← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00089-2022 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · 16/02/2022
OutcomeResultado
The Court denies the pre‑action interim injunction because periculum in mora was not proven and the balance of interests favored the permit holder, despite a weakened fumus boni iuris.El Tribunal rechaza la medida cautelar ante causam por no acreditarse el peligro en la demora ni superarse la ponderación de intereses, pese a existir una apariencia de buen derecho debilitada.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Litigation Tribunal denies a pre-action interim injunction sought by Walter Brenes Soto against the Municipality of Garabito and the owner of Bar Los Manitos. The claimant requested suspension of the bar's liquor license, alleging the construction and operation encroach on a river protection area, violating Article 33 of the Forestry Law and Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law, and causing pollution. The Court analyzes the injunction requirements under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedure Code. It finds a weakened fumus boni iuris but holds that periculum in mora was not demonstrated, as no evidence supports the alleged environmental damage or that the bar caused contamination. It notes that the reversal of burden of proof under Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law applies in the main proceedings or in the nullity administrative procedure already initiated—not at the injunction stage. The balance of interests favors protecting the co‑respondent, who holds valid permits; the injunction is denied without costs.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo rechaza una medida cautelar ante causam presentada por Walter Brenes Soto contra la Municipalidad de Garabito y el propietario del Bar Los Manitos. El actor pretendía que se suspendieran los efectos de la licencia de expendio de bebidas alcohólicas del establecimiento, alegando que la construcción y operación del bar invaden el área de protección de un río, vulnerando el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal y el artículo 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, además de provocar contaminación. El Tribunal analiza los presupuestos cautelares según los artículos 21 y 22 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Concluye que, si bien existe una apariencia de buen derecho debilitada, no se acreditó el peligro en la demora porque no hay prueba del daño ambiental alegado ni de que la contaminación provenga del bar. Destaca que la carga probatoria del artículo 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad aplica en el proceso principal o en el procedimiento administrativo de nulidad ya iniciado, pero no en sede cautelar. La ponderación de intereses se inclina por tutelar los derechos del copropietario, quien cuenta con permisos vigentes, y rechaza la medida sin condena en costas.
Key excerptExtracto clave
VI) THIS JUDGE'S CRITERION [...] The first is that, at the administrative stage, the claimant's thesis has been accepted insofar as an administrative procedure must be initiated to determine whether the requested nullity should be declared, while also affording the co‑respondent in that procedure the opportunity to defend himself (...) As to periculum in mora: (...) Two particular situations stand out in this section. First, the claimant asserts that the construction of the bar near the river causes environmental damage (...) However, this Court has noted that the bar currently holds the necessary construction and operating permits (...) Second, it could be presumed that the river is being polluted if the claimant is correct in asserting that the bar's construction did not respect setback limits, from which it might further be presumed that damage or pollution is being caused to the river and the environment; but this presumption is insufficient without the proper demonstration and proof of such damage. Although this Court understands that under Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law the co‑respondent (...) would be required to prove the absence of contamination of the environment or specifically of the river, we cannot overlook that this refers to the potential administrative proceeding – already initiated – or to the merits of the main case, not to a prior or interim stage, because such proof of harm or lack of contamination cannot be addressed at the injunction stage, much less be admitted beforehand, as it would undermine the instrumental nature that such petitions have in relation to the main or full proceedings, where it would indeed be appropriate for the co‑respondent to demonstrate the absence of contamination or damage, or where any interested party may raise and prove it, but not beforehand. In this injunction matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that the local river is actually polluted, nor is there any proof that, if pollution exists, it is being caused precisely by Bar and Restaurant Los Manitos.VI) CRITERIO DE ESTE JUZGADOR [...] La primera de ellas es que en sede administrativa se ha admitido la tesis del aquí actor en cuanto a que necesariamente se debe de iniciar un procedimiento administrativo, por medio del cual se establezca o no la posible nulidad que se requiere; así como el brindarle al propio co demandado en ese proceso la oportunidad de defensa (...) En cuanto al peligro en la demora: (...) En este apartado se destacan dos situaciones particulares, la primera de ellas es que la parte actora afirma que la construcción del Bar citado en la cercanías del río, provoca un daño al ambiente (...) sin embargo este Tribunal ha evidenciado que ese Bar al día de hoy cuenta con los permisos necesarios, tanto de construcción como de funcionamiento (...). La segunda situación que se da en este asunto, es que se podría presumir que se está provocando una contaminación en el Río, en el eventual caso de que la parte actora llevara razón en sus afirmaciones, con respecto a que la construcción del Bar no respetó los límites de distancia, con lo cual se podría presumir además, que se este provocando un daño o contaminación al río y al medio ambiente; pero esa presunción no alcanza ni es suficiente sin la debida demostración y prueba del daño. Si bien comprende este Tribunal que de conformidad del numeral 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, le correspondería al co demandado (...) el demostrar la no contaminación al medio ambiente o al río en específico, no podríamos dejar de lado que eso se refiere al posible proceso administrativo -en trámite- o en su defecto en el fondo de la causa principal, pero no de forma previa o cautelar, porque esa comprobación de afectación o la no contaminación, no se podría abordar de forma cautelar, menos aún admitirla de forma previa, por cuanto rompería con la instrumentalidad de las que gozan este tipo de gestiones con respecto al proceso de conocimiento o principal, donde sí resultaría acertado el pensar que es en ese asunto, donde el co demandado deberá demostrar la no contaminación o daño, o en su defecto podrá ser alegado y comprobado por quien resulte interesado en hacerlo, pero no de forma previa. En este asunto cautelar, no existe ninguna prueba que venga a evidenciar que efectivamente el río de esa localidad se encuentre contaminado, y mucho menos existe una prueba que acredite que en el caso de darse, esa contaminación la está provocando precisamente el Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Si bien comprende este Tribunal que de conformidad del numeral 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, le correspondería al co demandado […] el demostrar la no contaminación al medio ambiente o al río en específico, no podríamos dejar de lado que eso se refiere al posible proceso administrativo -en trámite- o en su defecto en el fondo de la causa principal, pero no de forma previa o cautelar."
"Although this Court understands that under Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law the co‑respondent […] would be required to prove the absence of contamination of the environment or specifically of the river, we cannot overlook that this refers to the potential administrative proceeding – already initiated – or to the merits of the main case, not to a prior or interim stage."
Considerando VI
"Si bien comprende este Tribunal que de conformidad del numeral 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, le correspondería al co demandado […] el demostrar la no contaminación al medio ambiente o al río en específico, no podríamos dejar de lado que eso se refiere al posible proceso administrativo -en trámite- o en su defecto en el fondo de la causa principal, pero no de forma previa o cautelar."
Considerando VI
"En este asunto cautelar, no existe ninguna prueba que venga a evidenciar que efectivamente el río de esa localidad se encuentre contaminado, y mucho menos existe una prueba que acredite que en el caso de darse, esa contaminación la está provocando precisamente el Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos."
"In this injunction matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that the local river is actually polluted, nor is there any proof that, if pollution exists, it is being caused precisely by Bar and Restaurant Los Manitos."
