrita who alleged that aerial pesticide spraying on two banana plantations—Finca San Gerardo and Finca La Flor—harmed their health, contaminated water sources, caused noise pollution, and violated agricultural aviation regulations. After ordering joint inspections by the Ministry of Health and the Civil Aviation Authority, the Chamber found that the spraying does not reach houses, schools, or local clinics; there are no records of poisoning; no contamination of rivers or streams was detected; and noise emissions do not affect the community because aircraft do not fly over populated areas. Regarding the alleged lack of permits and other regulatory requirements, the Court considered these matters of mere legality beyond its jurisdiction and that they must be pursued through ordinary legal channels. The amparo was denied.La Sala Constitucional rechazó un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos de Parrita que alegaban que las fumigaciones aéreas de plaguicidas en dos plantaciones bananeras –Finca San Gerardo y Finca La Flor– afectaban su salud, contaminaban fuentes de agua y generaban contaminación sónica, además de incumplir normativa de aviación agrícola. Tras ordenar inspecciones conjuntas al Ministerio de Salud y a la Dirección General de Aviación Civil, la Sala concluyó que las fumigaciones no alcanzan viviendas, escuela o EBAIS; no existen registros de personas intoxicadas; no se detectó contaminación en ríos o quebradas; y las emisiones sónicas no perjudican a la población porque las aeronaves no sobrevuelan centros poblados. En cuanto a la alegada falta de permisos y otros requisitos reglamentarios, el Tribunal consideró que se trata de extremos de mera legalidad que escapan a su competencia y deben ventilarse en las vías ordinarias. El recurso fue declarado sin lugar.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In light of the foregoing, the amparo must be dismissed. (...) The amparo is denied.En mérito de lo expuesto, se impone desestimar el recurso planteado. (...) Se declara sin lugar el recurso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La fumigación en cuestión no afectan a las poblaciones que se encuentran aledañas a las fincas (...), específicamente, a las casas de habitación, escuelas o EBAIS."
"The fumigation in question does not affect the nearby communities (...), specifically houses, schools, or EBAIS clinics."
Considerando IV
"La fumigación en cuestión no afectan a las poblaciones que se encuentran aledañas a las fincas (...), específicamente, a las casas de habitación, escuelas o EBAIS."
Considerando IV
"Las emisiones sónicas generadas por la avioneta bajo estudio, no afectan a los vecinos de la zona, en virtud que no sobrevuela, directamente (...) las poblaciones."
"The sonic emissions generated by the aircraft under review do not affect the residents of the area, because it does not fly directly over the communities."
Considerando VI
"Las emisiones sónicas generadas por la avioneta bajo estudio, no afectan a los vecinos de la zona, en virtud que no sobrevuela, directamente (...) las poblaciones."
Considerando VI
"Este Tribunal Constitucional no es competente —por ser un extremo de mera legalidad— para determinar si el aeródromo mencionado y la empresa (...) cumplen o no a cabalidad con los requisitos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico."
"This Constitutional Court lacks competence —as it is a matter of mere legality— to determine whether the aforementioned airfield and company (...) fully comply with the requirements set forth by the legal system."
Considerando VII
"Este Tribunal Constitucional no es competente —por ser un extremo de mera legalidad— para determinar si el aeródromo mencionado y la empresa (...) cumplen o no a cabalidad con los requisitos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico."
Considerando VII
Full documentDocumento completo
WHEREAS:
He argued that halting the fumigation works would be tantamount to condemning the banana plantation project to closure. He maintained that the banana plantation is vital to the national economy and constitutes an important source of employment in rural areas. He indicated that it is not true that the aircraft fumigates outside the banana plantation, as is maliciously alleged in the amparo. He pointed out that this would be absurd, since wasting the mixtures and time in that way would go against the company's own interests. He asserted that the flight and landing pattern applied by the company complies with what is required by the technical authorities. He attached, on this matter, an official communication from Servicio Nacional de Helicópteros, describing the flight pattern, opinion No. OA-533-10 from the Department of Aeronautical Operations of Civil Aviation (Departamento de Operaciones Aeronáuticas de Aviación Civil), as well as reports from CETAC and the Agricultural Aviation Commission (Comisión de Aviación Agrícola).
