← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 06418-2023 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · 13/12/2023
OutcomeResultado
The Court partially granted the claim, annulling Resolution DM-LC-801-2020 for lack of reasoning in failing to weigh the exception under Article 12(b) of Law 9028, and ordered the plaintiff removed from the offenders' registry; the remaining claims were dismissed.El Tribunal declaró parcialmente con lugar la demanda, anulando la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 por falta de motivación al no ponderar la excepción del artículo 12 inciso b) de la Ley 9028, y ordenó eliminar al demandante del registro de infractores; las demás pretensiones se rechazaron.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Appeals Court partially annulled a sanction imposed by the Ministry of Health on the owner of Pulpería Nataly for allegedly promoting tobacco products by possessing 17 cigarette packs with attached lighters. The Court found that the Minister's resolution confirming the fine lacked proper reasoning, as it failed to analyze the exception under Article 12(b) of Law No. 9028, which allows advertising and promotion through direct communication between sellers and consumers according to a regulatory protocol. Testimonial evidence showed the cigarette-lighters packages had been delivered by distributors, were stored out of public view, and were not actively displayed at the point of sale. Consequently, the Court declared the absolute nullity of the sanctioning resolution DM-LC-801-2020 due to a defect in the act's motivation, and ordered the removal of the plaintiff's name from the offenders' registry. Other claims regarding inspector authority and missing signatures were dismissed.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo anuló parcialmente una sanción impuesta por el Ministerio de Salud al propietario de la Pulpería Nataly por supuesta promoción de productos de tabaco, al encontrar 17 cajetillas de cigarrillos con encendedores adheridos. El Tribunal determinó que la resolución del Ministro de Salud que confirmó la multa carecía de motivación adecuada, pues no analizó ni ponderó la excepción prevista en el artículo 12 inciso b) de la Ley N° 9028, que permite la publicidad y promoción por comunicación directa entre vendedores y consumidores conforme al protocolo reglamentario. La prueba testimonial acreditó que los cigarrillos con encendedores habían sido entregados por los distribuidores, estaban almacenados fuera de la vista del público y no se estaban exhibiendo activamente en el punto de venta. Por ello, el Tribunal declaró la nulidad absoluta de la resolución sancionatoria DM-LC-801-2020 por vicio en el motivo del acto administrativo, y ordenó eliminar al demandante del registro de infractores. Se rechazaron otras pretensiones sobre incompetencia de los fiscalizadores y falta de firma.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In this case, as already noted, the final resolution of the Ministry of Health did not provide reasons for concluding that the finding in Pulpería Nataly of cigarettes attached to lighters did not fall under the exception established in Article 12, subsection b) of Law No. 9028, which allows direct communication between seller and clients, and that the mere possession of such a product attached to another, without being displayed and without an active sale at the point of inspection, but rather kept—as the inspector himself stated—inside a box in the area reserved for the cash register or point of payment and out of the consumer's sight, is not punishable as part of the offense. This situation, in the Court's view, corresponds to the exception under Article 12(b) of Law No. 9028, and therefore the absolute nullity of Resolution No. DM-LC-801-2020 must be declared due to a defect in the act's motivation, since the necessary background and legal assessments underlying the sanctioning administrative act were not considered, without weighing the exception provided by law for the specific case. This also affected the motivation of the sanctioning act, by not having considered or analyzed the exception provided in the regulation. (Law 9028, Art. 12, subsection b). Having said that, it is clear that the direct responsibility for what happened in the grocery store while the plaintiff was absent is attributable to the plaintiff, and we must remember that in commercial establishments, the person who serves the public acts as the person responsible towards clients.En este caso, como ya se indicó no se motivó en la resolución definitiva del Ministerio de Salud, que el hallazgo en la pulpería Nataly de adherir cigarros con encendedores, correspondía a una excepción establecida en la Ley N° 9028, art. 12 inciso b), por el ordenamiento jurídico a realizarse de forma directa entre el vendedor y los clientes y no siendo sancionable como parte del tipo, la simple tenencia de ese producto adherido a otro, sin estar exhibido, cuya venta no se estaba efectuando abiertamente o realizándose en el punto de venta al momento de la fiscalización, sino que estaba como señaló el mismo fiscalizador dentro de una caja, en el área reservada a la caja o punto de pago y fuera de la vista del consumidor; situación que para este Tribunal corresponde a la excepción del inciso b) del artículo 12 de la Ley N° 9028 y por lo tanto, debe declararse la nulidad absoluta de la resolución N° DM-LC-801-2020, al existir un vicio en el motivo del acto en cuestión, toda vez que no se consideró entre los antecedentes y valoraciones jurídicas necesarios para la emisión del acto administrativo sancionador y sobre los cuales la Administración sustuvo la legalidad, oportunidad y conveniencia de éste, sin ponderar al efecto la excepción prevista por el ordenamiento al caso concreto. Tal situación afectó además la motivación del acto sancionatorio, al no haber considerado o analizado la excepción prevista la normativa. (Ley 9028. art. 12 inciso b). Dicho lo anterior, es claro que la responsabilidad directa de lo ocurrido en la Pulpería, mientras el demandante no se encontraba es imputable al demandante, y debemos recordar que en los locales comerciales, quien brinda la atención al público, para los efectos de los clientes actúa como responsable del mismo.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En este caso, como ya se indicó no se motivó en la resolución definitiva del Ministerio de Salud, que el hallazgo en la pulpería Nataly de adherir cigarros con encendedores, correspondía a una excepción establecida en la Ley N° 9028, art. 12 inciso b), por el ordenamiento jurídico a realizarse de forma directa entre el vendedor y los clientes y no siendo sancionable como parte del tipo, la simple tenencia de ese producto adherido a otro, sin estar exhibido."
"In this case, as already noted, the final resolution of the Ministry of Health did not provide reasons for concluding that the finding in Pulpería Nataly of cigarettes attached to lighters did not fall under the exception established in Article 12, subsection b) of Law No. 9028, which allows direct communication between seller and clients, and that the mere possession of such a product attached to another, without being displayed, is not punishable as part of the offense."
Considerando VIII
"En este caso, como ya se indicó no se motivó en la resolución definitiva del Ministerio de Salud, que el hallazgo en la pulpería Nataly de adherir cigarros con encendedores, correspondía a una excepción establecida en la Ley N° 9028, art. 12 inciso b), por el ordenamiento jurídico a realizarse de forma directa entre el vendedor y los clientes y no siendo sancionable como parte del tipo, la simple tenencia de ese producto adherido a otro, sin estar exhibido."
Considerando VIII
"Tal situación afectó además la motivación del acto sancionatorio, al no haber considerado o analizado la excepción prevista la normativa. (Ley 9028. art. 12 inciso b)."
"This also affected the motivation of the sanctioning act, by not having considered or analyzed the exception provided in the regulation. (Law 9028, Art. 12, subsection b)."
Considerando VIII
"Tal situación afectó además la motivación del acto sancionatorio, al no haber considerado o analizado la excepción prevista la normativa. (Ley 9028. art. 12 inciso b)."
Considerando VIII
"La prohibición establecida en la Ley N° 9028, mediante la cual se instauró el procedimiento sancionador, no es absoluta, sino relativa; ya que si bien establece una restricción a la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio, la misma sería posible, siempre y cuando se realice según el protocolo establecido en el Reglamento."
"The prohibition established in Law No. 9028, which triggered the sanctioning procedure, is not absolute but relative; although it restricts advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, these are possible as long as they are carried out according to the protocol established in the Regulations."
Considerando VIII
"La prohibición establecida en la Ley N° 9028, mediante la cual se instauró el procedimiento sancionador, no es absoluta, sino relativa; ya que si bien establece una restricción a la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio, la misma sería posible, siempre y cuando se realice según el protocolo establecido en el Reglamento."
Considerando VIII
Full documentDocumento completo
As a fifth point, the party alleged that Article 12 of Law No. 9028, while establishing a prohibition on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, such prohibition is relative and not absolute, as specified in Constitutional Chamber Ruling No. 16028-2013. That in this case, the rule establishes exceptions that should have been analyzed and weighed in relation to the specific case, as will be indicated. In this regard, Law No. 9028, Art. 12, categorically prevents any form of advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of tobacco products and their derivatives, unless one of these two exceptions applies, namely: "a) Inside places and events where access is limited only to adults and it is not a space declared one hundred percent (100%) smoke-free by this law." In this regard, this Chamber indicates that this would not be the applicable exception since, as a pulpería (small grocery store), it is declared one hundred percent smoke-free, and furthermore, not only adults enter to buy, but also minors; therefore, this exception obviously does not apply. The other exception states: "b) Through direct communication with sellers and consumers of tobacco products, in accordance with the protocol established in the regulation of this law." Regarding this exception, according to what is indicated in Annex 3 of the Regulation, this Chamber considers that this exception did apply to the case. Indeed, the plaintiff is correct in stating that the prohibition established in Law No. 9028, through which the sanctioning procedure was initiated, is not absolute, but relative; since while it establishes a restriction on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, it would be possible, provided it is carried out according to the protocol established in the Regulation; an argument that was not even analyzed and ruled out during the phase of the administrative procedure, and as the Constitutional Chamber well indicated, in this plenary venue it is possible to determine whether due process was conducted in that instance or not [...]