Considerando VI
"En este asunto cautelar, no existe ninguna prueba que venga a evidenciar que efectivamente el río de esa localidad se encuentre contaminado, y mucho menos existe una prueba que acredite que en el caso de darse, esa contaminación la está provocando precisamente el Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos."
Considerando VI
"La balanza en esta ocasión se inclina por tutelar los derechos del señor Nombre28904 , quien con sus permisos al día y vigentes se encuentra operando el Bar y Restaurante los Manitos; ó al menos se encuentra en la reconstrucción del mismo, a propósito del incendio que sufrió la estructura."
"The scale in this instance tilts in favor of protecting the rights of Mr. Nombre28904, who, with current and valid permits, is operating Bar and Restaurant Los Manitos, or at least is in the process of rebuilding it after the fire that damaged the structure."
Considerando VI
"La balanza en esta ocasión se inclina por tutelar los derechos del señor Nombre28904 , quien con sus permisos al día y vigentes se encuentra operando el Bar y Restaurante los Manitos; ó al menos se encuentra en la reconstrucción del mismo, a propósito del incendio que sufrió la estructura."
Considerando VI
Full documentDocumento completo
**TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO** **Resolution No. 00089 - 2022** **Resolution Date:** February 16, 2022, at 4:05 p.m.
**Case File:** 17-012458-1027-CA **Drafted by:** Rodrigo Huertas Durán **Type of Matter:** Precautionary measure ante causam **Analyzed by:** CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL **Rulings from the same case file** **Content of Interest:** **Type of content:** Majority vote **Branch of Law:** Contentious-Administrative Procedural Law **Topic:** Precautionary measures in the contentious-administrative process **Subtopics:** It is inappropriate to suspend the commercial license of an establishment despite it being located in a river protection area. Generalities and structural characteristics for its granting.
"I) GENERALITIES FOR THE GRANTING OF A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE. As has been developed by the Constitutional Chamber, precautionary justice responds to the need to guarantee the constitutional principle of prompt and complete justice, by preserving the real conditions indispensable for the issuance and execution of the judgment. (Resolution 7190-1994, at 3:24 p.m. on December 6). In this same sense, Article 19 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code establishes that the purpose of establishing a precautionary measure is to provisionally protect and guarantee the object of the process and the effectiveness of the judgment. Doctrine has indicated that precautionary justice does not aim to declare a fact or liability, nor to constitute a legal relationship, nor to execute a mandate and satisfy an undisputed right, nor to settle a litigation, but rather to prevent the damages that litigation may bring or that may derive from an abnormal situation (Gallegos Fedriani, Pablo. Las medidas cautelares contra la Administración Pública. 2 ed. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ábaco, 2006). With the foregoing clear, the adjudicator, observing the provisions of Article 21 of the procedural rule indicated, must determine the appropriateness of a request for a precautionary measure, verifying in effect that the claim of the main proceeding is not reckless or, in a manifest manner, lacking in seriousness, which constitutes a preliminary assessment of the merits to determine whether there exists in the case in question what doctrine and jurisprudence have called appearance of good law or fumus boni iuris [...]
With the foregoing, two specific situations are deemed proven.
The first of them is that in the administrative venue, the thesis of the plaintiff herein has been accepted regarding the necessary initiation of an administrative procedure, through which the possible nullity requested is established or not; as well as providing the co-defendant in that proceeding with the opportunity for a defense, which, as the plaintiff herein rightly pointed out, will be up to Mr. Nombre32597 to demonstrate in that venue, the absence of contamination, degradation, or affectation, pursuant to numeral 109 of the Biodiversity Law; secondly; and despite the fact that the administration in this case has delayed excessively, not only in attending to the plaintiff's requirements but also in initiating the administrative procedure requested from the Municipality sued herein, it will be in that matter where the relationship and distance between the Dirección2333 and the river protection area are verified; as well as the possible contamination of the environment; which as of today, this proceeding is in early stages, and it appears it has not yet begun, pending the hiring of a lawyer to carry out the procedure, which undoubtedly leaves an even clearer panorama in this case, since the claim sought by the plaintiff herein has been partially fulfilled in the administrative venue, which has decided on the initiation of that administrative procedure where the requirements of Mr. Brenes Soto must be analyzed, but the result of that matter, its investigation, the manner of its development, and of course the decision made in that matter, as of today, is uncertain, and could not form part, at this moment, of this precautionary measure and much less of a future main proceeding, for the simple reason that its result could not be assured, and should that be the case, the decision made in that matter may be appealed before that same administrative instance or, if applicable, before this Court, but at its appropriate procedural opportunity. As has been indicated, the plaintiff himself has reported that his original claim remains, and he does not intend to directly challenge a new administrative act. With this panorama, for this Court, the appearance of good law in this case is present but weakened, by virtue of the fact that, eventually, the petitioner could challenge the administrative act or disposition that at the time granted Mr. Nombre32597 the permits that have been granted for the exploitation and start-up of the cited Bar, as well as the distance or setback that must exist between a construction and a riverbed, recalling that contamination and environmental affectation are also being challenged. The indication that the appearance of good law is present but weakened is for the simple reason that an administrative procedure has been initiated in the administrative venue that could eventually prove Mr. Walter Brenes Soto right, but as the plaintiff himself cited, it is not a new administrative act that is being challenged, but rather the original one, which, as has been indicated, questions the permits granted to Bar Los Manitos, as well as the construction, its setback, and the possible contamination. In addition to this, the fact that an administrative nullity procedure has been initiated reflects that regarding this procedure and the possible administrative determination as to what is decided therein is uncertain, which Mr. Walter Brenes Soto must take into consideration, should he deem it timely to file the main proceeding before this venue, as established by numeral 31 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code and 173 of the Political Constitution; as well as the determination of the Court of Appeals for Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters in its Ruling No. 161-2018-II issued by the Second Section at eleven hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-eighth day of February of the year two thousand eighteen. That said, and regarding the main claim, which is the only one challenged by the petitioner herein, it is the criterion of this Adjudicator that it is possible to discuss in a main proceeding the conditions under which the administrative procedure was carried out with respect to the permits questioned by the plaintiff [...]
In this section, two particular situations are highlighted: the first of them is that the plaintiff affirms that the construction of the cited Bar near the river causes environmental damage in violation of Articles 17 of the Environmental Organic Law, Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law, and Article 33 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); however, this Court has evidenced that this Bar, as of today, has the necessary permits, both for construction and operation, a situation that, although questioned by the plaintiff, can only be analyzed in the administrative nullity cause pending before the Municipality of Garabito or in the merits of the main proceeding. The second situation occurring in this matter is that it could be presumed that contamination is being caused in the River, in the event that the plaintiff were correct in his affirmations regarding the fact that the construction of the Bar did not respect the distance limits, by which it could be further presumed that damage or contamination is being caused to the river and the environment; but this presumption does not reach nor is it sufficient without the proper demonstration and proof of the damage. While this Court understands that pursuant to numeral 109 of the Biodiversity Law, it would correspond to the co-defendant Nombre32597 to demonstrate the non-contamination of the environment or the river specifically, we could not ignore that this refers to the possible administrative proceeding -in progress- or in the alternative, in the merits of the main cause, but not in a prior or precautionary manner, because this verification of affectation or non-contamination could not be addressed in a precautionary manner, much less admitted beforehand, as it would break with the instrumentality that this type of proceeding enjoys with respect to the main proceeding, where it would indeed be correct to think that it is in that matter where the co-defendant must demonstrate the non-contamination or damage, or in the alternative, it may be alleged and proven by whoever is interested in doing so, but not beforehand. In this precautionary matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that comes close to evidencing that the river in that locality is indeed contaminated, and even less is there evidence proving that, if it were, this contamination is precisely being caused by Bar and Restaurante Los Manitos. Definitely, each case must be analyzed independently; however, this Court cannot overlook that, being in the presence of a precautionary measure, the severity of the damage must be proven by whoever alleges it, and the truth of the matter is that in the records, there is no evidence that supports the damage caused to the environment, much less that the producing source of it is the cited Bar [...]".
