← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 05378-2024 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · 22/08/2024
OutcomeResultado
The Court denied the action in full because it did not establish unlawful health-authority conduct or technically prove continuing excessive noise that could justify revoking the permit and closing the terminal.El Tribunal rechazó íntegramente la demanda porque no acreditó ilegalidad en la actuación sanitaria ni la persistencia técnica del exceso de ruido que habría permitido revocar el permiso y cerrar la terminal.
SummaryResumen
The Contentious-Administrative Court rejected an action seeking annulment of sanitary order 067-2018, revocation of the operating health permit, and closure of a bus terminal because of noise pollution. It found that the Ministry of Health acted diligently by conducting nighttime measurements, ordering an acoustic-containment plan, inspecting the completed work, and requiring additional improvements when the measures proved insufficient. Order 067-2018 did not mandate automatic closure; closure depended on the mitigation work failing and a new measurement confirming that noise still exceeded regulatory limits. That condition could not be verified because the claimant prevented further measurements inside his home and submitted no technical evidence showing that the pollution persisted when the action was filed. The Court treated challenges concerning land use and municipal permits as outside the scope of the case, upheld the defense that the claimant lacked a substantive right to the relief requested, and ordered him to pay both categories of costs, plus interest on the costs awarded to the State.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo rechazó la demanda que pretendía anular la orden sanitaria 067-2018, revocar el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento y cerrar una terminal de autobuses por contaminación sónica. Determinó que el Ministerio de Salud actuó diligentemente al efectuar mediciones nocturnas, ordenar un plan de confinamiento acústico, verificar las obras y requerir mejoras adicionales cuando estas resultaron insuficientes. La orden 067-2018 no disponía una clausura automática: condicionaba esa medida a que los trabajos fueran ineficaces y una nueva medición comprobara que el ruido continuaba excediendo la normativa. Esa comprobación no pudo realizarse porque el actor impidió posteriores mediciones en su vivienda y tampoco aportó prueba técnica que demostrara la persistencia de la contaminación al presentar la demanda. El Tribunal consideró ajenos a la litis los cuestionamientos sobre el uso de suelo y los permisos municipales, acogió la excepción de falta de derecho y condenó al actor al pago de ambas costas e intereses sobre las costas otorgadas al Estado.
Key excerptExtracto clave
As it has already been determined that the Ministry of Health acted diligently in ordering mitigation work for noise pollution—because noise always exists, although it must remain within the limits established as tolerable—closure of the establishment was therefore unwarranted once compliance with the orders and completion of the work had been verified. It is clear to this Court that the action the claimant sought from the Montes de Oca Health Governing Area was not the action it took, because his objective was closure of the establishment rather than implementation of measures to reduce noise, which was the appropriate course, since, as stated above, the company has the right to conduct its commercial activity even though the area is residential. Conclusion: Having reviewed the claimant's arguments, the Court finds them unfounded and rejects the action in its entirety.Como ya se ha determinado que el Ministerio de Salud actuó diligentemente en cuanto a ordenar obras de mitigación -porque ruido siempre existe, aunque debe estar ajustado a los límites que se establezcan como tolerables- de la contaminación sónica, por ello ante el cumplimiento de lo ordenado y verificadas las obras, no procedía el cierre del establecimiento. Es claro para este Tribunal que la conducta que el actor pretendía por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca no fue la que esta emitió porque su objetivo era el cierre del establecimiento y no la realización de obras para la disminución del ruido, que era lo que procedía, por cuanto como se dijo supra, la empresa tiene derecho a realizar su actividad comercial, aunque la zona sea residencial. Corolario: Revisados los argumentos de la parte actora, se determina la improcedencia de los mismos y la demanda se rechaza en su totalidad.-
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En dicha orden no se dispuso ningún cierre del plantel de buses en caso de incumplimiento de la orden sanitaria."
"That order did not provide for closure of the bus terminal in the event of noncompliance with the sanitary order."
Hechos probados
"En dicha orden no se dispuso ningún cierre del plantel de buses en caso de incumplimiento de la orden sanitaria."
Hechos probados
"La nulidad pedida del mismo es improcedente en tanto estaba ligada al cumplimiento de las ordenes sanitarias emitidas."
"The requested annulment is unwarranted because it was tied to compliance with the sanitary orders issued."
Considerando VII
"La nulidad pedida del mismo es improcedente en tanto estaba ligada al cumplimiento de las ordenes sanitarias emitidas."
Considerando VII
"Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho. En consecuencia, se declara SIN LUGAR la demanda interpuesta por FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO contra el ESTADO y la EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A."
"The defense of lack of substantive right is upheld. Consequently, the action brought by FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO against the STATE and EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A. is DENIED."
Por tanto
"Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho. En consecuencia, se declara SIN LUGAR la demanda interpuesta por FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO contra el ESTADO y la EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A."
Por tanto
"Son ambas costas a cargo de la parte actora y a favor de las demandadas."
"Both categories of costs shall be borne by the claimant and awarded to the defendants."
Por tanto
"Son ambas costas a cargo de la parte actora y a favor de las demandadas."
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
EV Template Generation: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj ????????????????