He pointed out that, according to certifications issued by the Director of the Playón Sur School and by residents of the communities of Playón Sur, La Loma, Sardinal, and El Tigre, it is completely false that the light aircraft fumigates over that educational center, the houses, and the EBAIS. He affirmed that on February 26, 2010, no fumigation flight took place in the afternoon hours. He argued that the company Servicio Nacional de Helicópteros does comply with the control measures set forth in the Aerial Fumigation Regulations (Reglamento de Fumigación Aérea). He indicated that fumigation is carried out within the limits of the plantation and that the protection zones indicated by the rules are respected. Likewise, the aircraft uses a GPS device, which is precisely what keeps the exact record of how the flights are conducted and where the fumigation is verified. He added that the bodies of water alleged by the petitioners (tutelados) are not fumigated, specifically, the water springs (nacientes de agua) from which the population draws its supply.
He explained that the water springs are not located within the banana plantation, but rather in the high hills of the community of Zapatón de Puriscal, twenty-two kilometers from Playón Sur. This foregoing fact is confirmed through a certification issued by the ASADA, which manages the public aqueduct, and by the study conducted by the company CHEMBLAB. He reported that, according to a laboratory report conducted, the water used by students for washing at the Playón Sur School is completely potable. He asserted that, likewise, rivers and streams are not sprayed. He explained that the spraying of pesticides has only been carried out within the banana plantation, respecting buffer zones (zonas de amortiguamiento) and the other rules related to flight altitude, particle size, and wind speed. He clarified that the Parrita River, for example, is almost a kilometer away from the banana plantation.
He indicated that it is also false that residents were not notified prior to carrying out the fumigation, since numerous warning signs exist for this purpose that comply with the stipulations of Article 71 of the Regulations. He affirmed that fumigation companies have the obligation to have a prescription (receta) for the mixtures and to have a supervisor (regente) present to oversee said operation. He explained that the company's supervisor is the one who issues these prescriptions and is an active member of the College of Agronomists (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos). He added that the College of Agronomists supervises agricultural aviation activities on site and controls the activities through field visits. He argued that in the latest of such visits, dated March 26, 2010, the Inspection Office (Fiscalía) of said College determined that “(…) professional prescription No. 5332 of March 26, 2010, prepared by Agricultural Engineer José E. Méndez Hidalgo is reviewed, having been prepared according to the legal standard.
A general inspection of the facilities was carried out, finding everything in order; the operation of the aircraft was also inspected, being carried out according to the Legal standard (…)”. He reported that the Coordinator of Phytopathology of the National Banana Corporation (Corporación Bananera Nacional, CORBANA), through official communication No. DI-SF-008-2010, after conducting a review of the so-called fungicide application program on the farms of his represented entity, indicated the following: “(…) the fungicide products used by the company and their dosages in the disease control programs conform to technical recommendations and regulations and are duly registered for use in banana cultivation in the country before the corresponding authorities (…)”. He noted that, subsequently, specifically, in the Semanario Universidad of March 23, 2010, the Center for Research in Environmental Contamination (Centro de Investigación en Contaminación Ambiental, CICA) of the UCR publicly refuted the use of imazalil in aerial fumigations, as well as the fact of the existence of alleged investigations pointing to the toxicity of such product.
He remarked that the company complies with the strict EUREPGAP standards of good agricultural practices and production systems. He argued that, through such international certification, it is demonstrated that the company meets the international standards required for agricultural production in environmental matters, reduces the use of agrochemicals, uses natural resources efficiently, and guarantees the well-being of workers and wildlife. He indicated that the alleged impact on scarlet macaws (lapas rojas) and titi monkeys (monos tití) must also be dismissed. He reiterated that the plantation has, since its origins, held the environmental viability certificate (certificado de viabilidad ambiental), and its activities have been adjusted to all rules for the protection of the environment and human health. He added that the respondent company holds a sanitary permit (permiso sanitario) granted by the health authority to operate agricultural aviation services from said aerodrome, which, in turn, is valid until the year 2012.