This situation also affected the reasoning of the sanctioning act, by not having considered or analyzed the exception provided in the regulation. (Law 9028. Art. 12 subsection b). It is clear to this Chamber that although the product was received by the plaintiff's wife, an aspect covered by the Regulation in its Article 40 and therefore attributable to the plaintiff's actions since Article 40 establishes: "For the purposes of this regulation, the legal responsible party of any establishment or commercial premises dedicated to the sale of tobacco products shall be responsible for the actions or omissions of their staff and contractors. Such responsibility does not exclude that which may fall directly upon the person who performed or omitted the action that gave rise to the infraction." An application of this Decree to the case will follow." That said, it is clear that the direct responsibility for what happened in the Pulpería, while the plaintiff was not present, is attributable to the plaintiff, and we must remember that in commercial premises, the person who serves the public, for the purposes of the clients, acts as the responsible party for the same. Note that the Commercial Code, in relation to commercial auxiliaries, establishes that dependents are the persons whom the principal entrusts with the execution of certain operations of their commercial activity, within the establishment. (Commercial Code. Art. 369) and Article 371 of this commercial legislation further indicates that: "The acts of dependents bind their principal in the operations expressly entrusted to them." We see thus, how the Decree or Regulation finds echo in the country's commercial legislation, and clearly links the dependent to the business owner [...]
THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: In accordance with the preceding recitals, this claim is granted. As indicated supra, in this case, the authorities of the Ministry of Health did not adequately provide reasons for the administrative acts in question, since they did not weigh the exception contained in Law No. 9028 Art. 12 subsection b), in relation to one of the existing possibilities for advertising, promoting, or sponsoring tobacco-derived products, in this case, when such activity is carried out at the point of sale directly between the seller and the buyer. From the testimonial evidence, presented in the case file, which merits full credibility to this Court, and in light of sound rational criticism, there is full conviction that the cigarette packs found in Pulpería Nataly had been delivered by the cigarette distributors in the morning hours at the time of delivering the products for sale, and these were out of the reach of consumers and in a place where they could not be seen by them, as stated before this Court by the inspector, which is why this Panel has leaned towards declaring the nullity of the questioned resolutions since these did not analyze or weigh, in a reasoned manner, the exception contained in Law No. 9028 Art. 12 subsection b), which is even developed with a specific Protocol in the Regulation, allowing direct promotion between the seller and consumers, as an exception provided in the legislation itself, for which reason this Chamber has granted this claim—partially—in favor of the plaintiff and declares the absolute nullity due to a defect in the grounds element of resolution DM-LC-801-2020 and denies it regarding resolution DM-RM-2921-2020, corresponding to a general moratorium not applicable to the plaintiff, by reason of the precautionary measure granted in their favor [...]".
In that regard, Mr. Director, based on such elements, it is clear to the Directing Body that on the day and at the time indicated in the health report of folio 0005, in the commercial establishment "Pulpería Nataly" Piedras Blancas de Osa operated by don José Ramón Arguedas, tobacco products were found, cigarette packs to which "lighters" had been attached as a promotional element, as shown in the photographs reproduced herein, thereby constituting an infringement of standard 12 of Ley 9028 and 16 of its regulation cited above, and therefore proceeding to the application of the sanction that Ley 9028 itself provides for such conduct in its article 36 subsection d) sub-subsection v; namely ten base salaries (exactly four million four hundred sixty-two thousand colones -¢4,462,000.00-) in accordance with Circular CSJ 174-2018 of the Corte Suprema de Justicia; a fine that, as provided in article 38 of the law, the respondent must deposit in favor of the State in the bank account that said Directorate indicates, within the non-extendable period of thirty days after notification of the resolution so ordering". Notified on November 4, 2019. (Expediente de medida cautelar images 166-170 and 171).
ONLY: The existence of damages and losses whose causal link is the administrative acts that are the subject of this declaratory proceeding. (The case records).- V) ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES: A) ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF: The plaintiff, José Ramón Arguedas Matarrita, in his complaint and in his arguments during the oral and public trial hearing indicated that his wife was alone attending Pulpería Nataly, on September 2, 2019, and that day she received merchandise from the tobacco distributors, which she placed inside the counter, where only the managers have access, since his spouse is in charge of setting the prices. That five minutes after the delivery truck left, a vehicle without official identification arrived, from which two people got out who identified themselves as inspectors from the Ministry of Health, -under Ley N° 9028, by the names of Erick Molina Vargas and Andrea Durán, who entered the internal part of the business, which is not open to the public, and from inside the cashier area, from the lower shelves that he indicates were closed, they took out a brown cardboard box containing several packs of Pall Mall brand cigarettes, which had lighters attached to them, what is called "bandeo" in the jargon; a box that was placed on the pulpería counter, taking photographs of them. That these officials stated that those products could not be sold that way and proceeded to separate them, making an inspection report and proceeded to leave. That on November 19, 2019, the Ministry of Health, Brunca Region, constituted a directing body of the sanctioning procedure, composed of Eduardo A. Segura Vargas, Jovita López Morera and Marilyn Jiménez Mora, in relation to the inspection carried out at Pulpería Nataly, for having infringed the article, giving the transfer of charges by means of the resolution notified on September 24, 2019, and responding negatively according to the document filed on September 27, 2019. Dr. Christian Valverde Alpízar, Regional Director of the Rectoría de Salud, Brunca Region, issued resolution MS-DRRSBRU-2029-2019 of nine hours fifteen minutes on October 29, 2019, establishing a fine of four million four hundred sixty-two thousand colones and granting a period of 30 business days for its payment. He questioned that the process was summary and that the rejection of his arguments was not justified and that the sanction established in Ley 9028 (art. 16) was imposed on him. This resolution was communicated to the indicated email on Monday, November 4, 2019, noting that it lacks the corresponding signature. An appeal was filed before the Minister of Health, Daniel Salas Peraza, in time and form, on November 6, 2019. The Minister of Health, Dr. Daniel Salas Peraza, rejected the appeal, through resolution DM-LC-801-2020 of eight hours and five minutes on March 30, 2020, on May 4, 2020. The resolution indicated that simply keeping tobacco products to which a lighter has been attached violates art. 12 of Ley N° 9028. In this resolution, which does have the digital signature of the Minister, he ordered the payment of the fine within a period of 30 business days and instructs the Director of the Área de Salud de Osa, so that once the deposit is made, he proceeds with the commercial closure of Pulpería Nataly. That after that they appealed to this Tribunal, suspending the actions of the Ministry of Health. In conclusions, he stated that Ley 9028 was approved with the purpose of limiting tobacco consumption. From the consultation made before the Sala Constitucional for the approval of this law, it had been alleged that it limits people's right to trade, according to article 12 of the same law, tobacco products and their derivatives, specifying that the action was declared without merit, however, it is relevant that the Sala Constitucional indicated that the norm does not have a total prohibition on advertising. That for the Ministry, any advertising is prohibited, which goes against the norm; specifying that it is contrary to the spirit of the legislator and to what article 12 of Ley 9028 provides, since the norm exempts advertising and promotion and sponsorship, unless it is carried out: 'a) Inside places and events where access is only allowed to adults and it is not a space declared one hundred percent (100%) smoke-free by this law. // b) Through direct communication with sellers and consumers of tobacco products, in accordance with the protocol established in the regulation of this law.' In this case, the products were not visible or accessible to any person, therefore article 12 of the law was not violated, since the place where the products were located was only accessible to the managers, so they were not visible, nor accessible to any person, and therefore article 12 of the law, which was the basis for sanctioning the plaintiff, was not violated, it not being a simple sanction, since while there are minor sanctions of 15% of a base salary, then it goes up to 30%, goes to 50% and then the most serious, which is the one applied to my client of ten base salaries, equivalent to four million four hundred sixty-one thousand colones, and the fine should be applied to the commercial houses, that's why the sanction was so high, however, the Ministry of Health has been applying this sanction to pulperos, who live day to day with their pulperías, causing them serious harm, specifying that the financial statements are even documented in the records along with the precautionary measure. In another order of ideas, the inspectors did not meet the legal requirements, in this case, the employer was the Universidad Nacional, so they did not have the authority, even though they had consent, having believed that they were duly authorized persons and that it was a routine check. If they had suspected they were breaking a law, they would not have given them access. As another flaw, he indicated that one of the resolutions issued by the authorities of the Ministry of Health lacked the corresponding signature and that this sanction causes him damages of great magnitude that would cause the business to close. He reiterated the claims and requested the State be ordered to pay procedural and personal costs. B) ALLEGATIONS OF THE STATE.