CASE FILE:
PROCEEDING:
PLENARY PROCEEDING PLAINTIFF:
FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO DEFENDANT:
THE STATE No. 2024005378 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at eight thirty-three in the morning on veintidos de Agosto del dos mil veinticuatro.- Plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) brought by FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO, of legal age, married, biologist, resident of Sabanilla, holder of identity card number 1-1123-0583, represented by Attorney Walter Brenes Soto, of legal age, attorney-at-law, holder of Bar Association membership card number 21747, against THE STATE, represented by State Attorney Gloria Solano Martínez, of legal age, attorney-at-law, holder of Bar Association membership card number 10343, and EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A., represented by Attorney Fabian Volio Echeverría, of legal age, attorney-at-law, holder of Bar Association membership card number 3425.- BACKGROUND
I.On 28 de mayo de 2019, the plaintiff filed a plenary proceeding against the State and Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, S.A., asserting the following claims for relief (pretensiones): “1. Annul in its entirety health order (orden sanitaria) number 067-2018, issued by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. 2. Revoke the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) granted to the company Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres de S.A. 3. Order the complete cessation of the operations conducted at the facilities of the company Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres S.A. 4. Order the defendants to pay the costs of this action.” (See complaint in images 2 through 7 and preliminary hearing in images 353 through 357 of the digital court file).-
II.After being duly served as required by law (traslado de ley), the defendants opposed the action. The defendant company requests that the complaint be dismissed and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs, while the State requests that the complaint be denied and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs and interest. In addition, the State’s representative raises the defenses on the merits (excepciones de fondo) of lack of a legal right, lack of a current interest, lack of standing to be sued, and the preliminary defense (excepción previa) of res judicata (cosa juzgada). The company’s representative, in turn, raised the preliminary defenses of expiration of the action (caducidad) and an untenable claim against the defendant (demandada improponible), which were denied by decision number Nº 08-2020 of 7 de enero de 2020, at the preliminary hearing. (See images 353 through 357 of the digital court file).-
III.The preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar) was held on 7 de enero de 2020, with the representatives of all parties in attendance. The matter was declared to involve purely questions of law (puro derecho), and the parties proceeded to present their closing arguments (conclusiones). (See preliminary hearing and minutes in images 353 through 357 of the digital court file).-
IV.The matter was originally assigned in febrero de 2020 to Judge Karla Madriz; however, as part of the restructuring implemented in the Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda beginning in julio de 2023, this matter was reassigned to Equipo de Fondo I for adjudication in agosto de 2024 under the seniority criterion. This judgment is issued within the statutory period, unanimously and following deliberation by the members of the Tribunal, with no grounds observed that could invalidate the proceedings.-
Judge Miranda Alvarado authors the judgment, with the affirmative votes of Judges Bolaños Salazar and Mejías Rodríguez of Equipo I of this Tribunal.-
CONSIDERATIONS
After the preliminary hearing and once the case file had been assigned for decision, the plaintiff’s representative requested that a copy of judgment number 72-2022-V, issued at dieciséis horas treinta minutos del diez de octubre del dos mil veintidós by the former Sección V (now Equipo V) of this Tribunal, be admitted as evidence to assist the court in reaching its decision (prueba para mejor resolver); the defendants were given an opportunity to respond regarding that evidence, and they did so. Having reviewed this evidence, it is concluded that it provides no necessary or relevant grounds for determining the present matter. First, it is not evidence in the technical sense, but rather a precedent from a tribunal within this jurisdiction, and review of that decision shows that it does not address the same matter at issue in these proceedings, nor is there any overlap between the parties.
Consistent with the foregoing, and as a second point to consider, although the judgment dates from 2022, the status of any appellate proceedings involving it is unknown—that is, whether it is currently under cassation review (casación). Consequently, even if the ruling in that judgment somehow affected the subject matter of these proceedings—which has been determined not to be the case—it still could not be treated as a precedent warranting consideration. A third basis for rejecting it is that the relevance of that evidence was not explained, and this Chamber cannot determine, as a matter within its purview, that it is important for rendering a decision in the matter before us. Accordingly, the evidence offered to assist the court in reaching its decision is rejected because it does not provide any new or necessary evidentiary element for resolving this dispute (litis).-
II.PROVEN FACTS.- The following facts of importance for the resolution of this matter are deemed duly established:
The new measurement was conducted on 21 de junio de 2018, and the results showed that the ambient noise generated by the source exceeded (although it had decreased compared with the other two measurements) the limits established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido. It was again recommended that an administrative act (acto administrativo) be issued on account of the proven noise pollution (contaminación sónica). (See pages 310 to 313, 361, 381 to 390, and 437 to 448 of Volume II of the administrative record (expediente administrativo));
Based on the information set forth in the cited official letters, this Directorate deems Sanitary Order (Orden Sanitaria) No. 067-2018 to have been complied with.” (See folio 615 of Volume III of the administrative case file); 38) On 25 de marzo de 2019, by official letter DPU-DPUUS-046-2019, the Director of Urban Planning of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca requested that the Director of the Área de Salud arrange an inspection to determine whether environmental pollution (contaminación ambiental) exists during the early morning and nighttime hours at the bus station of Empresa Ruta 51-53 S.A. and, if so, that mitigation measures (medidas de mitigación) be required. (See folio 617 of Volume III of the administrative case file); 39) By official letter CS-ARS-MO-421-2019 dated 28 de marzo de 2019, the Acting Director of the Área de Salud de Montes de Oca responded to the Director of Urban Planning of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca as follows: “(...) I hereby submit a report on all inspections conducted at the site from 2016 to date. 1.