He reported that the ground facilities, the fuel tank, and the mixing sites are duly authorized and supervised by the health authorities, as well as by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (Dirección General de Aviación Civil). He requested that the amparo appeal be dismissed.
Drafted by Magistrate Jinesta Lobo; and,
CONSIDERING:
Through briefs visible at folios 96-101 and 155-156, Gerardo Godínez Quesada, holder of identity card No. 1-431-128, Marco Marcelino Barboza Cascante, holder of identity card No. 9-080-302, and others, all residents of the community of Playón Sur de Parrita, requested to be admitted as active coadjuvants (coadyuvantes activos) in the present amparo proceeding. On this particular matter, numeral 34, paragraph 3, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), stipulates that anyone possessing a legitimate interest in the proceeding may intervene, whether in an active or passive capacity, as a coadjuvant. In the specific case, according to what was indicated by the petitioners, the fumigation activity carried out on the banana plantations of the company Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. has also generated, to their detriment, noise pollution (contaminación sónica) and environmental contamination. Consequently, by virtue of the provisions of the procedural rule cited above, the referenced active joinders are admissible.
The petitioners allege that the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) have been violated, given that, according to their claim, the respondent authorities have not taken the pertinent steps to resolve a series of problems generated on the occasion of the operation of an aerodrome used for the fumigation of banana plantations, which, in turn, are located on farms owned by the company Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. Specifically, they accuse that said fumigation a) is carried out indiscriminately over houses, a school, and the EBAIS, as well as over water sources, which has caused people to be poisoned; b) produces noise pollution (contaminación sónica), due to the light aircraft's engine; and c) is carried out without the respective permits and without complying with other various measures and requirements demanded in the Regulations for Agricultural Aviation Activities (Reglamento para las Actividades de Aviación Agrícola).
Of relevance for resolving this amparo appeal, the following are deemed accredited:
In the first place, the petitioners (tutelados) allege that the light aircraft contracted by the company Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. not only carries out fumigations with pesticides over the banana plantations, but also, indiscriminately, over the homes, school, and EBAIS in the area. However, this Chamber does not consider that the petitioners are correct on this specific point. The foregoing, since, from the evidence added to the case file -specifically, from a surprise inspection carried out by officials of the Governing Health Area of Parrita and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation on June 29, 2010-, it is clearly evident that the referenced fumigations do not affect the populations located adjacent to the farms La Flor -located in La Palma- and San Gerardo –situated in Playón Sur-, of Parrita, specifically, the houses, schools, or EBAIS. Populations which, in any case, as was accredited, are located far from the mentioned banana plantations.
Likewise, it must be taken into consideration that, according to what was reported by such authorities, to date, in the database of the so-called Health Surveillance Process of the Governing Health Area of Parrita, there are no records of persons poisoned due to the fumigations in question. Under this order of considerations, this specialized body of the Supreme Court of Justice does not observe a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and other inhabitants of the referenced areas.
Likewise, the petitioners allege that the light aircraft in question fumigates with agrochemicals the rivers, streams, and water springs (nacientes de agua) used by the communities in the area. However, this allegation is not acceptable to this Constitutional Chamber. This is so, since, according to the authorities of the Aguirre-Parrita Subregional Office of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, MINAE) -who, at the express request of this Chamber, conducted inspections in the area in question-, to date, no anomalies or damage to natural resources have been verified. Likewise, it should be noted that the Director of the Governing Health Area of Parrita, in the report rendered under oath to this jurisdiction, affirmed that, according to inspections also carried out by officials under her charge, no contamination was detected in the aquifer sources, specifically, in those of a surface type.
More abundantly, it must be taken into consideration that, according to a new inspection conducted recently in the month of June 2010, by officials from both the Ministry of Health and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, it was recorded that no agrochemical spills were found at the aerodrome in question that might flow into any receiving body of rainwater. Similarly, on that occasion, those authorities affirmed that there is no contamination whatsoever in the water sources, by virtue of the fumigation work denounced by the petitioners. Hence, this amparo must be rejected with respect to this point.