***... See more*** **Legislation and Doctrine Citations Related Rulings** **Text of the resolution** **Document PJEDITOR** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO** Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Email ...01 Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Annex A (Former Motorola Building) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **CASE FILE:** 17-012458-1027-CA **PROCESS:** PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE ANTE CAUSAM **FILED BY:** WALTER BRENES COTO **DEFENDANTS:** MUNICIPALITY OF GARABITO and Nombre28904 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **No. 89-2022** **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ - ANNEX A - Goicoechea,** at sixteen hours and five minutes on the sixteenth day of February of the year two thousand twenty-two.- A precautionary measure filed by Attorney WALTER BRENES COTO against the MUNICIPALITY OF GARABITO and Mr. Nombre28904.- **WHEREAS.** **I) THE OBJECT OF THIS PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE IS AS FOLLOWS:** The plaintiff herein, in this matter, seeks what is literally transcribed below: " (...) PETITION To immediately suspend the effects and scope of the Liquor License (Licencia de Expendido de Bebidas con Contenido Alcohólico) number 306 of Bar Los Manitos, until such time as the Municipality of Garabito initiates and resolves the ordinary administrative procedure, where the relationship and distance between Bar Los Manitos and the river protection area is verified, or until something to the contrary is ordered in a final and firm judgment. (see precautionary claim formulated on 12/21/2017).- **II)** That by means of the resolution issued at thirteen hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first day of December of the year two thousand seventeen, this Court, among other things, rejected the petition as an extremely provisional measure, and opted to grant an audience to the Municipality of Garabito and Mr. Nombre28904 so they could refer to the matter (see resolution issued on 12/21/2017).- **III)** By means of the brief filed on the seventh of February of the year two thousand eighteen, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito responded negatively to this precautionary petition, requesting that the request to impose precautionary measures be denied; because environmental damage has not been determined, and it has not been determined that there is contamination in the Quebrada Morales, and no valid reason has been demonstrated for the closure of the business, Bar and Restaurante Los Manitos (see brief filed on 02/07/2018).- **IV)** By means of the brief filed on the nineteenth of February of the year two thousand eighteen, Mr. Nombre28904 requests that the precautionary measure be rejected, since he has the corresponding permits and licenses, required by law, issued by the Municipal and Health authorities; as well as the corresponding construction permit issued by the Municipality of Garabito, under number 3344-2016, and reports that he has not been summoned by the Municipality of Garabito regarding the initiation of any administrative procedure aimed at annulling or establishing any administrative sanction derived from the operation of his commercial business (see brief filed on 02/19/2018).- **V)** This Court issues the resolution identified under number 146-2018-T at eleven hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-eighth day of February of the year two thousand eighteen, by means of which it ordered the following: "(...) The precautionary measure requested by Attorney WALTER BRENES SOTO, against the MUNICIPALITY OF GARABITO and Nombre28904, is rejected. Due to the inherent characteristics of these types of matters, judgment is rendered without special condemnation in costs. In due time, archive the case file.(...)". (see Resolution No. 146-2018-T).- **VI)** Disagreeing with the determination made by Resolution No. 146-2018-T, Attorney Walter Brenes Soto filed an appeal before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo -based, among other things- on the fact that the burden of proof does not correspond to the one filing the petition, but rather, in this case, in conformity with Article 109 of the Biodiversity Law, which establishes that "(...) The burden of proof for the absence of non-permitted contamination, degradation, or affectation shall correspond to whoever requests the approval, permit, or access to biodiversity or to whoever is accused of having caused environmental damage." Likewise, he based his argument on the distance or setback regarding the establishment's bathrooms which does not even have three meters of setback from the river's edge. (see appeal formulated in brief filed on 03/07/2018).- **VII)** That the Second Section of the Court of Appeals for Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters issues Ruling No. 161-2018-II at ten hours and fifty-three minutes on the twenty-third day of April of the year two thousand eighteen, by means of which it sua sponte annuls Resolution Number 146-2018-T issued at eleven hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-eighth of February of the year two thousand eighteen, so that the plaintiff herein would demonstrate the exhaustion of administrative remedies; considering on that occasion that the same in municipal matters is a requirement established by law as an action prior to resorting to this jurisdiction (see Ruling No. 161-2018-II sua sponte annulling Resolution 146-2018-T).- **VIII)** This Court, in compliance with what was ruled by the Court of Appeals for Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters, in Ruling No. 161-2018-II at ten hours and fifty-three minutes on the twenty-third day of April of the year two thousand eighteen, issues the resolution at thirteen hours and twenty minutes on the third day of May of the year two thousand eighteen, by means of which it grants the plaintiff a period of five business days to proceed to prove the exhaustion of administrative remedies (see resolution of 05/03/2018).- **IX)** By means of the brief dated the tenth of May of the year two thousand eighteen, Mr. Walter Brenes Soto reports that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is in progress, informing, moreover, that it is his understanding that this Court granted a precautionary measure without even having fulfilled the exhaustion of administrative remedies, specifically in case file 17-005701-1027-CA; therefore, he requests to continue with the processing of the precautionary measure (see brief dated 05/10/2018).- **X)** By means of the resolution issued at eight hours and fifty minutes on the eleventh day of May of the year two thousand eighteen; this Court acknowledges and rejects the petition to continue with the precautionary petition and informs the petitioner that in his case, the particularity of requesting the exhaustion of remedies corresponds to the fact that the Court of Appeals for Contentious-Administrative Matters issued its criterion, and hence the requirement by this Court. In that same resolution, the Municipality of Garabito was instructed to report the current status of the plaintiff's petition herein. (see resolution of 05/11/2018).- **XI)** By means of the brief dated the seventeenth of May of the year 2018, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito -among other things- communicates that, as of that date, it is carrying out the pertinent investigations of the elements that will serve as evidence for a potential act nullity proceeding (see brief dated 05/17/2018).- **XII)** This Court issues the resolution at ten hours on the twenty-second day of May of the year two thousand eighteen, by means of which it informs the petitioner of the brief and evidence provided by the Municipal representation in relation to the administrative events of interest for the case; to which, by means of the brief dated the twenty-eighth of May of the year two thousand eighteen, Mr. Walter Brenes Soto notes that his request for an ex officio nullity procedure remains under investigation, maintaining, in his case, legal uncertainty, for not having a resolution, even in evident violation of his constitutional rights. In that same brief, he notes the Amparo Appeal (Recurso de Amparo), case file number 18-007084-0007-CO, and the Legality Amparo (Amparo de Legalidad) -case file 18-003602-1027-CA-, which have commissions to be notified to the defendant Municipality. (see resolution of 05/22/2018 and brief dated 05/28/2018, filed by Attorney Brenes Soto).