In response to the complaint filed in 2016 against Plantel de Buses Ruta 51-53 for environmental pollution, the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur was asked to conduct a sound-level measurement (medición sónica) at the complainant’s residence. 2. Through official letter CS-URS-0766-2016, signed by Eng. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, an official of the Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur, it was reported that the sound assessment exceeded the limits established by the Reglamento para el Control de la Comunicación por Ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39428-S. 3. By official letter CS-ARS-MO-LACC-292-2016, dated 12 de octubre de 2016, the official of the Área Rectora, Bach. Luis Castillo Conejo, served a Sanitary Order on Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres, Sociedad Anónima, in accordance with official letter CS-URS-0766-2016. 4. As follow-up to the complaint, technical assistance was again requested to conduct a sound-level measurement at the complainant’s residence and verify the effectiveness of the sound-containment plan (plan de confinamiento) approved by the Regional Level. 5.
Official letter CS-URS-821-2017, dated 13 de setiembre de 2017 and signed by Eng. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, states that the sound-level measurement was conducted and that, according to the sound-assessment results, the ambient noise plus the noise generated by the source exceeded the limits established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39428-S. 6. Based on the information set forth in official letter CS-URS-0821-2017, signed by MSC. Pablo Andrés Zumbado, the corresponding Sanitary Order was served. 7. By official letter CS-ARS-MO-2150-2017, dated 21 de diciembre de 2017, Bach. Luis Castillo Conejo was asked to inspect the site and review the degree of compliance with the requirements imposed through the administrative act (Acto Administrativo). 8. In official letter CS-ARS-MO-LACC-109-2018, Bach. Luis Castillo Conejo describes the findings of the inspection conducted on 17 de abril del 2018 at the bus terminal of Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima and states that, based on his observations, he verified compliance with the Sanitary Order; accordingly, he recommends requesting that the Regional Level schedule a sound-level measurement. 9.
By official letter CS-ARS-MO-806-2018, another request for technical assistance was submitted to conduct a sound-level measurement at the complainant’s residence in order to verify the effectiveness of the work performed, because the only way to determine whether the work performed by the respondent was effective is through a sound-level measurement. 10. On 05 de noviembre del 2018, Report CS-URS-1023-2018, signed by Eng. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, an official of the Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud, was received, stating that it had not been possible to coordinate the sound-level measurement because the complainant indicated that he wished to wait until an appeal filed with the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca had been resolved. 11. Through official letter CS-ARS-MO-LACC-062-2019, dated 06 de marzo del 2019, official Luis Castillo Conejo reports on a new inspection conducted on 01 de marzo del año en curso at the property housing the bus terminal of Ruta 51 y 53 S.A., where he verified compliance with the requirements imposed in the served Administrative Acts.” (See folios 618 to 619 of Volume III of the administrative case file).-
It is relevant to note that the parties did not establish the following material facts: 1) The serious physical and mental health harm suffered by the plaintiff and his family due to noise pollution (contaminación sónica). (The case record) 2) That the plaintiff allowed verification of whether the noise pollution persists after the noise-confinement work (trabajos de confinamiento de ruido) had been performed and inspected. (The case record).-
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that: “(...) LEGAL GROUNDS. Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes a constitutional guarantee, namely, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the right to report acts that violate that right. It is clear that this constitutional protection of the environment and public health gives rise to positions and actions both by private parties and by the Public Administration itself—in this case, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. It is important to emphasize that the Administration itself must take action when private parties are being harmed by private companies and by the Administration’s own omissions in taking action, as in my situation, in which for more than 3 years I and my daughters have suffered serious harm to our health due to the noise pollution caused by that company. The omissions of the Área Rectora de Salud have caused deterioration in my family’s physical and mental health, when it has been more than evident that the terms of a Health Order (Orden Sanitaria)—its own final and binding administrative act (acto administrativo)—are being disregarded, thereby revealing an irregularity that must be subjected to the judicial review of legality (control de legalidad) conducted by this administrative litigation jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa).
It is evident that this Company should not hold an Operating Health Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) to operate a Bus Depot in a residential area; indeed, according to the Documentary Evidence attached, it does not have the required municipal permits or licenses, and its actions therefore do not comply with our legislation. We must also recall that the noise-measurement tests (pruebas de medición sónica) conducted by the Área Rectora de Salud constitute an appropriate technical method for verifying the existence of noise exceeding the regulatory limit and capable of affecting health, as in this case, where noise pollution exists. It is questionable that the purported permits of a bus company should remain in effect within a Residential area, which demonstrates that it is impossible for that company to regularize its legal status because it will always remain in violation and, worse still, continue causing noise pollution; consequently, its operating activity must be permanently shut down and its Operating Health Permit must also be revoked.
In the most recent noise measurement conducted by the Área Rectora de Salud, on 21 de junio del 2018 at 21:31 hours (9:31 pm), the permitted noise limit was exceeded. It is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that, during the day and under normal operations, that bus company causes an enormous amount of noise pollution, making it necessary to shut down this activity, given that a constitutional right belonging to me and my family is being infringed. In this case, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca (the State) is disregarding the terms of Health Order number 063-2017, served on Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. on 17 de octubre del 2017, specifically item 2), which provides as follows: 2) You are hereby warned that, if the noise-confinement work is not effective and a new noise measurement establishes that the applicable regulations are exceeded, the activity conducted at the bus terminal depot will be shut down and the Operating Health Permit will be suspended (Underlining and highlighting do not appear in the original).