- The representation of the State opposed the complaint, and argued both in the response filed in time and form, and in its arguments during the trial hearing, that indeed the duly accredited officials of the Ministry of Health appeared at the commercial premises where the actor himself stated that the Pall Mall brand cigarettes had lighters attached to them, which was noticed by the officials of the Ministry of Health, Andrea Durán Sánchez and Erick Molina Vargas, who acts as a witness in this proceeding. Dr. Christian Valverde Alpízar, indeed issued resolution MS-DRRSBRU-2029-2019 at 9:15 hours on October 29, 2019, and notified to the indicated email address on November 4, 2019; specifying that the administrative file contains the signature of the resolution in question; a resolution on which an appeal was filed, resolved negatively by the Minister of Health Daniel Salas Peraza, according to resolution DM-LC-801-2020 of eight hours and five minutes on March 30, 2020; rejecting the allegations of the plaintiff. He specified that the closure of the business was not carried out, due to the precautionary measure filed by the plaintiff and that this Tribunal granted pending the final resolution. The Procurador raised the exception of lack of right, since he specified that in the Health Report of September 2, 2019, it was duly accredited that the plaintiff had for sale in his commercial establishment 17 packs of Pall Mall brand cigarettes with lighters attached, promoting the product, and thus infringing the tobacco regulations, which prohibit both the promotion and advertising of tobacco products and their derivatives. The infraction occurred by having attached a lighter to the cigarette pack as a gift, bonus or as a strategy to persuade the consumer to buy or prefer a specific tobacco product or brand of cigarettes, as the sponsorship of any activity by or with lighters, which constitutes an infraction of article 12 of Ley N° 9028 and 16 of its Reglamento, which have the objective of reducing the consumption of products originating from or derived from tobacco, for which reason he requested that the exception of lack of right be declared with merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs and their interests until their effective payment. That the measure taken by the Ministry of Health corresponds to a deterrent measure against smoking, specifying that the Administration's action was in accordance with the Law. In conclusions, he stated that regarding claim No. 1, given that it states that the officials who carried out the inspection were not officials of the Ministry of Health, he specified that they were indeed legitimized based on the executive decrees DM-JG-1489-2018, published in La Gaceta No. 91 of May 24, 2018, DM-JG-1338-2019 of February 7, 2019 and published in La Gaceta No. 75 of April 24, 2019, and DM-JG-5602-2020, published in La Gaceta No. 218 of November 9, 2020, decrees that enabled the officials who were hired by the Ministry of Health, to carry out the inspections to which the State's witness has referred. He indicated that the contracting company rented the vehicles these people used, not being vehicles of the Ministry of Health. Thus, he stated that the actions of these persons were indeed legitimized. Regarding the resolution that supposedly lacks a signature, he rectified its number, and indicated that in the administrative file at folio 25, the resolution in question is duly signed. That possibly due to a clerical error, sending the document without the signature does not imply its invalidity, since the original does have the signature. In relation to the other claims alleging lack of justification, they did not specify what that lack of justification consists of. The party also questioned the suspension of the collection of the sanction ordered administratively due to COVID. The Procurador indicated that with the report, the existence of cigarette packs with lighters attached was determined, which is prohibited by Ley N° 9028, according to art. 12 and the Reglamento (art. 16), decreto N° 37185-S-MEIC-MTSS-MP-H-SP, establishing that promotion, advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products and their derivatives are prohibited. That the procedure established in art. 39 of Ley N° 9028 establishes the summary procedure for the application of fines. Based on that and on the testimony of the witness Zúñiga, who indicated that the final destination was consumption and that what happened in this case was not a simple commercial offer, and indicated that the promotion of products can only be done by the distributor to the consumer. That the law does not establish the differentiation made by the party regarding that the sanction applied to commercial houses. Furthermore, he stated regarding the alleged lack of authority of the officials that the Ley General allows authority in various cases, and the officials do not necessarily have to be covered by the civil service to act as such. He specified that the resolution of the Sala Constitucional to which the party referred did not find any constitutional defects, so the arguments made are without merit and requested that the complaint be declared without merit and the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs and interests.
Finally, it indicated that no damages have occurred given that the business has remained open up to the present day.
In this regard, concerning this challenge, this Tribunal, after reviewing and analyzing the agreements issued by the then President of the Republic and the Minister of Health, namely agreements: No. DM-JG-1489-2018, published in Gazette No. 91 of May 24, 2018, DM-JG-1338-2019 of February 7, 2019 and published in Gazette No. 75 of April 24, 2019, and DM-JG-5602-2020, published in Gazette No. 218 of November 9, 2020. This Tribunal observes and confirms that the inspectors who conducted the inspection at Pulpería Nataly held an investiture as "competent authority" for the purposes of the inspection carried out, given that the President of the Republic and the Minister of Health effectively designated them, among other persons, to act with the character of Health Authority, in accordance with the entrusted functions relating to the inspection provided for in Law No. 9028 and its amendments; by reason of which any defect of nullity in this respect based on the alleged lack of competence of the inspectors is dismissed; since the inspecting persons, who according to article 3 of the first agreement, were to comply with the provisions of the surveillance and control measures of Law 9028 and its Regulations. A second argument of nullity according to the procedure carried out concerns the alleged lack of signature of Dr. Cristian Valverde Alpízar on official communication MS-DRRSBRU-2029-2019; however, it is evident from the precautionary measure file that the document in question was digitally signed; therefore, the alleged defect of nullity is non-existent, and it is so declared. Regarding a third argument concerning the absolute nullity of the administrative procedure, questioning the application of the summary procedure, established in the LGAP and not the ordinary procedure, this Tribunal must first indicate that in accordance with the principle of legality, protected both at the constitutional level and in the LGAP, in both cases in article 11, it was not a decision of the health authorities to determine which of the two procedures should be applied, but rather, it is Law No. 9028 itself, which in its article 39 determines the following: "ARTICLE 39.- Administrative procedure // All actions and proceedings of this law shall be processed in accordance with the summary procedure established in the General Public Administration Law." From the simple reading of this provision, it is clear that it was the ordinary legislator who determined that the summary procedure and not the ordinary one should be applied in this type of proceeding. In this regard, this Chamber considers that this aspect was already challenged before the Constitutional Chamber, alleging violation of the right of defense among other arguments, and the latter, through resolution No. 2013016028, at fourteen hours thirty minutes on December fourth, two thousand thirteen, resolved with binding erga omnes effects—that is, applicable to all—the matter questioned, stating: "X. ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 39 OF LAW 9028, FOR VIOLATION OF NUMERAL 39 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. Article 39 of the General Law for Tobacco Control and its Harmful Effects on Health is also challenged, which provides that the actions and proceedings of the law shall be processed in accordance with the summary procedure provided in the General Public Administration Law. In the opinion of the plaintiff Chamber, the provision violates due process, since in the case of imposing very high pecuniary sanctions and the closure of establishments, mandatory guarantees in sanctioning matters are disregarded. This Tribunal considers that the objection is unfounded, since article 321 of the General Public Administration Law establishes that in the summary procedure 'the Administration must exhaustively verify ex officio the true reality of the facts and elements of judgment of the case.' It provides for a hearing of three days for the interested parties, so that they may formulate succinct conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds on which they base their claims, and it grants a remedy against the denial of the hearing to conclude the procedure and the final act. Additionally, the administered party has the corresponding judicial avenue, in the event of being dissatisfied with what was resolved by the administration, so the violation of due process alleged does not occur. In a recent judgment, at 16:01 hours on May 15, 2013, referring to the application of the penalty clause in administrative contracting procedures, the majority of this Tribunal held that the summary administrative procedure satisfies the guarantee of due process and defense, which is applicable to the case under study, in which the application of fines and sanctions of temporary closure of establishments is foreseen, in the event of violating the prohibitions provided in Law 9028. By reason of all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the challenged provisions do not violate the alleged constitutional rights, so the action must be dismissed, also regarding this point." Endorsed by this Chamber as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber, it is clear that there is no illegality in having used the summary procedure to verify the true reality of the administrative procedure; firstly because the authorizing provision so establishes, and secondly, because said argument was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, which found no unconstitutionality in this point, noting that even thereafter, the judicial avenue remained available to challenge the actions of the Administration; consequently, this alleged defect of nullity is rejected. A fourth argument of nullity concerns the alleged disproportion of the applicable sanction for having incurred in an alleged prohibited conduct. Thus, the applicable provision regarding sanctions corresponds to article 36 which literally orders: "ARTICLE 36.- Sanctions // According to the infraction committed, the following shall be sanctioned: a) With a fine of ten percent (10%) of a base salary, for natural persons who smoke in prohibited places. // b) With a fine of fifteen percent (15%) of a base salary, for responsible persons and heads who fail to comply with the duty to place, in places prohibited for smoking, notices with the phrase 'Smoking prohibited, tobacco smoke-free environment' and with the international no-smoking symbol, as well as any other notice established by the regulations of this law. // c) With a fine of fifty percent (50%) of a base salary for anyone who incurs in any of the following conducts: // i.- Anyone who holds the position of administrator, director, curator, trustee, agent, and other natural persons with decision-making powers, in any public or private company or institution, when it is proven that they have permitted smoking in prohibited places. // ii.- Anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells food or toys that have the shape or design of tobacco products. // iii.- Anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products in completely smoke-free places and spaces where smoking is prohibited. // iv.- Anyone who sells or supplies loose cigarettes, at retail, or in packs containing fewer than twenty units. // v.- Anyone who sells, supplies, or distributes, for consideration or free of charge, tobacco products using vending machines or dispensers. // vi.- Anyone who distributes, free of charge, tobacco products in prohibited places. // vii.- Anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products to persons under eighteen years of age. // viii.- Anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products using any means that does not allow verification of the identity of the buyers. // d) With a fine of ten base salaries for anyone who incurs in any of the following conducts: i.- Anyone who fails to comply with the obligation to provide complete and detailed information on tobacco products to the Ministry of Health, as provided in article 8 of this law. // ii.- Anyone who fails to comply with the obligation to fulfill the customs procedures for tobacco products or the conditions established by the Ministry of Health for the storage and distribution of tobacco products that are under a suspension of taxes or duties regime. // iii.- Anyone who fails to comply with the obligation to place health warnings, legends, or health-related information on packs and cartons. // iv.- Anyone who fails to comply with any of the regulatory and technical specifications for the packaging and labeling of tobacco products. //v.