On another matter, the petitioners accuse the light aircraft used for fumigating the mentioned banana plantations of producing noise pollution (contaminación sónica). However, this allegation is also not acceptable to this constitutional jurisdiction. This is so, because, according to the inspection and measurement jointly carried out on June 29, 2009, by the cited officials from the Ministry of Health and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, it was determined that the sound emissions generated by the light aircraft under study do not affect the residents of the area, by virtue of the fact that it does not fly directly –as was indicated– over the populations, but rather, only over the plantations. Therefore, this Constitutional Chamber cannot consider the cited pollution alleged by the interested parties to be verified.
VII.REGARDING THE PERMITS HELD BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY AND COMPLIANCE WITH SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN REGULATIONS No. 31520. The interested parties also claim that the fumigation activity in question is carried out without the respective permits and, in turn, without complying with other various measures and requirements demanded in the Regulations for Agricultural Aviation Activities (Reglamento para las Actividades de Aviación Agrícola). Specifically, the petitioners accuse that the mentioned activity is carried out without the permits that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation must issue for this purpose, and that, furthermore, the respective control measures, protection rules, and the use of GPS-type devices are not complied with. Likewise, they argue that the provisions of Article 9 of the Regulations for Agricultural Aviation Activities -No. 31520 of October 23, 2003- are breached, since, according to their claim, at the time the fumigations are carried out, the prescriptions (recetas) are not issued by an agronomist in order to guarantee that products not approved for such practice are not used. Furthermore, they allege that, in contravention of the provisions of said numeral, the monthly work report, in which such prescriptions are recorded, is not submitted to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.
Finally, they claim that, likewise, the provisions of Article 71 of the aforementioned Regulation have not been complied with, since the company has not given prior notice to the neighbors about the fumigations carried out in the described areas. However, these allegations are not admissible. The foregoing, inasmuch as this Constitutional Court is not competent—as this is a matter of mere legality—to determine whether the mentioned aerodrome and the company Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. fully comply, or not, with the requirements demanded by the legal system in order to carry out fumigations on the banana plantations under study. Hence, the protected parties, if they deem it appropriate, may raise the objections they consider pertinent before the ordinary legality channels established for that purpose. In any case, it must be taken into consideration that, since 2007, the Parrita Health Area of the Ministry of Health granted the company Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. the sanitary operating permit No. RPC-ARSP-218-2008 for a period of five years, for agricultural aviation activity.
Likewise, the case file shows that, through official communication No. CETAC-OF-1233-2010 of June 24, 2010, the Civil Aviation Technical Council granted the respondent company the operating permit for the cited aerodrome. Similarly, it should be noted that, as was reported under oath, the activities related to the preparation of the chemical product to be applied to the banana plantations in question are carried out in accordance with the control standards established by the Ministry of Health and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Equally, the case file shows that the respondent company has the services of an agronomist engineer, duly registered with the College of Agronomist Engineers, who is in turn responsible for supervising the agrochemicals used in the fumigations. Furthermore, it is necessary to observe that, according to the inspection carried out on June 29, 2010 at the aerodrome located in Playón Sur de Parrita, the officials of the Ministry of Health and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation determined the following: “(…) The facilities were observed to be in good physical, sanitary, and safety conditions, there are no agrochemical spills, the sedimentation tanks function adequately, the personnel had their respective personal protective equipment at the time of preparing (sic) the mixture, as well as at the time of loading the aircraft, the chemical product to be used had its respective prescription authorized by the company's regent, no product spill was observed from the nozzles of the aircraft's spray system, the stopcock system for wastewater and rainwater was found to be in good working order.
On the other hand, in the (sic) area of the plantation to be treated there are no dwellings in its surroundings, except for the company offices and the packing plant, over which it was observed that the aircraft flies over but with the nozzles or system closed. Additionally, on the (sic) boundaries, some (sic) 25 linear meters, ground equipment is used (…)”. Finally, it is necessary to point out that, as the case file shows, on the farms under study there are signs through which the population is warned about the fumigations carried out in the area.