In compliance with Health Order number 063-2017, on 21 de junio del 2018, that new noise measurement relating to the aforementioned Order was conducted. According to technical report number CS-URS0578-2018, it was taken in the bedroom of my home—where I live with my wife and my two daughters, aged 5 years and 1 year—(see printed certificates from the Registro Civil del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), and showed that the Bus Depot of Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres, S.A. ONCE AGAIN EXCEEDS the standards established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido. Accordingly, it is evident that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, despite the result documented in Technical Report number CS-URS-0578-2018, DID NOT order the immediate enforcement of Health Order number 063-2017 (that Order is a final and binding administrative act), thereby avoiding the immediate shutdown of that company’s Bus Depot, even though it had been established that noise pollution continued to be generated—a situation that persists even after the purported noise-confinement ‘work’ had been performed and inspected.”-
- THE STATE: In its response, the State’s counsel states: “(...) Lack of legal entitlement and res judicata (cosa juzgada): The Área Rectora de Salud did exercise its statutory powers in addressing the complaint filed by the plaintiff. No omission occurred. The plaintiff alleges an omission by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca of the Ministerio de Salud in addressing the complaint filed against the Ruta 51-53 bus terminal operated by the co-defendant company. However, the administrative record (expediente administrativo) provides conclusive evidence that this assertion is incorrect and unfounded. It is not enough to claim that my client engaged in omissions that affected the physical health of the plaintiff and his family; rather, it is necessary to specify which particular rules or duties imposed by the legal system were disregarded by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca.
And to prove it. As the documentary evidence shows, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca did take the necessary action, within the scope of its authority, to address the complaints filed against the co-defendant company. This includes both the anonymous complaint received by the Contraloría del Ambiente del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (and forwarded to the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. Evidence N° 1. Pages 36-38) and the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein. To date, three health orders (órdenes sanitarias) have been issued: N° 061-2016 (Evidence N° 1. Page 106), 063-2017 (Evidence N° 1. Page 269), and 067-2018 (Evidence N° 1. Page 450). With respect to that first confidential complaint filed with the Contraloría de Ambiente del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía and forwarded by official letter CA-URID-201-264-SITADA-4809 to the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, Bach.
Luis Castillo Conejo was instructed to conduct an inspection visit. According to report N° CS-ARS-MO-LACC 421-2015, the designated official found no machinery operating on the property, no pollution from dust emissions, and no noise problems. Por tanto, he concluded that there was no issue of any kind affecting public health and recommended closing the case (Evidence N° 1. Pages 37 to 47). Subsequently, the complaint filed by the plaintiff on el día 11 de febrero de 2016 was received, alleging “environmental, noise, gas, and soil pollution.” To verify the reported facts, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca requested an on-site inspection, during which it confirmed that the reported company held the valid permits required to conduct its operations. It also verified that the perimeter walls and the front portion of the property had been built pursuant to a permit granted by the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, and that the diesel storage tank was located under a roof, complied with current regulations, and had been authorized by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía.
It likewise confirmed that there was no smoke pollution, noise pollution (contaminación sónica), or other pollutants in the surrounding area. Finally, it observed that there were no fuel spills on the floor surface and that no expansion work was being performed on the property; accordingly, it recommended closing the case (Evidence N° 1. Pages 52-54, 68-70). Nevertheless, as a follow-up to that complaint, by official letter CS-ARS-MO-432-2016, the Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca submitted a request for technical assistance to the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Central Sur to conduct noise-level measurements (medición sónica) at the plaintiff’s residence (Evidence N° 1. Page 73). By official letter CS-URS-J-1083-2016 dated 14 de julio de 2016, the Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud Central Sur authorized special working hours to address that request for assistance (Evidence N° 1.
Page 82). And on 02 de setiembre de 2016, a noise assessment (evaluación de ruido) was conducted at the plaintiff’s residence, the results of which showed that the measurements exceeded the maximum limits permitted under Decreto Ejecutivo N° 39428-S del 23 de noviembre del 2015 (Evidence N° 1. Pages 94-102). Based on the results of that assessment, a new health order, N° 061-2016, was issued against Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, providing as follows: Thereafter, on el día 06 de octubre del 2016, at the request of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, official Luis Castillo Conejo went to the premises of Empresa Rutas 51-53 to conduct a physical and sanitary inspection (inspección físico-sanitaria), during which he observed no health-code violation (Evidence N° 1. Pages 121-123). Subsequently, the company requested renewal of its sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento), which the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca denied because a health order remained outstanding (Evidence N° 1.
Pages 110-120 and 126-127). In compliance with health order N°61-2016, the co-defendant company submitted the Noise Containment and Mitigation Plan (Plan de Confinamiento y Mitigación de Ruido) as required under item 1) of the health order, and the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca therefore granted a sanitary operating permit valid until el 30 de noviembre de 2021 (Evidence N° 1. Pages 157-186 and 193). To verify the effectiveness of the implemented Containment Plan, assistance was requested from the Dirección de Rectoría de la Región Central Sur to conduct noise-level measurements at the residence of Mr. Bonilla Murillo. The values obtained in the assessment exceeded those established in the Reglamento para el Control de Contaminación Sónica (Evidence N° 1. Pages 258-266). Although the requirements of item 1) of the health order had been met, the noise-pollution problem emanating from Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres persisted; consequently, the health authorities issued a second health order, N° 063-2017, which ordered as follows: By written submission dated 10 de diciembre del 2017, Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres informed the Área de Salud de Montes de Oca of the improvements made to the property to comply with the requirements of health order N° 63-2017 (Evidence N° 1.