- Anyone who fails to comply with any of the provisions related to the advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of tobacco products established in this law. // In addition to the indicated fines, the municipalities and the Ministry of Health may close down premises that fail to comply with the obligations stipulated in this law. In cases where it is required to renew permits or licenses before those entities or any other State institution, they must demonstrate, by means of certification duly issued by the Ministry of Health, that they are up to date in the payment of the fines established in this article." (Note from Sinalevi: Through resolution No. MS-DM-JM-6737-2021 of November 5, 2021, a moratorium is established on the payment of fines under article 36 of Law 9028 of March 22, 2012, "General Law for Tobacco Control and its Harmful Effects on Health," until March 1, 2022; therefore, as of the effective date of this resolution and before that date (March 1, 2022), establishments whose permit holders have not paid the fine may not be closed.). Although in its arguments the plaintiff claimed that the sanction is disproportionate, this Chamber rejects the accusation made by the plaintiff, since from the configuration of the sanction or the type of administrative sanction, it is clear that the provision itself, considered in itself, compiles a variety of conducts typified with sanctions that differ from each other. That is, the provision does not provide for a gradation in the applicable sanction. And specifically, in relation to the conduct attributed to the plaintiff, it is clear that the provision only establishes one consequence, and does not grant the operator of the provision the possibility to adapt it, for example, to the type of business to which responsibility will be attributed, since a pulpería is not the same as a supermarket chain. That said, in this case, at least, this Chamber does not observe that the party's argument can be accepted, since the type only establishes one consequence in the event of non-compliance and does not establish the gradation of the sanction as the plaintiff claimed, when stating that the most severe sanction was applied in this case. That said, this nullity is rejected. As a fifth point, the party alleged that article 12 of Law No. 9028, although establishing a prohibition on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, such prohibition is relative and not absolute, as was specified in Constitutional Chamber Ruling No. 16028-2013. That in this case, the provision establishes exceptions that should have been analyzed and weighed in relation to the specific case, as will be indicated. In this regard, Law No. 9028, art. 12, categorically prevents any form of advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of tobacco products and their derivatives, unless one were within one of these two exceptions, namely: "a) Inside places and events where access is only permitted to adults and where it is not a space declared one hundred percent (100%) smoke-free by this law." In this regard, this Chamber indicates that this exception would not be applicable since, as a pulpería, it is declared one hundred percent smoke-free, and furthermore, not only adults enter to buy, but also minors; therefore, this exception does not apply, obviously. The other exception states that: "b) By means of direct communication with sellers and consumers of tobacco products, in accordance with the protocol established in the regulations of this law." In relation to this exception, according to what is indicated in Annex 3 of the Regulations, this Chamber considers that this exception did apply to the case. Indeed, the plaintiff is correct in pointing out that the prohibition established in Law No. 9028, through which the sanctioning procedure was instituted, is not absolute, but relative; since although it establishes a restriction on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, the same would be possible, provided it is carried out according to the protocol established in the Regulations; an argument that was not even analyzed and dismissed during the administrative procedure phase, and as the Constitutional Chamber properly indicated, in this plenary venue it is possible to determine whether due process was carried out or not in that instance. From the proven facts, in the consideration of this Chamber, the thesis of the exceptions alleged by the plaintiff was not weighed, which has caused a lack of reasoning in administrative action DM-LC-801-2020 at eight hours and five minutes on March 30, 2020. This Chamber is also convinced that the party did not violate the prohibition in question, considering further the statements of both witnesses, which it deems fully credible in what was related by both. For greater clarity, reference will be made to what was stated under oath: Thus, the witness Marjorie Zúñiga Zúñiga, wife of the plaintiff, who was attending the pulpería when the inspectors arrived, related under oath that: "(...) They entered the area where only she and her husband attend. That in the morning they had received an order from the Pall Mall cigarette agent. They entered the place where they collect payment. The young man entered, she does not remember his name, saw the product of the Pall Mall cigarettes, it was not on display, it was in boxes, since my husband handles that, he sets the prices, the boy started to rummage through everything, at that moment my husband arrived and he continued attending to them. (...) She indicated that the product came 'banded,' that they released it and left it on the counter and indicated that they should sell it loose. In response to the Procurator's questions, she indicated that she does have experience receiving suppliers. That she received the cigarette agent. She indicated that those cigarettes are purchased to sell to the public. (...) That the boxes were under the counter. That the cigarettes were adhered with a lighter. (...) She indicated she did not know if they were adhered by another person." (Statement given during the oral and public trial hearing). From this statement, the Tribunal notes that indeed, the product was in boxes, that the product came "banded," that is, lighters adhered to the cigarettes, and that she, on that same day, had received the cigarette distributors, who left the merchandise, before the inspection. Then, the inspector ERICK MOLINA VARGAS, who stated that he checked the cigarettes at the point of payment, after obtaining the corresponding authorization, and specifying that: "(...) I entered and the cigarettes must be at the point of payment, the existing cigarettes were checked, and in a small cardboard box there were other cigarettes as well, wheels and other wheels with lighters adhered, they were taken out and placed on the counter and it was explained to the person that this is product promotion, since the pack comes with a lighter adhered, at that point the appropriate action was to make the report, take photographs, and they separated and took photos of the products separately, (....) We noticed upon entering behind the counter, when checking the cigarettes that were on the shelf. The box was in plain sight, open. It is not in plain sight of the consumer, but that does not mean they were not going to sell it. We asked if they were for sale and they indicated that eventually, yes, they were going to sell them. The report was made, a copy was given to the gentleman, and the rest is delivered to the regional directorate; and they continue with the procedure. We did find similar things in other places. It is difficult to say if it was the supplier or the people from the premises, but yes, they were found in other premises with the same promotion. He reiterated that in this case the box was open and in plain sight behind the counter. (...) In response to the plaintiff's inquiries, he indicated that the box was in plain sight of the people who were inside the counter, in the internal part, inside the small cardboard box. He indicated he did not know what the adhesion of one product to another is called in practice. He denied having heard the word 'bandeo.' In response to the inquiry about the practice of adhering one product to another, he indicated that it is classified as product promotion. Yes, adhering it, be it a lighter, some earphones to a pack of cigarettes is considered 'promotion' and it is indeed prohibited by law. In response to an inquiry about some photographs presented to him by the Tribunal. He indicated he did not remember. Then he indicated that the cigarettes were inside there. He recognized the shelf and that he entered the internal part of the counter. That there was no other way to access the shelf. In relation to the photographs with the pack and the lighters, he indicated that this photo, yes, he took it and that they were the packs with the lighters. He did not specify the time of arrival, but indicated that it is reported in the report made. That they only inspect and if everything is fine, it is recorded as such. Upon finding something, they prepare the report and send it to the Regional office. (Statement given during the oral and public trial hearing). From the statement of inspector Erick Molina Vargas, this Tribunal concludes that the cigarettes were not on the shelf, that is, what is specified by the regulations as the point of sale, but rather they were under the counter inside a cardboard box, which was outside the range of vision of the consumers or clients of the pulpería, but in plain sight of the sellers. Furthermore, it is evident from what was stated by the inspector that they had already found the same promotion in other premises, that is, that what is called "bandeo" came that way from the distributor, that conduct not being attributable to the plaintiff. Now, in this case, as already indicated, the final resolution of the Ministry of Health did not provide reasoning that the finding in Pulpería Nataly of cigarettes adhered with lighters corresponded to an exception established in Law No. 9028, art. 12 subsection b), by the legal system to be carried out directly between the seller and the clients, and the mere possession of that product adhered to another, without being exhibited, the sale of which was not being openly conducted or taking place at the point of sale at the time of the inspection, but was, as the inspector himself stated, inside a box, in the area reserved for the cash register or point of payment and out of sight of the consumer, is not sanctionable as part of the type; a situation that for this Tribunal corresponds to the exception of subsection b) of article 12 of Law No. 9028 and, therefore, the absolute nullity of resolution No. DM-LC-801-2020 must be declared, there being a defect in the reason for the act in question, since it was not considered among the background and legal assessments necessary for the issuance of the sanctioning administrative act and on which the Administration based the legality, opportunity, and appropriateness thereof, without weighing for this purpose the exception provided by the legal system for the specific case, as argued by the applicant. Such a situation also affected the reasoning of the sanctioning act, by not having considered or analyzed the exception provided in the regulations. (Law 9028. art. 12 subsection b). It is clear to this Chamber that although the product was received by the plaintiff's wife, an aspect covered by the Regulations in its article 40 and therefore attributable to the plaintiff his actions since article 40 establishes: "For the purposes of these regulations, the legal responsible party of any establishment or commercial premises dedicated to the sale of tobacco products shall be responsible for the actions or omissions of its personnel and contractors. Such responsibility does not exclude that which may fall directly on the person who performed or omitted the action that gave rise to the infraction." Below, an application of this Decree to the case will be made." That said, it is clear that the direct responsibility for what occurred in the Pulpería, while the plaintiff was not present, is attributable to the plaintiff, and we must remember that in commercial premises, whoever provides service to the public, for the purposes of the clients, acts as the responsible party thereof. See that the Commercial Code in relation to commercial auxiliaries establishes that dependents are the persons to whom the principal entrusts the execution of certain operations of their commercial activity, within the establishment. (Commercial Code. Art. 369) and, article 371 of this commercial legislation further indicates that: "The acts of the dependents obligate their principal in the operations that were expressly entrusted to them." We thus see how the Decree or Regulation finds an echo in the country's commercial legislation and clearly links the dependent to the business owner. However, in this case, although the witness stated that those products had been acquired for sale, this does not disprove the plaintiff's thesis insofar as those products were not being offered directly to the public, and that they corresponded to the exception of the regulations already indicated. Now, the nullity of resolution DM-RM-2921-2020 is rejected, since it corresponded to a moratorium dictated by the Minister of Health, during the time of the Pandemic, to enforce the sanctions imposed for non-compliance with the Law, an aspect that, in this case, does not apply due to the precautionary measure granted in the proceedings.
THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: From the review of the documentation, it is recorded that the document in question was digitally signed, for which reason this claim is rejected.
THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: In accordance with the previous considerandos, this claim is granted. As indicated supra, in this case the authorities of the Ministry of Health did not adequately provide reasoning for the administrative acts in question, since they did not weigh the exception contained in Law No. 9028 art. 12 subsection b), in relation to one of the existing possibilities for carrying out advertising, promotion, or sponsorship of tobacco-derived products, in this case, when such activity is carried out at the point of sale directly between the seller and the buyer. From the testimonial evidence, presented in the proceedings, and which this Tribunal finds fully credible, and in light of sound rational criticism, there is full conviction that the packs found in Pulpería Nataly had been delivered by the cigarette distributors in the morning hours when delivering the products for sale, and they were out of reach of the consumers and in a place where they could not be seen by them, as the inspector stated before this Tribunal, which is why this Panel has inclined to declare the nullity of the questioned resolutions since they did not analyze or weigh in a reasoned manner the exception contained in Law No. 9028 art. 12 subsection b), which is even developed with a specific Protocol in the Regulations, which allows direct promotion between the seller and consumers, as an exception provided in the legislation itself, reason for which this Chamber has granted this claim -partially- in favor of the plaintiff and declaring the absolute nullity due to defect in the reason element, of resolution DM-LC-801-2020, and it is rejected regarding resolution DM-RM-2921-2020, corresponding to a general moratorium not applicable to the plaintiff, due to the precautionary measure granted in his favor.
THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: In view of this claim, it is considered that it is accessory to the third and, the third having been granted -partially- or granted, the same must be applied to this one, granting it, since in addition to the pecuniary sanction, if the sanction were to stand, the registration of the plaintiff as an offender of Law No. 9028 would be applicable.
THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: In this case, there were no direct damages derived from the cited resolutions, since as recorded in the resultandos of this resolution, the pulpería in question was never closed, without there being also accredited direct damages in a causal nexus in light of the LGAP, articles 190 and following. Therefore, this claim is rejected.
THEREFORE:
The defense of lack of right is rejected regarding the claims that are granted, and the defense is accepted regarding the rejected claims. The lawsuit filed by JOSÉ RAMÓN ARGUEDAS MATARRITA against the STATE is partially granted. The nullity of resolution DM-LC-801-2020 at eight hours and five minutes on March 30, 2020 is accepted, and consequently, the Ministry of Health is ordered to remove the plaintiff from the registry of offenders under law 9028. The remaining claims are rejected.
These are the procedural and personal costs in favor of the plaintiff and interest from its determination until its effective payment. Notify.- LAURA GARCÍA CARBALLO JONATÁN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ PAULO ALONSO SOTO Judge PALONSO ???????????????
PAULO ANDRÉ ALONSO SOTO - DECISOR JUDGE ???????????????
JONATHAN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ - DECISOR JUDGE ???????????????
LAURA GARCIA CARBALLO - DECISOR JUDGE Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 meters west of BNCR, across from Café Dorado. Telephones: 2545-0107 or 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 or 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 or 2545-0006. Email: [email protected] Classification prepared by the CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL of the Poder Judicial. Its reproduction and/or distribution for profit is prohibited.
It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 16:12:41.
Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Clase de asunto: Proceso de conocimiento Analizado por: CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL Sentencias del mismo expediente Contenido de Interés:
Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: Derecho Administrativo Tema: Procedimiento administrativo Subtemas:
Ministerio de Salud realiza fiscalización de una pulpería sin ponderar la excepción del artículo 12 de la Ley N° 9028 “Ley General de Control del Tabaco y sus Efectos Nocivos en la Salud”.
Tema: Ministerio de Salud Subtemas:
Ministerio de Salud realiza fiscalización de una pulpería sin ponderar la excepción del artículo 12 de la Ley N° 9028 “Ley General de Control del Tabaco y sus Efectos Nocivos en la Salud”. Alcances de la Ley General de Control del Tabaco y sus efectos nocivos en la salud.
"VII) DEL REGLAMENTO A LA LEY GENERAL DE CONTROL DE TABACO Y SUS EFECTOS NOCIVOS EN LA SALUD. DECRETO EJECUTIVO N° 37185-S-MEIC-MTSS-MP-H-SP. Al respecto, este reglamento tiene la finalidad de regular, controlar y fiscalizar la aplicación de la Ley N° 9028. En lo conducente al caso, el artículo 4 define los siguientes conceptos, entre otros, a saber: "5.Autoridad competente: Órgano o ente de la Administración Pública encargado de llevar a cabo la regulación, control, fiscalización y ejecución de las disposiciones de la Ley General de Control de Tabaco y sus Efectos Nocivos en la Salud, Ley N° 9028 y su reglamentación.// (...) 20. Distribuidor: Persona física o jurídica, nacional o extranjera, entidad de hecho o de derecho, privada o pública, que en nombre propio o de un tercero, por cuenta propia o ajena, se dedica en forma habitual a distribuir o comercializar, al por mayor o al detalle, un producto de tabaco y sus derivados.// (...)// 39. Patrocinio de tabaco: Se entiende toda forma de contribución a cualquier acto, actividad o individuo con el fin, el efecto o el posible efecto de promover, directa o indirectamente, un producto de tabaco o el uso de tabaco y sus derivados. // (...)// 42. Publicidad y promoción de tabaco: Se entiende toda forma de comunicación, recomendación o acción comercial con el fin, el efecto o el posible efecto de promover, directa o indirectamente, un producto de tabaco o el uso de tabaco y sus derivados. // 43. Promoción de tabaco: Todo estímulo de la demanda de productos de tabaco, que puede incluir publicidad y cualquier acto destinado a atraer la atención y suscitar el interés de los consumidores y no consumidores de productos de tabaco o sus derivados.". Ahora bien en el Capítulo IV, de este Reglamento se desarrolla en un primer momento lo relativo a la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio de los productos de tabaco y sus derivados. Así, en el artículo 16 se prohíbe -en principio- cualquier forma de publicidad, promoción y patrocinio de productos de tabaco y sus derivados, sin embargo, en el artículo 17 se establece: "Artículo 17.- Se exceptúa de lo anterior la publicidad y promoción por comunicación directa que lleva a cabo la industria tabacalera con los vendedores y los consumidores de tabaco y sus derivados, mayores de edad, de conformidad con el protocolo establecido para dicho fin en el Anexo 3 del presente reglamento.". Luego, en el Anexo 3 se dispuso: "PROTOCOLO: PUBLICIDAD Y PROMOCIÓN POR COMUNICACIÓN DIRECTA ENTRE FABRICANTES Y LOS VENDEDORES O LOS CONSUMIDORES DE PRODUCTOS DE TABACO Y SUS DERIVADOS.// Justificación: De acuerdo a lo establecido en el artículo 12 de la Ley General para el Control de Tabaco y sus efectos nocivos en la Salud, se emite el presente protocolo. // Objetivo: Regular los alcances de la publicidad y promoción de los productos de tabaco y sus derivados por comunicación directa de la industria tabacalera con los vendedores y consumidores. //Definiciones: a) Comunicación directa: Es aquella comunicación que se da entre la industria tabacalera con los vendedores o los consumidores mayores de edad, de productos de tabaco y sus derivados. // a) Consumidores: Personas que consumen productos de tabaco y sus derivados. // b) Industria tabacalera: Toda persona física o jurídica que se dedique a la fabricación, distribución mayorista e importación de productos de tabaco y sus derivados. //c) Promoción de tabaco: todo estímulo de la demanda de productos de tabaco, que puede incluir publicidad y cualquier acto destinado a atraer la atención y suscitar el interés de los consumidores y no consumidores de productos de tabaco o sus derivados. d) Publicidad y promoción de tabaco: Se entiende toda forma de comunicación, recomendación o acción comercial con el fin, el efecto o el posible efecto de promover, directa o indirectamente, un producto de tabaco o el uso de tabaco. e) Vendedores de productos de tabaco: Personas físicas o jurídicas que se dedican a cualquier actividad comercial, con el fin de vender al por mayor o al detalle productos de tabaco, sus derivados y productos relacionados con su consumo. //Disposiciones: Para que la industria tabacalera pueda comunicarse directamente con los vendedores y consumidores, para hacer efectiva la publicidad o promoción de los productos de tabaco y sus derivados, debe asegurarse que esta publicidad sea entre personas mayores de edad y consumidores de productos de tabaco y sus derivados. //Podrá hacerse uso del servicio a domicilio, cara a cara, siempre y cuando la comunicación sea para el vendedor o consumidor de productos de tabaco y sus derivados." Además, el artículo 40 del Reglamento establece que: "Artículo 40.-Para los efectos de este reglamento, el responsable legal de cualquier establecimiento o local comercial dedicado a la venta de productos de tabaco, será responsable por las acciones o las omisiones de su personal y de los contratistas. Dicha responsabilidad no se excluye de la que pueda recaer directamente sobre quien realizó u omitió la acción que dio lugar a la infracción." A continuación se hará una aplicación de este Decreto al caso.