- **XIII)** By means of the brief filed on the twenty-fifth of June of the year 2018, Attorney Walter Brenes Soto reports that, by means of resolution number 2018009390 at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fifteenth of June of 2018, the Constitutional Chamber orders declaring the Amparo Appeal filed as having merit -and among other things- " (...) orders Tobías Murillo Rodríguez, in his capacity as Mayor of Garabito, or whoever holds the office in his place, to carry out the necessary steps, within the scope of his powers, so that within a period of 2 MONTHS, counted from the notification of this pronouncement, the petition initiated by the appellant on August 9, 2017, is resolved, and he is notified of whatever is decided.(...)". (see brief filed on 06/25/2018, and Constitutional Chamber resolution No. 2018009390, case file No. 18-007084-0007-CO).- **XIV)** By means of the resolution issued at thirteen hours and thirty-three minutes on the twenty-fourth of September of the year two thousand eighteen, this Court informs the Municipal representation of the documentation provided by Attorney Walter Brenes Soto, related to the resolution of the Amparo Appeal identified under number 2018009390 (see resolution of 09/24/2018).- **XV)** By means of the brief filed on the second of October of the year 2018, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito reported that, in compliance with the Constitutional Chamber's order, the resolution was issued at nineteen hours and forty-four minutes on the thirteenth of August of two thousand eighteen, (AME-454-2018-TM), in which the request for a declaration of nullity of the construction permit for the existing building on the unregistered land, corresponding to the cadastral map number Placa4962, which was authorized by construction permit Placa4961, was resolved on the merits. It is noted that this resolution also resolved regarding the licenses granted to Mr. Nombre28904; by means of which, it was determined that the construction permit was granted in accordance with the law, as were the commercial licenses, and furthermore, it was not determined that there was any contamination of the Quebrada Morales. It reports that this resolution was duly notified to Mr. Walter Brenes Soto, who challenged it through the motions for reconsideration (recursos de revocatoria) and, subsidiarily, appeal, which as of that date are being resolved. (see brief filed on 10/02/2018).- **XVI)** By means of the resolution issued at eleven hours and ten minutes on the nineteenth day of February of the year two thousand nineteen, this Court, among other things, grants the Municipality of Garabito a period of three business days to report on the processing, or administrative disposition regarding the remedies filed by the plaintiff herein, against the resolution issued at nineteen hours and forty-four minutes on the thirteenth of August of the year two thousand eighteen (AME-454-2018-TM). (see resolution of 02/19/2019).- **XVII)** By means of the brief received on the 26th of February of the year two thousand nineteen, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito notes that through resolution AME-454-2018-TM, the Municipal Mayor ordered the Technical Services Process to carry out an administrative process to regularize the existing constructions on the unregistered property, located at Dirección3363, Canton of Garabito, corresponding to map P-1366643-2009. It notes that this report is essential to resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff herein, since from it, a current analysis of the location and operation of the business will be obtained, and whether there is indeed contamination of the Quebrada Morales. Requesting an additional period be granted so that the investigation can be concluded and the Motion for Reconsideration against resolution AME-454-2018-TM can be adequately resolved. (see brief filed on 02/26/2019).- **XVIII)** By means of the resolution issued at thirteen hours and thirty-five minutes on the thirty-first day of July of the year two thousand nineteen, this Court granted the Municipality of Garabito a period of twenty-four hours to report on the status or result of the investigation and/or current analysis of the location and operation of the business in question, and whether contamination of the Quebrada Morales does or does not exist, as well as to indicate the result of the motion for reconsideration and appeal filed by Attorney Brenes Soto. (see resolution of 07/31/2019).- **XIX)** By means of the brief received on the sixth of August of the year two thousand nineteen, the Municipal representation reports what is literally transcribed below: "(...) In the attached sketch, the dimensions of the construction setbacks are shown. On the east side of the property, 10 meters of setback in conformity with Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575, while on the west side there is a 2-meter front setback. Projecting the setbacks generates a free area where some construction of 42m2 of land could be carried out.(...)". Furthermore, it is reported that the appeal filed by the plaintiff was declared without merit, the motion for reconsideration, and the appeal was remitted to the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, as Improper Hierarch concerning the appeal, which has not yet been resolved. Of the foregoing, this Court informs the plaintiff within a period of three business days, who, upon referring to it, states that official communication ST-182-2019 signed by Engineer Susana Rodríguez Chaverri concluded that as a result of the inspection carried out, it was determined that the construction on the property of Mr. Nombre28904 is within the protection area, which reaffirms his trespass thesis, requesting to continue with the processing of this matter (see brief filed on 08/06/2019 and the plaintiff's response brief to said communication).- **XX)** By means of the brief dated the eighteenth of February of the year two thousand twenty, the Municipal representation reports and proves that a response was given to the motion for reconsideration filed by Mr. Walter Brenes Soto against resolution AME-454-2018-TM, by means of resolution AME-033-2020-TM issued at ten hours and fifteen minutes on the twenty-first day of February of the year two thousand twenty; whereby the following is resolved: "(...) TO ACCEPT the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by WALTER BRENES SOTO against Resolution number AME-454-2018 of nineteen hours and forty-four minutes on the thirteenth of August of two thousand eighteen, remitting in this act to the Municipal Council the background of the case, so that this body of councilors, in compliance with the provisions of Article 173 of the General Public Administration Law, if deemed pertinent, initiates the administrative nullity procedure for construction permit number Placa4963 and the commercial and liquor licenses granted to Bar Los Manitos. Given the manner in which it is resolved, the appeal before the Improper Hierarch is omitted, and the appellant is summoned before the Municipal Council for whatever corresponds.(...)". (see brief dated 02/18/2020 and attached evidence).- **XXI)** This Court issues the resolution at eleven hours and eleven minutes on the twenty-fourth of February of two thousand twenty, by means of which it grants the parties a period of three business days to refer to resolution number AME-033-2020-TM of ten hours and fifteen minutes on the twenty-first of February of the year 2020 (see resolution of 02/24/2020).- **XXII)** By means of the brief dated February 24, 2020, Mr. Walter Brenes Soto states that "(...) after reviewing the fulfillment presented by the Municipality of Garabito in response to the resolution of ten hours and ten minutes on the seventeenth of February 2020, he requests that this precautionary measure be granted with merit (...)" (see brief filed on 02/24/2020).- **XXIII)** By means of the brief dated the twenty-seventh of February of the year 2020, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito states that, although administratively, resolution AME-454-2020 appealed by the plaintiff was revoked and knowledge of the matter was remitted to the Municipal Council, it considers that it must be clear that technical study ST-182-2019 only outlines that "PART" of the construction is within the protection area of the Quebrada Lisa, so in its judgment, it is premature and reckless to issue a precautionary measure suspending the effects of the construction permits without first determining whether that part invading the protection zone would affect the commercial activity in its entirety or whether it is possible to adjust the infrastructure in the 42m2 free area that could be buildable.