Pages 302-309). By official letter CS-ARS-MO-2152-2017 del 21 de diciembre de 2017, a request for technical assistance was processed to conduct noise-level measurements at the residence of Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo (Evidence N° 1. Page 311). Accordingly, visual inspection (inspección ocular) N° 125-2018, conducted at the premises of the reported company, confirmed that the recent containment work had been completed. Por tanto, health order N° 63-2017 was deemed complied with, and it was recommended that new noise-level measurements be scheduled (Evidence N° 1. Pages 361-362). Thereafter, by official letter CS-URS-364-2018, officials Luis Fernando Retana Segura and Jonathan González Chaves reported that on 26 de abril del 2018 they went to the residence of Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo, who told them that, before conducting the noise-level measurements, they were required to inform him of the actions taken by the Ministerio in addressing his complaint.
(Evidence N° 1. Pages 384-385). In response to the situation described, by official letter CS-ARS-MO-923-2018, the Director of the Área de Salud de Montes de Oca informed the interested party of the steps taken to address his complaint and advised him that noise-level measurements had been scheduled at his residence for el día 21 de junio de 2018, between 4:00 p.m. and 11:00 pm (Evidence N° 1. Pages 391-392). Finally, on the agreed date, the health authorities conducted noise-level measurements at Mr. Bonilla Murillo’s residence; the data from that assessment showed that the operations conducted by the reported company exceeded the established limits (Evidence N° 1. Pages 440-448). For that reason, health order N° 67-2018 was issued, warning Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres as follows: On 09 de agosto del 2018, a new sanitary inspection was conducted at the co-defendant company’s property, confirming compliance with health order N° 67-2018 (Evidence N° 1.
Pages 495-496). As a follow-up to the complaint, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca once again requested technical assistance from the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Región Central Sur to conduct noise-level measurements at Mr. Murillo Bonilla’s residence (Evidence N° 1. Page 498). By official letter CS-URS-0774-2018, dated 16 de agosto de 2018, the official designated to conduct the noise-level measurements reported that, before a new assessment could be conducted, Mr. Bonilla Murillo had requested for a second time that he be provided with a detailed report on the changes or work implemented by Empresa de Buses Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres (Evidence N° 1. Pages 556- 557). In compliance with that request, the health authorities responded by official letter CS-ARS-O-1209-2018 (Evidence N° 1. Pages 558-559). Thereafter, in official letter CS-URS-1023-2018 dated 22 de octubre el 2018, official Pablo Andrés Jiménez Zumbado informed the Unidad de Rectoría de Salud that he had contacted Mr.
Bonilla Murillo, who told him that he wished to postpone the noise-level measurements until the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres against health order N° 67-2018 had been decided (Evidence N° 1. Pages 562-563). Subsequently, by decision (resolución) DM-LC-1205-2019 de las 09:48 horas del 21 de enero de 2019, issued by the Ministro de Salud, the appeal brought against health order N°67-2018 was denied, and the health authorities were ordered to report on compliance with the administrative acts (actos administrativos) issued in the matter at hand (Evidence N° 1. Pages 575-582). Finally, in accordance with report CS-ARS-MO-LACC-62-2019, signed by Bach. Luis ángel Castillo Conejo, visual inspection N° 78-2018 confirmed compliance with health order N° 67-2018 (Evidence N° 1. Pages 495-496 and 584-585). Thus, an analysis of the foregoing background reveals no omission by my client of the kind alleged by the plaintiff.
To the contrary, it has been proven that the health authorities acted consistently with the exercise of their public-health powers in addressing and handling the complaint filed by Mr. Bonilla Murillo. The evidence shows that multiple physical and sanitary inspections were conducted at the reported site to verify the facts underlying the complaint, confirm the completion of the work performed pursuant to the Acoustic Containment Plan (Plan de Confinamiento Acústico), and monitor compliance with the health orders. In addition, noise-level measurements were conducted at the plaintiff’s residence, the results of which led to the issuance of three health orders against Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres. The claim that an omission attributable to the Ministerio occurred is incorrect and unfounded. Indeed, there was no failure to exercise public authority or powers. To the contrary, it is clear that my client fulfilled the obligations imposed by artículos 1, 2, 325, 337, 338, 338 bis, 339, 340, 341, 346, 349 de la Ley General de Salud (N° 5395 del 30 de octubre de 1973), artículos 2 inciso c), 57 de la Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud (N° 5412 del 08 de noviembre de 1973), in order to address and resolve the complaint filed by the plaintiff. Furthermore, it should be noted that the issue raised herein has already been reviewed by the Sala Constitucional.
On the one hand, in judgment N° 9963-2007 of 15:49 hours on 18 de julio de 2007 (expediente 06-13963-0007-CO), the action was partially granted, ordering the closure of the bus terminal operated by Rutas Cincuenta Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima until it was reliably established that it strictly complied with the requirements established by the legal system. However, through decisions N° 9141-2009 of 10:38 hours on 09 de junio del 2009, N° 2017-1869 of 09:05 hours on 08 de febrero del 2017, and N° 2017-3635 of 09:05 hours on 10 de marzo del 2017, the Sala found that compliance with the judgment had been demonstrated (Evidence [Prueba] N°2). On the other hand, through judgment N° 2017-20706 of 09:15 hours on 22 de diciembre del 2017 (expediente 17-16959-0007-CO), the Sala adjudicated an amparo action (recurso de amparo) filed by Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo and ruled—with the force of res judicata (cosa juzgada)—that the authorities of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca had not failed to address the complaints filed against the Bus Terminal concerning noise pollution (contaminación sónica) (Evidence N° 3).