Como quinto punto, la parte alegó que el artículo 12 de la Ley N° 9028, si bien establece una prohibición de realizar publicidad, promoción y patrocino, tal prohibición es relativa y no absoluta, según se precisó en el Voto de la Sala Constitucional N° 16028-2013. Que en este caso, la norma establece excepciones que se debieron analizar y ponderar en relación al caso concreto, tal y como se indicará. Al respecto, la Ley N° 9028, art. 12, impide de forma categórica realizar cualquier forma de publicidad, promoción y patrocinio de productos de tabaco y sus derivados; salvo que se estuviera en alguna de éstas dos excepciones, a saber: "a) En el interior de lugares y eventos donde solo se permite el acceso limitado a personas adultas y no sea un espacio declarado cien por ciento (100%) libre de humo por esta ley." Al respecto, esta Cámara indica que no sería la excepción aplicable toda vez que como pulpería que es, está declarada cien por ciento libre de humo, y además, no solo entran a comprar adultos, sino que menores de edad; por lo tanto, no aplica esta excepción, obviamente. La otra excepción señala que: "b) Por medio de comunicación directa con los vendedores y consumidores de productos de tabaco, de conformidad con el protocolo que se establezca en el reglamento de esta ley". En relación a esta excepción según lo señalado en el Anexo 3 del Reglamento, considera esta Cámara que sí aplicaba al caso esta excepción. Efectivamente, lleva razón la parte demandante en cuanto a señalar que la prohibición establecida en la Ley N° 9028, mediante la cual se instauró el procedimiento sancionador, no es absoluta, sino relativa; ya que si bien establece una restricción a la publicidad, promoción y patrocinio, la misma sería posible, siempre y cuando se realice según el protocolo establecido en el Reglamento; argumentación que no fue siquiera analizada y descartada durante la fase del procedimiento administrativo, y como bien indicó la Sala Constitucional, en esta vía plenaria es posible determinar si en esa sede se realizó o no el debido proceso [...]" Tal situación afectó además la motivación del acto sancionatorio, al no haber considerado o analizado la excepción prevista la normativa. (Ley 9028. art. 12 inciso b). Es claro para esta Cámara que si bien el producto fue recibido por la esposa del demandante, aspecto cubierto por el Reglamento en su artículo 40 y por lo tanto imputable al demandante su actuar ya que el artículo 40 establece: "Para los efectos de este reglamento, el responsable legal de cualquier establecimiento o local comercial dedicado a la venta de productos de tabaco, será responsable por las acciones o las omisiones de su personal y de los contratistas. Dicha responsabilidad no se excluye de la que pueda recaer directamente sobre quien realizó u omitió la acción que dio lugar a la infracción." A continuación se hará una aplicación de este Decreto al caso." Dicho lo anterior, es claro que la responsabilidad directa de lo ocurrido en la Pulpería, mientras el demandante no se encontraba es imputable al demandante, y debemos recordar que en los locales comerciales, quien brinda la atención al público, para los efectos de los clientes actúa como responsable del mismo. Véase que el Código de Comercio en relación a los auxiliares del comercio, establece que los dependientes son las personas a quienes el principal encarga la ejecución de determinadas operaciones de su actividad comercial, dentro del establecimiento. (Código de Comercio. Art. 369) y, el artículo 371 de esta legislación mercantil, indica además que: "Los actos de los dependientes obligan a su principal en las operaciones que les estuvieren encomendadas expresamente.". Vemos así, como el Decreto o Reglamento, encuentra eco en la legislación comercial del país, y vincula claramente al dependiente con el propietario del negocio [...]
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: Conforme a los considerandos anteriores, se declara con lugar esta pretensión. Tal y como se indicó supra, en este caso las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, no motivaron adecuadamente los actos administrativos en cuestión, toda vez que no ponderaron la excepción contenida en la Ley N° 9028 art. 12 inciso b), en relación a una de las posibilidades existentes para realizar publicidad, promoción o patrocinio de productos derivados de tabaco, en este caso, cuando tal actividad se efectuá en el punto de venta de forma directa entre el vendedor y el comprador. De la prueba testimonial, evacuada en los autos, y que le merece plena credibilidad a este Tribunal, y a la luz de la sana crítica racional, se tiene la plena convicción que las cajetillas encontradas en la pulpería Nataly habían sido entregados por los distribuidores de los cigarros en horas de la mañana al momento de hacer entrega de los productos para la venta, y éstos estaban fuera del alcance de los consumidores y en un lugar en donde no podían ser visto por éstos, según así lo manifestó ante este Tribunal el fiscalizador, razón por la cual, este Colegio se ha inclinado en declarar la nulidad de las resoluciones cuestionadas toda vez que en estas no se analizó ni ponderó de forma motivada la excepción contenida en la Ley N° 9028 art. 12 inciso b), que incluso se encuentra desarrollada con un Protocolo específico en el Reglamento, que permite la promoción directa entre el vendedor y los consumidores, a modo de excepción prevista en la propia legislación, razón por lo cual esta Cámara ha declarado con lugar esta pretensión -parcialmente- a favor de la parte demandante y declarando la nulidad absoluta por vicio en el elemento motivo, de la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 y se rechaza en cuanto a la resolución DM-RM-2921-2020, correspondiente a una moratoria general no aplicable a la parte demandante, en razón de la medida cautelar acogida a su favor [...]".
... Ver más Citas de Legislación y Doctrina EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj ????????????????
CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:
JOSE RAMON ARGUEDAS MATARRITA DEMANDADO/A:
EL ESTADO Nº N° 2023006418 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las ocho horas con treinta y tres minutos del trece de Diciembre del dos mil veintitres.- PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO, interpuesto por JOSÉ RAMÓN ARGUEDAS MATARRITA, mayor, costarricense, casado dos veces, cédula 6-02290-0173, vecino de Puntarenas, Osa, Piedras Blancas, Santa Rosa, representado por la abogada directora, CAROLINA HERRERA ALVARADO, mayor, abogada, cédula 1-1054-0134, carné numero 12133, contra el ESTADO, representado por el Procurador BERNARDO LARA FLORES, mayor, abogado, casado, cédula 105980797, y
CONSIDERANDO:
"1. Se declare la nulidad absoluta del acta de inspección INS-TA-07-19-295-2019, por haber sido llevada a cabo por personas que no estaban debidamente nombradas como inspectores de servicio civil 1, y por lo tanto carentes de la investidura administrativa, puesto que fue realizada por estudiantes de la UNA en un convenio interinstitucional, que no permite por su naturaleza subrogar funciones propias del MINISTERIO DE SALUD a estudiantes.