By virtue of the foregoing, the filed appeal must be dismissed.
IX.REGARDING THE CLAIM FILED BY THE MANAGER OF SERVICIO NACIONAL DE HELICÓPTEROS S.R.L. Since in this case the briefs running on folios 160-162 refer to facts different from those alleged in this case file, as the Manager of the company Servicio Nacional de Helicópteros claims that the appellants are owners of a farm where, in turn, activities that pollute the environment have been carried out; sever those writings—after prior certification that must be left in the case file—and process them as a new matter.-
POR TANTO:
The appeal is dismissed on the merits. Sever the writings running on folios 160-162 of the case file—after prior certification that must be left in the case file—and process them as a new matter.
Gilbert Armijo S. Acting Presiding Judge Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.
Fernando Castillo V. Aracelly Pacheco S.
Roxana Salazar C. Doris Arias M.
*100023300007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diecisiete horas y treinta minutos del veinte de julio del dos mil diez.
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por KENT DAVID NELSON y ROBERT MACKEY HUNTER, contra LA DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE AVIACIÓN CIVIL y EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Magistrado Jinesta Lobo; y,
CONSIDERANDO:
Mediante escritos visibles a folios 96-101 y 155-156, Gerardo Godínez Quesada, portador de la cédula de identidad No. 1-431-128, Marco Marcelino Barboza Cascante, portador de la cédula de identidad No. 9-080-302 y otros, vecinos todos de la comunidad de Playón Sur de Parrita, solicitaron que se les tuviera como coadyuvantes activos del presente proceso de amparo. Sobre este particular, el numeral 34, párrafo 3°, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, estipula que quien posea un interés legítimo en el proceso puede intervenir, sea en su perfil activo o pasivo, como coadyuvante. En el caso concreto, según lo indicado por los gestionantes, la actividad de fumigación que se lleva a cabo en las plantaciones de banano de la empresa Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. ha generado, igualmente, en su perjuicio, contaminación sónica y ambiental. En consecuencia, en virtud de lo dispuesto en la norma de rito supra señalada, resultan admisibles las referidas coadyuvancias activas.
Los recurrentes aducen vulnerados los derechos fundamentales consagrados en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, dado que, según su dicho, las autoridades recurridas no han realizado las gestiones pertinentes para solventar una serie de problemas generados con ocasión de la operación de una aeródromo utilizado para la fumigación de plantaciones de banano, las cuales, a su vez, se ubican en fincas propiedad de la empresa Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A.. Concretamente, acusan que dicha fumigación a) se realiza, de manera indiscriminada, sobre casas, escuela y el EBAIS, así como sobre fuentes de agua, lo cual ha generado que las personas se intoxiquen; b) produce contaminación sónica, a causa del motor de la avioneta y c) se lleva a cabo sin que se cuente con los respectivos permisos y se cumplan con otras medidas y requisitos varios exigidos en el Reglamento para las Actividades de Aviación Agrícola.
De relevancia para dirimir el presente recurso de amparo, se tienen por acreditados los siguientes:
En primer término, los tutelados aducen que la avioneta contratada por la empresa Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A., no sólo realiza fumigaciones con plaguicidas sobre las plantaciones de banano, sino, también, de forma indiscriminada, sobre las viviendas, escuela y EBAIS de la zona. Sin embargo, esta Sala no estima que, sobre este punto en específico, lleven razón los recurrentes. Lo anterior, ya que, de la prueba allegada a los autos -concretamente, a partir de una inspección sorpresa realizada por funcionarios del Área Rectora de Salud de Parrita y de la Dirección General de Aviación Civil el 29 de junio de 2010-, se desprende, con meridiana claridad, que las referidas fumigaciones no afectan a las poblaciones que se encuentran aledañas a las fincas La Flor -ubicada en La Palma- y San Gerardo –situada en Playón Sur-, de Parrita, específicamente, a las casas de habitación, escuelas o EBAIS.