It maintains its opposition to the precautionary measure, based on the fact that the administrative proceeding to determine the existence of compelling nullity defects will just be initiated by the Municipal Council, given the knowledge of subsequent technical studies ST-182-2019, and that the plaintiff has not reliably demonstrated the existence and condition of the alleged damage, as argued by its representation in the response to the precautionary measure - official letter AL-071-2018-JM-. (see brief dated 02/27/2020).- XXIV) By means of the brief dated August 7, 2022, Mr. Walter Brenes Soto points out that the Municipal Council of Garabito, in Regular Session number 14, article IV, subsection e, agreed that the analysis and investigation of whether the acts should be annulled based on absolute, evident, and manifest nullity corresponds to the Municipal Mayor, and not to the Municipal Council, as erroneously indicated in administrative resolution AME-033-2020-TM; therefore, he requested that this Court issue a "BIS" to the Municipal Mayor to proceed with the initiation of the corresponding administrative proceeding to determine the nullity of the acts; as a result, this Court issues the resolution of four thirteen in the afternoon on August 19, 2020; by means of which it grants the Mayor a period of three business days to report the current status of the administrative proceeding that is the object of this matter, which corresponds to the initiation of the administrative proceeding to determine or not the nullity of the acts (see brief dated 08/06/2020 and resolution of 08/19/2020).
CONSIDERANDO
For its part, the representation of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO stated, as is of interest, the following: it points out that the plaintiff provides no evidence whatsoever of the existence of environmental damage, or pollution to the Quebrada Morales, which exists near the commercial business Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos. For that representation, what must be analyzed is whether or not there is damage to the environment, and that if the existence thereof is affirmed, supported by the principle In Dubio Pro Natura, protection must be afforded to the environment, and that in this particular case there is no evidence of damages against the environment and hence the inadmissibility of this precautionary petition. Regarding the Appearance of Good Law (Apariencia de Buen Derecho), it cites that there is no conclusive evidence provided in this proceeding regarding the existence of a violation of the river protection area. That the documents it provided were questioned by the Concejo Municipal de Garabito, because they were not signed, and the accreditation of environmental damage being caused is necessary, which the action filed lacks. It adds that this section refers to a series of rules, however it does not specifically indicate which specific act is violating the cited provisions. Subsequently, and in the processing of this matter, and the administrative determinations that have been provided to this proceeding, it is observed that the Municipalidad de Garabito has – in part – agreed with the plaintiff here, at least regarding the initiation of an administrative procedure to establish the appropriateness or not of the nullity of the permits granted to the co-defendant, as well as to establish in that forum the occurrence or not of damage to the River and, of course, to the environment, as well as to establish the setback of the construction with respect to it. Regarding the Danger in Delay (Peligro en la Demora); it points out that the damage referred to by the plaintiff, in that it is caused by the construction and start-up of Bar Manitos, is not an effective and individualizable damage; at most, if the plaintiff's hypothesis were true, it would be a potential damage, for violation of Article 33 of the Ley Forestal, and the truth is that the existence of any damage being caused to the environment has not been demonstrated, nor is any type of pollution or direct damage to the environment being produced. Regarding the Balancing of Interests at Stake (Ponderación de Intereses en Juego), it considers that the approach taken by the plaintiff is erroneous, because what should be of interest is the protection of nature, and therefore the measure must focus on that protective purpose and not impose a precautionary measure under the argument that it does not cause any affectation to the public interest. For his part, Mr. Nombre28904, as is of interest for the resolution of this matter, stated that this precautionary petition must be rejected, especially since the commercial business called Restaurante los Manitos is operating with the corresponding permits and licenses required by law, namely, Commercial Patent or License (Patente o Licencia Comercial), issued by the Municipalidad de Garabito, Health Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Salud), issued by the governing health area, Regulation and Marketing Patent for Beverages with Alcoholic Content (Patente de Regulación y Comercialización de Bebidas con contenido Alcohólico), Liquor License Number Three (Patente de Licores Número Tres), approved by the Concejo Municipal de Garabito, Ordinary Session 44, held on March 1, two thousand seventeen. He adds that the building where the aforementioned commercial business operates has the respective construction permit which was issued by the Municipalidad de Garabito, under number 3344 - 2016. He indicates that he has not been summoned by the Municipalidad de Garabito regarding the initiation of any administrative process aimed at annulling or establishing any administrative sanction derived from the operation of his commercial business, where he could exercise his right of defense.- VI) CRITERION OF THIS JUDGE: As is more than evident, in this matter we have totally conflicting theses, each side defending its different positions. It must be clear that the public administration must ensure each and every one of the requirements established by Law, in order to safeguard their faithful compliance, and more so on issues of public health which is paired with a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, recognized and protected by the Constitución Política, as the plaintiff here has well indicated. That said, it must not be overlooked that the core reason set forth by the plaintiff is not directed solely at the pollution of the River; but rather regarding the setback that the construction must have with respect to it. In the case under analysis, it appears that the controversy does not lie solely in the issue of pollution; but arises from the construction of the structure that houses the co-defendant's Bar, a construction that, with the evidence provided, holds the municipal permits, which are precisely what the plaintiff questions and which have allowed Mr. Nombre28904 to carry out his activity for years. That said, in this case, as has been shown, the core reason for the precautionary measure or the claim itself is to suspend the effects and scope of Alcoholic Beverage License (Licencia de Bebidas Alcohólicas) number 306, for Bar Los Manitos, until the administration initiates an ordinary administrative process, where the relationship and distance between Bar Los Manitos and the river protection area is verified, or the contrary is ordered in a final and unappealable judgment. As has been indicated, this is the original claim of this precautionary measure; which, in the words of the petitioner himself, the request for a precautionary measure is maintained, as stated in the brief received on October twenty-first of the current year. Now, if we analyze this claim well, it was required that this Court, in a prior, urgent, and extremely provisional manner, admit that precautionary claim, which sought the suspension of Alcoholic Beverage License (Licencia de Bebidas Alcohólicas) number 306, for Bar Los Manitos, until the administration "(...) initiates an ordinary administrative process (...)", which to this day the administration represented in this case by the Municipalidad de Garabito, in that forum, agreed with Mr. Walter Brenes Soto, see among others official letters AL-488-2021-EM; S.G-431-2021 of 06/08/2021. Likewise, through the brief dated February eighteenth of the year two thousand twenty, the Municipal representation informs and proves that a response was given to the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed by Mr. Walter Brenes Soto against resolution AME-454-2018-TM, through resolution AME-033-2020-TM issued at ten hours fifteen minutes on February twenty-first of the year two thousand twenty; in which the following was ordered: "(...) ACCEPT the APPEAL FOR REVOCATION (RECURSO DE REVOCATORIA) filed by WALTER BRENES SOTO against Resolution number AME-454-2018 of nineteen hours forty-four minutes on August thirteenth, two thousand eighteen, forwarding at this act to the Concejo Municipal the background of the case, so that this body of councilors, in compliance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, if it deems it pertinent, initiates the administrative nullity procedure for construction permit number Placa4963 and the commercial and liquor licenses granted to Bar Los Manitos. Due to the manner in which it is resolved, elevating the appeal before the Improper Hierarch (Jerarca Impropio) is omitted and the appellant is summoned before the Concejo Municipal for what corresponds.