2. Se declare nulidad absoluta de la resolución DM-RM-2029-2020, por carecer de la firma del Dr. Christiam Valverde Alpízar y por ser fundamentada en la inspección INS-TA-07-19-295-2019.
3. Se declare la nulidad de las resoluciones DM-RM-2921-2020 y DM-LC-801-2020, por la falta de fundamentación e interpretación omisa del artículo 12 de la ley 9028.
4. Se ordene al Ministerio de Salud que elimine al suscrito en el registro de infractores a la ley 9028, de modo que pueda impedir la renovación de permisos de funcionamiento. (Ver escrito de reformulación de la demanda y lo indicado durante la audiencia preliminar).
5. Se condene al estado (sic) al pago de daños y perjuicios ocasionados por la las (sic) resoluciones citadas. (Desistida a imagen 123 del expediente digital).
6. Se condene al estado (sic) al pago de las costas personales y procesales del presente proceso de conocimiento." (Expediente digital y pretensiones ajustadas conforme consta en la audiencia preliminar. Escúchese la audiencia preliminar.). (Nota: Además, el Procurador indicó durante la audiencia de juicio que la parte había referenciado mal la resolución que debía ser anulada).
ÚNICO: La existencia de daños y perjuicios cuyo nexo de causalidad sean los actos administrativos objeto de este proceso de conocimiento. (Los autos).- V) ARGUMENTOS DE LAS PARTES: A) ALEGATOS DE LA PARTE DEMANDANTE: La parte demandante, José Ramón Arguedas Matarrita, en su escrito de demanda y en sus alegatos durante la audiencia de juicio oral y público indicó que su esposa estaba sola atendiendo la Pulpería Nataly, el día 2 de setiembre de 2019, y ese día recibió una mercadería por parte de los repartidores de tabaco, que ella colocó dentro del mostrador, en dónde solo tienen acceso los administradores, ya que quien se encarga de establecer los precios es su esposo. Que cinco minutos después de que se fue el camión repartidor, llegó un vehículo sin identificación oficial, del cual se bajaron dos personas quienes se identificaron como inspectores del Ministerio de Salud, -según la ley N° 9028 y de nombres Erick Molina Vargas y Andrea Durán, quienes ingresaron a la parte interna del negocio, que no está abierta al público, y dentro del área de cajas, de los estantes inferiores y que indican estaban cerrados, sacaron una caja de cartón de color café que contenía varias cajetillas de cigarros de la marca Pall Mall, las cuales tenían adheridos encendedores, lo que se denomina en la jerga "bandeo"; caja que fue colocada en el mostrador de la pulpería, tomándole fotografía a las mismas. Que éstos funcionarios, realizaron la manifestación de que esos productos no se podían vender de esa forma y procedieron a separarlos, realizando un acta de inspección y procedieron a retirarse. Que el 19 de noviembre de 2019, el Ministerio de Salud, Región Brunca, constituyó un órgano director del procedimiento sancionatorio, integrado por Eduardo A. Segura Vargas, Jovita López Morera y Marilyn Jiménez Mora, con relación a la inspección realizada en la Pulpería Nataly, por haber infringido el artículo confiriendo el traslado de cargos mediante la resolución notificada el día 24 de setiembre de 2019, y contestando negativamente según escrito presentado con fecha del 27 de setiembre de 2019. El Dr. Christian Valverde Alpízar, Director Regional de la Rectoría de Salud, Región Brunca, dictó la resolución MS-DRRSBRU-2029-2019 de las nueve horas quince minutos del día 29 de octubre de 2019, estableciendo una multa de cuatro millones cuatrocientos sesenta y dos mil colones y otorgando el plazo de 30 días hábiles para su cancelación. Cuestionó que el proceso fuera sumarísimo y que no se motivara el rechazo de sus alegatos y se le impusiera la sanción establecida en la Ley 9028, (art. 16). Esta resolución fue comunicada al correo señalado, el día lunes 4 de noviembre de 2019, precisando que la misma carece de la firma correspondiente. Se presentó apelación ante el Ministro de Salud, Daniel Salas Peraza, en tiempo y forma, el día 6 de noviembre de 2019. El Ministro de Salud, Dr. Daniel Salas Peraza, rechazó el recurso de apelación, mediante la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 de las ocho horas y cinco minutos del día 30 de marzo de 2020, el día 4 de mayo de 2020. En la resolución se indicó que con solo mantener productos de tabaco a los que se le ha adherido un encendedor se está transgrediendo el art. 12 de la Ley N° 9028. En esta resolución que sí cuenta con la firma digital del Ministro, ordenó la cancelación de la multa en un plazo de 30 días hábiles e instruye al Director del Área de Salud de Osa, para que una vez realizado el depósito, proceda con la clausura comercial de la Pulpería Nataly. Que luego de ello recurrieron ante este Tribunal, suspendiéndose los actos del Ministerio de Salud. En conclusiones, refirió que la Ley 9028 se aprobó con la finalidad de limitar el consumo del tabaco. Desde la consulta realizada ante la Sala Constitucional para la aprobación de esta ley, se había alegado que la misma limita el derecho al comercio de las personas, según el artículo 12 de la misma ley, los productos de tabaco y sus derivados, precisando que la acción fue declarado sin lugar, sin embargo, sí interesa que la Sala Constitucional indicó que la norma no tiene una prohibición total a la publicidad. Que para el Ministerio cualquier publicidad es prohibido, lo cual va en contra de la norma; precisando que es contrario al espíritu del legislador y a lo que dispone el artículo 12 de la Ley 9028, ya que la norma exceptúa la publicidad y promoción y patrocinio, salvo que se realice: "a) En el interior de lugares y eventos donde solo se permite el acceso limitado a personas adultas y no sea un espacio declarado cien por ciento (100%) libre de humo por esta ley. // b) Por medio de comunicación directa con los vendedores y consumidores de productos de tabaco, de conformidad con el protocolo que se establezca en el reglamento de esta ley". En este caso, los productos no estaban a la vista ni acceso de cualquier persona por lo cual no se violentó el artículo 12 de la ley ya que el lugar en dónde estaban los productos solo eran de acceso a los administradores, de modo que no estaban a la vista, ni al acceso de cualquier persona y por lo tanto no se violentó el artículo 12 de la ley, que fue el artículo base para sancionar a la parte demandante, no siendo una simple sanción, ya que si bien hay sanciones leves de un 15% de un salario base, luego sube a un 30%, pasa a un 50% y luego la más grave, que fue la que se le aplicó a mi representado de diez salarios bases, equivalente de cuatro millones cuatrocientos sesenta y un mil colones, siendo que la multa debía aplicarse a las casas comerciales, por eso la sanción era tan alta, sin embargo, el Ministerio de Salud, ha venido aplicando esta sanción a los pulperos, que viven del día a día con sus pulperías, provocándoles un grave perjuicio a éstas personas, precisando que incluso constan en autos los estados ecónomicos junto con la medida cautelar. En otro orden de ideas, los inspectores no cumplían con los requisitos de ley, en este caso, el patrón era la Universidad Nacional, por lo que no tenían la investidura, a pesar de que contaran con el consentimiento, al haber creído que eran personas debidamente investidas y que era un control de rutina. Si ellos hubieran sospechado que estaban infringiendo una ley, no les hubieran dado el acceso. Por otra falta, indicó que una de las resoluciones dictadas por las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, carecía de la firma correspondiente y que esta sanción le provoca unos daños de gran magnitud que haría que cierre el negocio. Reiteró las pretensiones y pidió la condena de las costas procesales y personales al Estado. B) ALEGATOS DEL ESTADO.- La representación del Estado se opuso a la demanda, y alegó tanto en la contestación presentada en tiempo y forma, como en sus alegatos durante la audiencia de juicio que efectivamente los funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud debidamente acreditados, se apersonaron al local comercial en donde el propio actor manifestó que los cigarrillos de la marca Pall Mall tenían adheridos unos encendedores, lo cual fue advertido por los funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, Andrea Durán Sánchez y Erick Molina Vargas, quien funge como testigo de este proceso. El Dr. Christian Valverde Alpízar, efectivamente dictó la resolución MS-DRRSBRU-2029-2019 de las 9:15 horas del día 29 de octubre de 2019 y notificada al correo electrónico señalado el día 4 de noviembre de 2019; precisando que en el expediente administrativo consta la firma de la resolución en cuestión; resolución sobre la cual se formuló recurso de apelación, resuelto negativamente por el Ministro de Salud Daniel Salas Peraza, según la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 de las ocho horas y cinco minutos del día 30 de marzo de 2020; rechazándose los alegatos de la parte demandante. Precisó que el cierre del negocio no se llevó a cabo, en razón de la medida cautelar declarada formulada por la parte demandante y que este Tribunal acogió de cara a la resolución de fondo. El Procurador, interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho, toda vez que precisó que en el Informe Sanitario del día 2 de setiembre de 2019, quedó debidamente acreditado que el accionante tenía a al venta en su establecimiento comercial 17 cajetillas de cigarrillos de la marca Pall Mall con encendedores adheridos, promocionando el producto, e infringiendo así la normativa de tabaco, la