Poblaciones que, en todo caso, tal y como se acreditó, se encuentran alejadas de las mencionadas plantaciones de banano. Asimismo, debe de tomarse en consideración que, de conformidad con lo informado por tales autoridades, a la fecha, en la base de datos del denominado Proceso de Vigilancia de la Salud del Área Rectora de Salud de Parrita, no existen registros de personas intoxicadas a causa de las fumigaciones en cuestión. Bajo tal orden de consideraciones, este órgano especializado de la Corte Suprema de Justicia no observa vulnerados los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes y demás habitantes de las zonas referidas.
Asimismo, los recurrentes alegan que la avioneta en cuestión fumiga con agroquímicos los ríos, quebradas y nacientes de aguas que utilizan las comunidades de la zona. No obstante, dicho alegato no es de recibo para este Tribunal Constitucional. Esto, ya que, según las autoridades de la Oficina Subregional de Aguirre-Parrita del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -quienes por petición expresa de esta Sala realizaron inspecciones en la zona en cuestión-, a la fecha, no se han verificado anomalías ni daños a los recursos naturales. Asimismo, nótese que la Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Parrita, en el informe rendido bajo juramento a esta jurisdicción, afirmó que, de conformidad con inspecciones realizadas, igualmente, por funcionarios a su cargo, no se detectó contaminación en las fuentes acuíferas, concretamente, en aquellas de tipo superficial. A mayor abundamiento, debe de tomarse en consideración que, según una nueva inspección realizada, recientemente en el mes de junio de 2010, tanto por funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud como de la Dirección General de Aviación Civil, se consignó que en el aeródromo en cuestión no se encontraron derrames de agroquímicos que se recondujeran hacia algún cuerpo receptor de aguas pluviales.
De igual forma, en dicha ocasión, tales autoridades afirmaron que no existe contaminación alguna en las fuentes de agua, en virtud de las labores de fumigación denunciadas por los recurrentes. De ahí que, el presente amparo deba de ser rechazado en lo que a este extremo se refiere.
De otra parte, los recurrentes acusan que la avioneta utilizada para fumigar las mencionadas plantaciones de banano produce contaminación sónica. Sin embargo, este alegato, tampoco, es de recibo para esta jurisdicción constitucional. Esto, por cuanto, de conformidad con la inspección y medición efectuada, en conjunto, el 29 de junio de 2009 por los citados funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud y de la Dirección General de Aviación Civil, se determinó que las emisiones sónicas generadas por la avioneta bajo estudio, no afectan a los vecinos de la zona, en virtud que no sobrevuela, directamente –tal y como se indicó-, las poblaciones, sino, únicamente, las plantaciones. Por ende, este Tribunal Constitucional no puede tener por constatada la citada contaminación alegada por los interesados.
VII.SOBRE LOS PERMISOS CON LOS QUE CUENTA LA EMPRESA RECURRIDA Y EL CUMPLIMIENTO DE VARIOS REQUISITOS ESTABLECIDOS EN EL REGLAMENTO No. 31520. Los interesados, igualmente, reclaman que la actividad de fumigación en cuestión se realiza sin que se cuente con los permisos respectivos y, a su vez, se cumpla con otras medidas y requisitos varios exigidos en el Reglamento para las Actividades de Aviación Agrícola. Concretamente, los recurrentes acusan que la actividad mencionada se realiza sin contar con los permisos que debe extender, al efecto, la Dirección General de Aviación Civil, y que, además, no se cumple con las respectivas medidas de control, las reglas de protección y el uso de dispositivos tipo GPS. Asimismo, aducen que se incumple lo dispuesto en el artículo 9° del Reglamento para las actividades de la Aviación Agrícola -No. 31520 de 23 de octubre de 2003-, pues, según su dicho, al momento de efectuarse las fumigaciones, las recetas no son extendidas por un ingeniero agrónomo a efecto de garantizar que no se utilicen productos no aprobados para dicha práctica.