(...)". (The bolding and underlining are ours) (see brief dated 18/02/2020 and attached evidence). With the foregoing, two specific situations are deemed accredited. The first of them is that in the administrative forum, the thesis of the plaintiff here has been admitted in that an administrative procedure must necessarily be initiated, through which the possible required nullity is established or not; as well as providing the co-defendant himself in that process the opportunity for defense, which, as the plaintiff here rightly pointed out, it will be up to Mr. Nombre28904 to demonstrate in that forum the absence of pollution, degradation, or affectation, as provided by numeral 109 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; secondly, and despite the fact that the administration in this case has delayed excessively, not only in attending to the plaintiff's requirements, but also in initiating the administrative procedure that has been sought before the Municipalidad sued here, it will be in that matter where the relationship and distance between the Dirección2333 and the river protection area is verified; as well as the possible pollution to the environment; which to this day, this procedure is in its early stages, and it appears it has not yet been initiated pending the hiring of a male or female lawyer to carry out the procedure, which undoubtedly makes the outlook even clearer in this case, since the claim sought by the plaintiff here has been partially fulfilled in the administrative forum, which has decided the initiation of that administrative procedure where the requirements of Mr. Brenes Soto must be analyzed, but the result of that matter, its investigation, the manner of its development, and of course the decision made therein, as of today is uncertain, and could not form part of this precautionary measure at this moment, much less of a future plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento), for the simple reason that the result thereof could not be assured, that if applicable, the decision made in that matter may be appealed before that same administrative instance or, if applicable, before this Court, but at its appropriate procedural time. As has been indicated, the plaintiff himself has reported that his original claim remains, and he does not intend to directly attack a new administrative act. With this outlook, for this Court the appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho) in this case is present but weakened, by virtue of the fact that eventually the petitioner could attack the administrative act or provision that in its time granted Mr. Nombre28904 the permits that have been granted for the operation and start-up of the cited Bar, as well as the distance or setback (retiro) that must exist between a construction and the course of a river, bearing in mind that the pollution and affectation to the environment is also being attacked. That the appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho) is stated to be present but weakened is for the simple reason that in the administrative forum an administrative procedure has been initiated that could eventually prove Mr. Walter Brenes Soto right, but as the plaintiff himself cited, he does not attack a new administrative act, but the original one, which, as has been indicated, questions the permits granted to Bar Los Manitos, as well as the construction, its setback, and the possible pollution. Coupled with this, the fact that an administrative nullity procedure has been initiated reflects that regarding that procedure and the possible administrative determination regarding what is determined therein, it is uncertain, which Mr. Walter Brenes Soto must take into consideration, in the event that he deems it appropriate to file a plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) before this court, as established by numeral 31 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo and 173 of the Constitución Política; as well as the determination of the Tribunal de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda in its Voto N°161-2018-II issued by the Second Section at eleven hours fifty-five minutes on February twenty-eighth, two thousand eighteen. That being said, and regarding the main claim, which is the only one attacked by the petitioner here, it is the criterion of this Judge that it is possible to discuss in a plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) the conditions under which the administrative procedure was carried out regarding the permits questioned by the plaintiff. The different positions that have arisen in this matter lead the undersigned to consider that they must be subjected to a detailed analysis, which could only be done in a plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento). In addition to this, we cannot overlook the fact that the jurisdiction of this court, derived both from the provisions of Article 49 of the Constitution and from the provisions of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, makes it possible to exercise full control over the legality of the administrative function, which implies declaring the legal non-conformity of those formal or material conducts that are contrary to the legality block. The appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho) in itself is a judgment of probabilities that the Judge makes about the eventual result of the process, which, since we are facing a precautionary measure, and even more so like the present one which is ante causam, it is premature to warn of its appropriateness or not, because the arguments and evidence that will support the plenary proceeding could be different from those that occupy us today. Moreover, not even at this stage could the undersigned venture to call this requirement into question, in application of the constitutional principle that guarantees that any person who feels affected by an administrative action can seek redress in this Jurisdiction, with access to Justice also being recognized as a fundamental right (Articles 41 and 49 of the Constitución Política). Thus, and at least prima facie and without prejudging the matter, and without even determining the probabilities of success of the complaint, the truth is that it bears at least the necessary seriousness to be analyzed in this Jurisdiction; and with that, the analyzed prerequisite is deemed accredited. Regarding the danger in delay (peligro en la demora): Before analyzing this prerequisite, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are in the presence of an ante causam precautionary measure, which would not allow anything that touches on aspects of the plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento); therefore, establishing in advance the damage, the possible pollution to the River and the environment, or an invasion of the protected area, are not matters that must be accredited or addressed in advance, as these are proper to the main, not precautionary, proceeding. Starting from the above; it is understood that in this case the petitioner directs the damage to pollution and the affectation of the environment, specifically due to the proximity of Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos to the River. In this section, two particular situations stand out, the first being that the plaintiff affirms that the construction of the cited Bar near the river causes environmental damage in violation of the provisions of Articles 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 109 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, and Article 33 of the Ley Forestal; however, this Court has shown that this Bar, to this day, has the necessary permits, both for construction and operation, a situation that, although the plaintiff questions, can only be analyzed in the administrative nullity proceeding currently before the Municipalidad de Garabito or in the merits of the plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento). The second situation present in this matter is that one could presume that pollution is being caused to the River, in the eventual case that the plaintiff is correct in their affirmations, with respect to the fact that the construction of the Bar did not respect the distance limits, whereby one could also presume that damage or pollution is being caused to the river and the environment; but that presumption is not sufficient nor does it reach the level without the proper demonstration and proof of the damage. While this Tribunal understands that in accordance with numeral 109 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, it would be up to the co-defendant Nombre28904 to demonstrate the non-pollution of the environment or the river specifically, we cannot overlook that this refers to the possible administrative proceeding – in process – or failing that, in the merits of the main proceedings, but not in a prior or precautionary manner, because that verification of affectation or non-pollution could not be addressed in a precautionary way, much less admitted in advance, as it would break the instrumentality that these types of petitions enjoy with respect to the plenary (proceso de conocimiento) or main proceeding, where it would indeed be correct to think that it is in that matter where the co-defendant must demonstrate the non-pollution or damage, or failing that, it may be alleged and proven by whoever is interested in doing so, but not in advance. In this precautionary matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that the river in that locality is indeed polluted, and much less is there evidence that