Indeed, the Sala Constitucional found that there had been no violation of the fundamental rights arising from Articles 24 and 50 of the Constitución Política and that the Ministerio de Salud had not committed the alleged omissions in processing the complaint lodged by the plaintiff. Lack of a legal right and lack of a current interest: Área Rectora de Salud found that health order (orden sanitaria) N° 67-2018 had been complied with. The plaintiff requests that health order N° 67-2018, issued by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, be declared null and void. In support of his request, he merely states that the closure of the Bus Depot should have been ordered, as indicated in health order N° 063-2017. Instead, however—he complains—the challenged health order was issued. To begin with, it bears reiterating that health measure (medida sanitaria) N° 63-2017 did not order the closure of the premises of Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, but rather the performance of the corresponding work in accordance with the Acoustic Confinement Plan (Plan de Confinamiento Acústico) submitted by that company.
In any event, the claim for annulment (pretensión de nulidad) lacks a valid basis because the challenged health order is an administrative act (acto administrativo) that has already produced its corresponding legal effects. Indeed, the administrative record (expediente administrativo) shows that the health authorities issued health order N° 063-2017, requiring Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres to do the following: Disagreeing with the order, the company filed a motion for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio). Both challenges were denied. Subsequently, to comply with the requirements of the health order in question, the co-defendant submitted a document describing the improvements made to the structure adjoining Mr. Bonilla Murillo’s residence. To establish with due certainty that the structural work performed by the company provided adequate noise containment, a sound-level measurement (medición sónica) was conducted at the plaintiff’s residence, the result of which exceeded the sound-pressure levels established by the regulations in force.
Accordingly, exercising the powers granted to them by Articles 1 ,2, 4, 340 and 341 of the Ley General de Salud, the health authorities issued health order N° 67-2018, directing Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima as follows: Disagreeing with the determination in the health order, the co-defendant company filed a motion for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal. The challenges brought against that act were denied: the motion for reconsideration through decision N°DRCS-1910-2018 issued by the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Central Sur, and the appeal through decision DM-LC-1205-2019, issued by the Minister of Health. To follow up on and verify compliance with health order N° 67-2018, two visual inspections (inspecciones oculares) were conducted: one on 09 de agosto del 2018 and the other on 01 de marzo del 2019. Both inspections confirmed compliance with the health order in question (Evidence N° 1.
Folios 584-585 y 495-496). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that health order N° 67-2018 was deemed satisfied on the basis of the inspections conducted by the health authorities, during which it was determined that Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima had complied with the requirements of the challenged health order. Although the health authorities have the power to impose the penalty of closure on businesses that violate health regulations and endanger public health (Article 325 of the Ley General de Salud), compliance with health order N° 67-2018 was established in this particular case. That circumstance provides no basis for requesting the closure of the premises of Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres. At least not on the basis of that particular order. It makes no sense to request closure of the terminal on the basis of a health order (N° 063-2017) when that measure was not even contemplated among its provisions.
Still less when such a request would rest on an inaccurate premise: that the factual circumstances existing at that time (octubre del año 2017) remain the same today. That said, there are no grounds for nullity (motivos de nulidad) capable of invalidating what was ordered at the time in health order N° 67-2018. In any event, that measure was imposed to protect the interests of the complainant himself. Never to his detriment. Accordingly, there is neither a basis nor a current interest concerning the claim for annulment. This is an administrative act that was substantively consistent with the legal system, as provided in Articles 128 and 158 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The State’s lack of standing as a defendant (falta de legitimación pasiva): verifying that the activities conducted by the co-defendant conform to the applicable land use (uso del suelo) is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca.
The plaintiff requests revocation of sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) N° CS-ARS-MO-968-16 because the activity is conducted in a residential area and lacks municipal permits and licenses. In that regard, it must be said that this claim cannot be asserted against the State. As is well known, Article 169 of the Constitución Política and Articles 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana (N° 4240 del 15 de noviembre de 1968) recognize that land-use planning within the jurisdictional boundaries of the canton is the exclusive responsibility of municipalities. Indeed, the Ministerio de Salud is not responsible for exercising proper oversight of urban development and construction within the canton. For that reason, it is not responsible for verifying whether the activity conducted by the co-defendant company falls within the previously defined land uses, because that mandatory duty rests with the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca.
Not with the party I represent. In this case, the plaintiff does not allege the existence of defects resulting in absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) in the subjective elements of sanitary operating permit N° CS- ARS-MO-968-16 relating to jurisdiction, official capacity, standing, and intent (Articles 59,65,129,130 subsection
The judgment stated: “[...] that ‘the facts offered as grounds for the complaint are incapable, by themselves, even if all of them were proven, of leading to the granting of the action, (...) in order for the action to be granted, it was essential to demonstrate not only disagreement with the decision of the tax administration (administración tributaria), but also the specific basis for each of the injuries allegedly suffered, which was not pleaded properly, since, in order to grant the action, it was essential to identify as a proven fact each and every one of the alleged errors or illegalities asserted from a tax perspective as causing the plaintiff’s alleged harm. (...) Even if all the facts offered were true, under no circumstances could they lead to the granting of the claims asserted. The judge may not cure deficiencies by interpreting facts that were not offered by the party, nor by analyzing arguments unrelated to material facts; therefore, because of the formal defects in the complaint, it is clearly untenable, and consequently the defense of lack of legal entitlement (excepción de falta de derecho) raised by the State must be upheld.