Además, alegan que, en contravención a lo dispuesto en dicho numeral, no se remite a la Dirección General de Aviación Civil el informe mensual de labores, donde constan tales recetas. Finalmente, reclaman que, tampoco, se ha cumplido con lo establecido en el artículo 71 del mencionado Reglamento, pues la empresa no ha avisado, previamente, a los vecinos, sobre las fumigaciones realizadas en las zonas descritas. No obstante, estos alegatos no son de recibo. Lo anterior, por cuanto, este Tribunal Constitucional no es competente -por ser un extremo de mera legalidad-, para determinar si el aeródromo mencionado y la empresa Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A., cumplen o no, a cabalidad, con los requisitos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico a efecto de llevar a cabo las fumigaciones en las plantaciones bananeras bajo estudio. De ahí que, los tutelados, si a bien lo tienen, pueden plantear las disconformidades que estimen pertinentes ante las vías de legalidad ordinarias establecidas para tal efecto.
En todo caso, debe de tomarse en consideración que, desde el año 2007, el Área de Salud de Parrita del Ministerio de Salud le otorgó a la empresa Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A., el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento No. RPC-ARSP-218-2008 por el plazo de cinco años, para la actividad de aviación agrícola. Asimismo, consta en autos que, a través del oficio No. CETAC-OF-1233-2010 de 24 de junio de 2010, el Consejo Técnico de Aviación Civil brindó a la empresa recurrida el permiso de operación del aeródromo citado. De igual forma, debe observarse que, según se informó bajo juramento, las actividades relacionadas con la preparación del producto químico a aplicar sobre las plantaciones de banano en cuestión, se realizan ajustadas a las normas de control establecidas por el Ministerio de Salud y la Dirección General de Aviación Civil. Igualmente, consta en autos que la empresa recurrida cuenta con los servicios de un ingeniero agrónomo, debidamente, inscrito ante el Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos, quien se encarga, a su vez, de supervisar los agroquímicos utilizados en las fumigaciones.
A mayor abundamiento, resulta menester observar que, según la inspección realizada el 29 de junio de 2010 en el aeródromo ubicado en Playón Sur de Parrita, los funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud y de la Dirección General de Aviación Civil determinaron lo siguiente: “(…) Las instalaciones se observaron en buenas condiciones físicas, sanitarias y de seguridad, no hay derrames de agroquímicos, los tanques de sedimentación funcionan adecuadamente, el personal contaba con su respectivo equipo de protección personal a la hora de preparación (sic) de la mezcla, como también a la hora de cargar la aeronave, el producto químico a utilizar estaba con su respectiva receta autorizada por el regente de la empresa, no se observó derrame del producto por las boquillas del sistema de aspersión de la aeronave, el sistema de llaves de paso de aguas residuales y pluviales se encontró en buen funcionamiento.
Por otra parte el (sic) área de la plantación a tratar no se encuentran viviendas en sus alrededores, exceptuando las oficinas de la empresa y la planta empacadora, en las cuales se observó que la aeronave sobrevuela pero con las boquillas o sistema cerrado. Además, las (sic) colindancias, unos (sic) 25 metros lineales, se utiliza equipo terrestre (…)”. Finalmente, resulta menester apuntar que, según consta en autos, en las fincas bajo estudio existen rótulos, mediante los cuales se alerta a la población sobre las fumigaciones realizadas en la zona.
En mérito de lo expuesto, se impone desestimar el recurso planteado.
IX.ACERCA DE LA GESTIÓN FORMULADA POR EL GERENTE DEL SERVICIO NACIONAL DE HELICÓPTEROS S.R.L.. Como en este caso los memoriales que corren agregados a folios 160-162, se refieren a hechos diversos de los alegados en este expediente, ya que, el Gerente de la empresa Servicio Nacional de Helicópteros aduce que los recurrentes son propietarios de una finca donde, a su vez, se han realizado actividades que contaminan el ambiente; desglósense tales escritos -previa certificación que debe dejarse en autos-, y tramítense como un asunto nuevo.-
POR TANTO:
Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Desglósense los escritos que corren agregados a folios 160-162 del expediente -previa certificación que deberá dejarse en autos-, y tramítense como un asunto nuevo.
Gilbert Armijo S.
Presidente a.i.
Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C.
Fernando Castillo V.
Aracelly Pacheco S.
Roxana Salazar C.
Doris Arias M.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.