accredits that, if it were happening, that pollution is precisely being caused by Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos. Definitely, each case must be analyzed independently; however, this Court cannot overlook that when we are in the presence of a precautionary measure, the seriousness of the damage must be proven by whoever alleges it, and the truth of the matter is that in the case file there is no evidence that supports the damage caused to the environment, much less that its producing source is the cited Bar. In this case, it must be clear that the precautionary measure was declared without merit in an extremely provisional manner on December twenty-first, two thousand seventeen, so there would be a logical consequence in this denial which consists precisely in that since that date, that is, more than four years ago, Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos has continued to operate without any inconvenience, and to this day there is not a single piece of evidence in this matter from said date that would make one consider that the plaintiff was indeed correct, or why not, the administration itself represented here by the Municipalidad de Garabito, which must ensure that environmental protection, which regarding this, in that forum an administrative procedure has been initiated in which the appropriateness or not of what the petitioner claims will be determined, but until that happens, the demonstration of the damage and that affectation supposedly caused by the business is necessary for this precautionary stage; such that a decision of such significance as leaving the co-defendant without his source of income in a preliminary manner and without the determination of the damage caused by him could be made; and in those circumstances, the analyzed element could not be deemed satisfied, and in that sense, the precautionary measure must be rejected, since the lack of a single requirement or prerequisite of the precautionary measure results in its rejection as they are not mutually exclusive. Despite the foregoing determination, a pronouncement is issued regarding the balancing of interests at stake (ponderación de los intereses en juego) and the affectation to the public interest or that of interested third parties: In this section, the parties have focused on the damage that the public interest could experience whether this precautionary petition is granted or not, such that the damage regarding the pollution claimed by the plaintiff, and which is allegedly caused by Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos, not having been demonstrated, this prerequisite must be deemed rejected or not satisfied, since the damage not having been demonstrated, the private interest must yield to the Public Interest. In this case, as has been shown, the parties have overlooked the fact that the analyzed element or requirement has been structured or divided into two interests, namely the Public Interest; as well as the interests of third parties who could be affected in one way or another by the Judicial determination, and it is precisely this that has been overlooked by the party resorting to this court, and it is precisely at this point that the undersigned must pause and be cautious in the analysis of the situation. In this matter, the manner in which the permits were granted to Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos has been discussed and questioned by the plaintiff here, as well as the construction of the infrastructure that he claims is located within the river's limits; to the point that he has reported that the main complaint (demanda principal) will aim for the annulment of the construction permits, as well as the commercial license granted to Mr. Nombre28904. However, until that occurs, we find ourselves with a panorama different from that described by the plaintiff, since the construction and operation permits were granted to Mr. Nombre28904, and to this day he enjoys them, which has given him the possibility of operating his business, a situation that with the evidence he provides could demonstrate that he acquired them in good faith, despite the fact that their granting is questioned by the plaintiff here, both in this court and in the administrative forum in the nullity proceeding that the petitioner himself sought as part of his precautionary claim, which is currently pending. For this Court, in this case, we are facing a situation that must be protected; since the questioning made by the plaintiff here is a matter fully reviewable in this Jurisdiction as indicated when analyzing the prerequisite of appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho); that must be totally clear; but it is a matter that should be discussed in the plenary (proceso de conocimiento) or administrative proceeding, and it would be contrary to law if, through this precautionary measure, a person who initially acted in good faith and complied with the requirements established by the sued Municipalidad, as well as the Health authorities, is left without support. With the evidence that has been received throughout this precautionary petition, it has been shown that the sued Municipalidad has initiated the administrative procedure to be able to analyze a possible nullity; and it will be in that matter that the co-defendant must defend his position, which, as Mr. Nombre28904 has correctly interpreted, he has the right to defend himself, or also in the case of filing an administrative contentious proceeding (proceso contencioso administrativo), he will have the possibility of offering evidence in his support, but while that happens, it is the criterion of this Court that it would be misguided and detrimental to the co-defendant if the effects and scope of the License for the Sale of Beverages with Alcoholic Content (Licencia de Expendio de Bebidas con Contenido Alcohólico), which is what has allowed him to carry out his activity at Bar Los Manitos, were suspended, so if one wishes to protect or minimize a possible affectation to third parties as established by the analyzed prerequisite or element, the undersigned deems it appropriate and convenient not to deem this element satisfied, and consequently the precautionary measure must be rejected, because for its appropriateness, as indicated, it is required that each and every one of them be present. The balance on this occasion tilts in favor of protecting the rights of Mr. Nombre28904, who, with his permits current and valid, is operating Bar y Restaurante los Manitos; or at least is in the process of rebuilding it, regarding the fire that the structure suffered. That being so, the filed precautionary measure is rejected.
POR TANTO
The precautionary measure requested by Licenciado WALTER BRENES SOTO, against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO and Mr. Nombre28904 is rejected. Due to the characteristics inherent to this type of matter, judgment is entered without a special award of costs. In due course, archive the case file. NOTIFÍQUESE. Lic. Rodrigo Huertas Durán. Judge.- *RZN47R5A47HVE61* RODRIGO HUERTAS DURÁN - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Clasificación elaborada por CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL del Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Clase de asunto: Medida cautelar ante causam Analizado por: CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL Sentencias del mismo expediente Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: Derecho Procesal Contencioso Administrativo Tema: Medidas cautelares en el proceso contencioso administrativo Subtemas:
Improcedente suspender la licencia comercial de establecimiento pese a que está ubicado en área de protección de un río. Generalidades y características estructurales para su otorgamiento.
"I) GENERALIDADES PARA EL OTORGAMIENTO DE UNA MEDIDA CAUTELAR. Tal y como ha sido desarrollado por la Sala Constitucional, la justicia cautelar responde a la necesidad de garantizar el principio constitucional de una justicia pronta y cumplida, al conservar las condiciones reales indispensables para la emisión y ejecución de la sentencia. (Resolución 7190-1994, de las 15:24 horas del 6 de diciembre). En este mismo sentido, el artículo 19 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, establece que el fin de la fijación de una medida cautelar es proteger y garantizar, provisionalmente el objeto del proceso y la efectividad de la sentencia. La doctrina ha indicado que la justicia cautelar no tiene como fin declarar un hecho o una responsabilidad, ni la de constituir una relación jurídica, ni ejecutar un mandato y satisfacer el derecho que se tiene sin ser discutido, ni dirimir un litigio, sino prevenir los daños que el litigio pueda acarrear o que puedan derivarse de una situación anormal (Gallegos Fedriani, Pablo. Las medidas cautelares contra la Administración Pública. 2 ed. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ábaco, 2006). Teniendo claro lo anterior, el juzgador con observancia de lo dispuesto en el artículo 21 de la norma procesal indicado, debe determinar la procedencia de una solicitud de medida cautelar, verificando al efecto que la pretensión del proceso de conocimiento no sea temeraria o, en forma palmaria, carente de seriedad, lo que constituye una valoración preliminar del fondo para determinar si existe en el caso en cuestión lo que la doctrina y la jurisprudencia han llamado apariencia de buen derecho o fumus boni iuris [...]
Con lo anterior se tiene por acreditado dos situaciones puntuales.