(...) It should be noted that the purpose of this special tax proceeding is not to conduct an ex officio review of the decision issued by the Administración Tributaria; it is an annulment proceeding (juicio de anulación), (...), in which the plaintiff has the duty to establish fully each of the grounds invoked in alleging the nullity of the tax acts that it claims adversely affect it. None of this is evident in this proceeding, in which none of the facts deemed proven is relevant to supporting the claims outlined; thus, it is impossible for the Court to examine the merits of the legal issues in dispute when there is no factual basis upon which to conduct such an examination. It is therefore evident that the deficient form of the complaint renders the claims untenable, because the facts and claims do not correspond.’” (Emphasis in the original. Cassation judgment 000682FS1-2011 EXP: 07000296 0161CA).
Claims 1 and 2 refer to health order 672018, but even if that fact is proven, it cannot lead to the granting of claim number one because no challenge is asserted against that health order. Therefore, no judgment may be issued concerning this fact. The complaint must be declared inadmissible with respect to fact 12 and its lack of consistency with the first claim. A. Preliminary considerations. This is yet another attempt by Mr. Fabián Bonilla in his campaign against my client, a campaign that has continued for more than three years through repeated unfounded complaints. Frustrated in his attempts, he initiated a full adjudicatory proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) in order to affect the very essence of the company—its operations. This same case has already been heard in administrative, constitutional, and now judicial proceedings. In all of them, it has been demonstrated that the company complies with the noise standards applicable to a bus depot such as this one.
However, his claim began with an interim measure (medida cautelar), processed under expediente número 180064491027CA, which was denied by this Court in judgment No. S982018 of 13:30 minutes on 17 de octubre de 2018, which stated: “This judge is entirely clear regarding the exclusive powers entrusted to the Ministerio de Salud; seeking to have this authority shut down the operations of the defendant company’s depot through an interim measure, as well as suspend its health operating permit (permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento), would amount to entirely supplanting not only the will of that Ministry but also its powers, and would, from every perspective, mean ruling contrary to the authorities conferred upon the Public Administration (Administración Pública) by the legal system in the exercise of its powers.” That reasoning, correctly reached by this same Court in a proceeding involving exactly the same facts—even the initiating pleadings are based on the same facts and assert the same claims—remains applicable to the present case.
Mr. Bonilla’s intention to use the Administration of Justice as a means of forcing the Administración Pública to yield, without following due process of law (debido proceso legal) and despite the existence of duly reasoned and effective administrative acts (actos administrativos) proving the contrary of his assertions, is clear. B. The bus depot is duly authorized by law. In every brief he has filed in the various forums in which Mr. Bonilla has attempted to disrupt the operation of the bus depot, he has repeatedly asserted that the company lacks the corresponding authorizations, despite the extensive evidence we have submitted during the three years of dispute. In the complaint, he once again states the following: “It is evident that this Company should not hold a Health Operating Permit to operate a Bus Depot in a residential area; furthermore, according to the attached documentary evidence, it does not hold the required municipal permits or licenses, and its actions are therefore inconsistent with our legislation.” (Folio 4 of the brief).
That assertion is completely false, frivolous, and absurd. As has consistently been maintained, the bus depot is located 150 meters southeast of Bar La Bamba in Sabanilla de Montes de Oca and is owned by the corporation Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. It has held valid land-use permits (permisos de usos de suelo) since 1995. Since the 1990s, that property has been granted land-use permits, business licenses (patentes comerciales), construction permits (permisos de construcción), and even health permits issued by the Ministerio de Salud itself, thereby giving it commercial-use status. We refer specifically to land-use certificate No. 12299 of 09 de abril de 1999; business license No. 307 of julio de 1999, which at that time was issued for “transportation (bus storage)”; land-use certificate 277-P2006, authorizing the installation of gasoline tanks on the property for its commercial activity; and currently valid business license No. 4550.
It is also contradictory for the plaintiff to seek the annulment of a permit while asserting that the company has no permits and is operating contrary to the law, particularly when the company is a public transportation concessionaire operating two national routes and, in order to obtain that status, has had to demonstrate its qualifications and permits countless times. The Ministerio de Salud is one of the many institutions that has validated the company’s lawful status by issuing health operating permits with commercial classifications. These include health permit certificate No. RCSARMSO37608 of 08 de julio de 2008, which classified the activity under code 6303 of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de todas las actividades económicas, CIIU) as covering “other supporting transport activities,” pursuant to Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33240S of 30 de junio de 2006, renewed through No. RCSARSMO790011 of 14 de noviembre de 2011 and No. CSARSMO968 16 of 30 de noviembre de 2016, which is currently valid.
There are no factual allegations or legal grounds describing the technical or legal defects allegedly affecting the health operating permit granted to our client. From a legal standpoint, the complaint is incomplete and incoherent. See Article 62 of the CPCA and judgments 445F-S12014 and 1523FS12012 of the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. c. Damages are alleged but not proven. The plaintiff based all of his reasoning and arguments on the alleged harm suffered by his family as a result of the company’s ordinary commercial operations. However, all of the foregoing consists of false statements appealing to the Court’s sympathy, not to the law, because the plaintiff submitted no evidence whatsoever to support his assertions. These are unsupported statements, such as the following: “The omissions of the Área Rectora de Salud have caused deterioration in my family’s physical and mental health (...).” No evidence of any kind has been submitted regarding these assertions.