cual prohíbe tanto la promoción y publicidad de productos de tabaco y sus derivados. La infracción se produjo al haber adherido un encendedor a la cajetilla de cigarros como regalía, plus o como estrategia para persuadir al consumidor a comprar o preferir un producto de tabaco o una marca de cigarrillos determinada, como el patrocinio de cualquier actividad por o con encendedores, lo cual constituye una infracción al artículo 12 de la Ley N° 9028 y 16 del Reglamento de ésta, los cuales tienen el objetivo de reducir el consumo de productos originarios o derivados del tabaco, motivo por el cual solicitó declarar con lugar la excepción de falta de derecho y se proceda a condenar a la parte demandante al pago de las costas y sus intereses hasta su efectivo pago. Que la medida tomada por el Ministerio de Salud, corresponde a una medida disuasoria del fumando, precisando que la actuación de la Administración fue ajustada a Derecho. En conclusiones señaló que en cuanto a la pretensión N° 1, dado que señala que los funcionarios que realizaron la inspección no eran funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, precisó que sí estaban legitimados con fundamento en los decretos ejecutivos DM-JG-1489-2018, publicado en la Gaceta N°91 del 24 de mayo de 2018, DM-JG-1338-2019 de 7 de febrero de 2019 y publicado en la Gaceta N° 75 de 24 de abril de 2019 y DM-JG- 5602-2020, publicado en la Gaceta N° 218 de 9 de noviembre de 2020, decretos que habilitaban a los funcionarios que fueron contratados por el Ministerio de Salud, para realizar las inspecciones a las cuales se ha referido el testigo del Estado. Indicó que la empresa contratista alquilaba los vehículos, que andaban estas personas, no siendo vehículos del Ministerio de Salud. Así, señaló que las actuaciones de éstas personas sí estaban legitimadas. En cuanto a la resolución que carece supuesta de firma, rectificó el número de la misma, e indicó que en el expediente administrativo a folio 25 consta la resolución en cuestión debidamente firmada. Que posiblemente por un error secretarial, el envió del documento sin la firma, no implica la invalidez de la misma, ya que en la original sí consta la firma. En relación a las otras pretensiones que se alega falta de fundamentación, no precisaron en qué consiste esa falta de fundamentación. La parte también cuestionó la suspensión del cobro de la sanción dispuesta administrativamente por el COVID. El Procurador indicó que con el acta se determinó la existencia de las cajetillas de cigarros con encendedores adheridos, lo cual está prohibido por la Ley N° 9028, según el art. 12 y el Reglamento (art, 16), decreto N° 37185-S-MEIC-MTSS-MP-H-SP, establecen como promoción, publicidad y patrocinio se prohíbe en los productos de tabaco y sus derivados. Que el procedimiento establecido en el art. 39 de la Ley N° 9028, establece el procedimiento sumario para la aplicación de las multas. Con base en eso y con el testimonio de la testigo Zúñiga, quien indicó que el destino final era el consumo y que lo que aconteció en este caso no fue una simple oferta comercial, e indicó que la promoción de productos solo la puede hacer el distribuidor al consumidor. Que la ley no establece la diferenciación realizada por la parte en cuanto a que la sanción aplicaba a las casas comerciales. Además, señaló en cuanto al alegato de la supuesta falta de investidura de los funcionarios que la Ley General permite la investidura en diversos casos, y no necesariamente los funcionarios deben estar cubiertos por el servicio civil para fungir como tales. Precisó que la resolución de la Sala Constitucional a que hizo referencia la parte, no encontró vicios de constitucionalidad, por lo que los alegatos realizados carecen de recibo y solicitó se se declare sin lugar la demanda y se condene a la parte actora al pago de costas e intereses. Finalmente, indicó que no han existido daños dado que el negocio ha permanecido abierto hasta el día de hoy.
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: Tal y como se indicó supra, los fiscalizadores en el presente caso actuaron al amparo de los acuerdos Al respecto, en cuanto a este cuestionamiento, este Tribunal luego de la revisión y análisis de los acuerdos emitidos por el entonces Presidente de la República y la Ministra de Salud, a saber los acuerdos: N° DM-JG-1489-2018, publicado en la Gaceta N° 91 del 24 de mayo de 2018, DM-JG-1338-2019 de 7 de febrero de 2019 y publicado en la Gaceta N° 75 de 24 de abril de 2019 y DM-JG- 5602-2020, publicado en la Gaceta N° 218 de 9 de noviembre de 2020, de donde se desprende que los fiscalizadores de este caso, es decir de quienes realizaron la inspección en la Pulpería Nataly, ostentaban una investidura como "autoridad competentes" para los efectos de la Ley N° 9028, ello por cuanto efectivamente el Presidente de la República y la Ministra de Salud, los designaron entre otras personas, para que fungieran con carácter de Autoridad de Salud, de conformidad con las funciones encomendadas relativas a la fiscalización prevista en la Ley N° 9028 y sus reformas; esta Cámara descarta el vicio de nulidad alegado, con fundamento en la supuesta incompetencia de los fiscalizadores; quienes según el artículo 3 del primer acuerdo señalado supra, debían atender lo dispuesto en las medidas de vigilancia y control de la Ley 9028 y su Reglamento. En consecuencia de rechaza esta pretensión.
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: De la revisión de la documentación consta que el documento en cuestión fue firmado de forma digital, motivo por el cual se rechaza esta pretensión.
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: Conforme a los considerandos anteriores, se declara con lugar esta pretensión. Tal y como se indicó supra, en este caso las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, no motivaron adecuadamente los actos administrativos en cuestión, toda vez que no ponderaron la excepción contenida en la Ley N° 9028 art. 12 inciso b), en relación a una de las posibilidades existentes para realizar publicidad, promoción o patrocinio de productos derivados de tabaco, en este caso, cuando tal actividad se efectuá en el punto de venta de forma directa entre el vendedor y el comprador. De la prueba testimonial, evacuada en los autos, y que le merece plena credibilidad a este Tribunal, y a la luz de la sana crítica racional, se tiene la plena convicción que las cajetillas encontradas en la pulpería Nataly habían sido entregados por los distribuidores de los cigarros en horas de la mañana al momento de hacer entrega de los productos para la venta, y éstos estaban fuera del alcance de los consumidores y en un lugar en donde no podían ser visto por éstos, según así lo manifestó ante este Tribunal el fiscalizador, razón por la cual, este Colegio se ha inclinado en declarar la nulidad de las resoluciones cuestionadas toda vez que en estas no se analizó ni ponderó de forma motivada la excepción contenida en la Ley N° 9028 art. 12 inciso b), que incluso se encuentra desarrollada con un Protocolo específico en el Reglamento, que permite la promoción directa entre el vendedor y los consumidores, a modo de excepción prevista en la propia legislación, razón por lo cual esta Cámara ha declarado con lugar esta pretensión -parcialmente- a favor de la parte demandante y declarando la nulidad absoluta por vicio en el elemento motivo, de la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 y se rechaza en cuanto a la resolución DM-RM-2921-2020, correspondiente a una moratoria general no aplicable a la parte demandante, en razón de la medida cautelar acogida a su favor.
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: Vista esta pretensión, se considera que la misma es accesoria a la tercera y al haberse concedido la tercera -parcialmente- o declararse con lugar, de igual forma debe procederse con esta, declarándola con lugar, toda vez que además de la sanción pecuniaria de quedar firme la sanción sería aplicable el registro del demandante como infractor de la Ley N° 9028.
EL TRIBUNAL RESUELVE: En este caso, no hubo daños y perjuicios directos derivados de las resoluciones citadas, toda vez que como consta en los resultandos de esta resolución, la pulpería en cuestión nunca estuvo cerrada, sin que además se hayan acreditados daños directos en nexo de causalidad a la luz de la LGAP, artículos 190 y siguientes. Por lo tanto, se rechaza esta pretensión.
POR TANTO:
Se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho en cuanto a las pretensiones que se acogen y se acoge la excepción en cuanto a las pretensiones rechazadas. Se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda incoada por JOSÉ RAMÓN ARGUEDAS MATARRITA en contra del ESTADO. Se acoge la nulidad de la resolución DM-LC-801-2020 de las ocho horas y cinco minutos del día 30 de marzo de 2020 y en consecuencia se ordena al Ministerio de Salud que elimine al demandante del registro de infractores a la ley 9028. Las demás pretensiones se rechazan. Son las costas procesales y personales a favor de la parte demandante y los intereses desde su determinación hasta su efectivo pago. Notifíquese.- LAURA GARCÍA CARBALLO JONATÁN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ PAULO ALONSO SOTO Juez(a) PALONSO ???????????????
PAULO ANDRÉ ALONSO SOTO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????
JONATHAN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????
LAURA GARCIA CARBALLO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected] Clasificación elaborada por CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.