La primera de ellas es que en sede administrativa se ha admitido la tesis del aquí actor en cuanto a que necesariamente se debe de iniciar un procedimiento administrativo, por medio del cual se establezca o no la posible nulidad que se requiere; así como el brindarle al propio co demandado en ese proceso la oportunidad de defensa, que como bien lo hizo ver el aquí actor, será al señor Nombre32597 a quien le corresponderá el demostrar en aquella sede, la ausencia de contaminación degradación o afectación, conforme lo dispone el numeral 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; en segundo lugar; y pese a que la administración en este caso ha tardado en demasía, no solo en atender los requerimientos del actor, sino de la iniciación del procedimiento administrativo que ha gestionado ante la Municipalidad aquí demandada, será en ese asunto donde se verifique la relación y distancia entre el Dirección2333 y el área de protección del río; así como la posible contaminación al medio ambiente; lo que al día de hoy este procedimiento se encuentra en etapas tempranas, que al parecer aún no se ha iniciado a la espera de la contratación de un abogado o abogada que realice el procedimiento, lo que sin lugar a dudas deja un panorama aún más despejado en este caso, ya que la pretensión que buscaba el aquí actor, se ha cumplido parcialmente en sede administrativa, que ha decidido la iniciación de aquel procedimiento administrativo donde se deberán analizar los requerimientos del señor Brenes Soto, pero el resultado de ese asunto, su investigación, la forma de desarrollo del mismo, y por supuesto la decisión que en ese asunto se tome, al día de hoy es incierto, y no podría formar en este momento de la presente medida cautelar y mucho menos de un futuro proceso de conocimiento, por la simple razón que no se podría asegurar el resultado del mismo, que de ser el caso, la decisión que se tome en ese asunto, podrá ser recurrida ante esa misma instancia administrativa ó de ser el caso ante este Tribunal, pero en su oportunidad procesal. Como se ha indicado, el propio actor ha informado que su pretensión original se mantiene, y no pretende atacar directamente un nuevo acto administrativo. Con este panorama para este Tribunal la apariencia de buen derecho en este caso se encuentra presente pero debilitada, en virtud de que en la eventualidad podría el gestionante atacar el acto o disposición administrativa que en su oportunidad le otorgó al señor Nombre32597 ; los permisos que se le han concedido para la explotación y puesta en marcha del Bar citado, así como la distancia o retiro que debe de existir entre una construcción y el cause de un río, que recordando se está atacando además la contaminación y la afectación al ambiente. El que se indique que la apariencia de buen derecho está presente pero debilitada, es por la simple razón que en sede administrativa se ha iniciado un procedimiento administrativo que en la eventualidad podría darle la razón al señor Walter Brenes Soto, pero como él propio actor lo citó, no se ataca un nuevo acto administrativo, sino el original, que como se ha indicado cuestiona los permisos concedidos al Bar Los Manitos, así como la construcción, retiro del mismo y la posible contaminación. Aunado a ello, al haberse iniciado un procedimiento administrativo de nulidad, refleja que en cuanto a ese procedimiento y la posible determinación administrativa en cuanto a lo que en este se determine es incierta, de lo cual deberá tomar en consideración el señor Walter Brenes Soto, en el caso de que considere oportuno la interposición del proceso de conocimiento ante esta vía, conforme lo establece el numeral 31 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y 173 de la Constitución Política; así como la determinación del Tribunal de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda en su Voto N°161-2018-II emitido por la Sección Segunda al ser las once horas y cincuenta y cinco minutos del día veintiocho de Febrero del año dos mil dieciocho. Dicho esto, y en cuanto a la pretensión principal, que es la única atacada por el aquí gestionante, es criterio de este Juzgador que resulta posible discutir en un proceso de conocimiento las condiciones en las que fue llevado a cabo el procedimiento administrativo con respecto a los permisos que cuestiona la parte actora [...]
En este apartado se destacandos situaciones particulares, la primera de ellas es que la parte actora afirma que la construcción del Bar citado en la cercanías del río, provoca un daño al ambiente en violación a lo establecido a los artículos 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal.; sin embargo este Tribunal ha evidenciado que ese Bar al día de hoy cuenta con los permisos necesarios, tanto de construcción como de funcionamiento, situación que si bien cuestiona la parte actora, solo se podrá analizar en la causa administrativa de nulidad en trámite ante la Municipalidad de Garabito ó en el fondo del proceso de conocimiento. La segunda situación que se da en este asunto, es que se podría presumir que se está provocando una contaminación en el Río, en el eventual caso de que la parte actora llevara razón en sus afirmaciones, con respecto a que la construcción del Bar no respetó los límites de distancia, con lo cual se podría presumir además, que se este provocando un daño o contaminación al río y al medio ambiente; pero esa presunción no alcanza ni es suficiente sin la debida demostración y prueba del daño. Si bien comprende este Tribunal que de conformidad del numeral 109 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, le correspondería al co demandado Nombre32597 el demostrar la no contaminación al medio ambiente o al río en específico, no podríamos dejar de lado que eso se refiere al posible proceso administrativo -en trámite- o en su defecto en el fondo de la causa principal, pero no de forma previa o cautelar, porque esa comprobación de afectación o la no contaminación, no se podría abordar de forma cautelar, menos aún admitirla de forma previa, por cuanto rompería con la instrumentalidad de las que gozan este tipo de gestiones con respecto al proceso de conocimiento o principal, donde sí resultaría acertado el pensar que es en ese asunto, donde el co demandado deberá demostrar la no contaminación o daño, o en su defecto podrá ser alegado y comprobado por quien resulte interesado en hacerlo, pero no de forma previa. En este asunto cautelar, no existe ninguna prueba que venga a evidenciar que efectivamente el río de esa localidad se encuentre contaminado, y mucho menos existe una prueba que acredite que en el caso de darse, esa contaminación la está provocando precisamente el Bar y Restaurante Los Manitos. Definitivamente cada caso hay que analizarlo de forma independiente, sin embargo no puede pasar por alto este Tribunal que al encontrarnos en presencia de una medida cautelar, la gravedad del daño debe ser probado por quien lo alega, y lo cierto del caso es que en autos no existe ninguna prueba que respalde el daño provocado al ambiente y mucho menos que la fuente productora del mismo lo sea el Bar citado [...]".
... Ver más Citas de Legislación y Doctrina Sentencias Relacionadas Documento PJEDITOR TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Correo Electrónico ...01 Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A (Antiguo edificio Motorola) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROCESO: MEDIDA CAUTELAR ANTE CAUSAM PROMUEVE: WALTER BRENES COTO DEMANDADOS: MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO y Nombre28904 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N°89-2022 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ - ANEXO A - Goicoechea, al ser las dieciséis horas cinco minutos del día dieciséis de Febrero del año dos mil veintidós.- Medida cautelar interpuesta por el Licenciado WALTER BRENES COTO en contra de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO y del señor Nombre28904 .-
RESULTANDO.
CONSIDERANDO
POR TANTO
Se rechaza la medida cautelar solicitada por el Licenciado WALTER BRENES SOTO, en contra de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO y del señor Nombre28904 . Por las características propias de este tipo de asuntos, se falla sin especial condenatoria en costas. En su oportunidad archívese el expediente. NOTIFÍQUESE. Lic. Rodrigo Huertas Durán. Juez.- *RZN47R5A47HVE61* RODRIGO HUERTAS DURÁN - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Clasificación elaborada por CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.