Mr. Bonilla has always relied on the possibility that the Court will rule in his favor solely on the basis of his assertions and the possibility, however remote, that those assertions might be true. But this is not what the law provides for a dispute of such seriousness and with such potentially grave consequences for the company and the country’s public transportation system. The legal system establishes that anyone alleging particular circumstances is required to prove them if that person expects the Administration of Justice to rule in their favor. The Código Procesal Civil, which applies supplementarily to this matter, states in Article 41.1: “Article 41.- General provisions concerning evidence. 41.1 Burden of proof (carga de la prueba). The burden of proof rests upon: 1. The party asserting a claim, with respect to the facts constituting that party’s right. 2. The party opposing a claim, with respect to facts that bar, modify, or extinguish the plaintiff’s right.
In applying the preceding subsections of this article, consideration shall be given to the availability of and access to evidence corresponding to each party, according to the nature of the dispute. The preceding rules shall apply unless an express legal provision allocates the burden of proof according to special criteria.” The plaintiff is therefore required to submit evidence of the alleged harm suffered. It is abundantly clear that the absence of such evidence demonstrates the recklessness with which he has appeared in these judicial proceedings, in which the legality of the actions of the Administración Pública is reviewed and the governed party is protected; vested and lawful individual rights (derechos subjetivos consolidados y legales) are not impaired merely because the parties wish it. This Court already so held in judgment No. 5982018 of 13:30 minutes on 17 de octubre de 2018, which denied the interim measure sought in this exact same case, stating: “In this regard, it must be said that merely alleging the existence of serious, actual, or potential damage or harm is insufficient; it must be proven, and this is a procedural burden (carga procesal) that the interested party must bear in order to prove its assertions, Article 41 of the Código Procesal Civil.”-
It adds that the health permit being challenged is N° 9968, issued by the Ministerio de Salud on 30 de noviembre de 2016, and therefore, pursuant to the time limit established by Article 39 CPCA, the action is time-barred. It therefore requests that the claim be declared time-barred and inadmissible. Opinion of the Court: After reviewing the relief sought in the claim and the arguments supporting the defense raised, this Chamber determines that the present claim is not time-barred on the grounds stated. Essentially, the purpose of this proceeding is to obtain a declaration of nullity (declaratoria de nulidad) of health order number 067-2018 issued by the Área Rectora de Montes de Oca and, as a consequence of that annulment—ostensibly due to the alleged failure to comply with it—to revoke the health operating permit granted to Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres S.A. and order the closure of its operations.
In other words, the principal purpose of the proceeding is not the independent annulment of the health operating permit; rather, it is connected to the issuance of health orders numbers 063-2017 and 067-2018 and compliance with them. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, as the co-defendant company does, that because the health permit dates from 2016 and its revocation is sought, the applicable period has elapsed under Article 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since that request is part of the potential consequence of noncompliance with health order number 063-2017 and the request to annul health order 067-2018, and not because the 2016 act granting the health permit is being challenged. In that regard, because the revocation or continued validity of the health operating permit is tied to compliance with the health order at issue, it is clear to this Chamber that whether the proceeding is time-barred depends on when the effects of the health order are deemed to have ended and when the present proceeding was filed.
Thus, the present matter was filed on 29 de mayo de 2019, and it was through official communication CS-ARS-MO-383-2019 of 18 de marzo de 2019 that the Acting Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca deemed the requirements of health order 067-2018 satisfied and, consequently, deemed concluded the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein concerning noise pollution (contaminación sónica) at the depot of the co-defendant bus company. Accordingly, the one-year period prescribed by provision 39 CPCA for filing proceedings in matters such as this one had not elapsed, contrary to the co-defendant’s contention, and therefore the asserted expiration has not occurred.- Likewise, counsel for the co-defendant, the bus company, raised the defense that the claim was legally untenable (demanda improponible), which was resolved by interlocutory ruling (interlocutoriamente) at the preliminary hearing and rejected, and it may not be raised again at this stage of the proceedings.- b) Regarding Res Judicata: For its part, counsel for the State raised the defense of res judicata, stating that, in addition to recounting the actions it says the Ministerio de Salud took concerning the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein, which culminated in compliance with the health orders issued, it notes that, in decision N° 9963-2007 issued at 15:49 hours on 18 de julio de 2007, the Sala Constitucional partially granted an amparo proceeding (recurso de amparo) and ordered the closure of the bus terminal operated by Rutas Cincuenta Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima until it was reliably established that the terminal strictly complied with the requirements established by the legal system.
It further states that such compliance was established through decisions N° 9141-2009 issued at 10:38 hours on 09 de junio del 2009, N° 2017-1869 issued at 09:05 hours on 08 de febrero del 2017, and N° 2017-3635 issued at 09:05 hours on 10 de marzo del 2017, all issued by the Sala Constitucional, which found that the requirements of that decision had been satisfied. In addition, it states that, through judgment N° 2017-20706 issued at 09:15 hours on 22 de diciembre del 2017, in another amparo proceeding filed by Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo, the Sala Constitucional ruled—with res judicata effect—that the authorities of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca had not failed to address the complaints filed against the Terminal de Buses for noise pollution; that there had been no violation of the fundamental rights arising from Articles 24 and 50 of the Constitución Política; and that the Ministerio de Salud had not committed the omissions alleged in connection with its processing of the complaint lodged by the plaintiff.
Opinion of the Court: Having reviewed this argument, this Chamber determines that the doctrine (instituto) of res judicata does not apply in the present matter with respect to the Sala Constitucional’s ruling concerning the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein. According to the established facts (hechos probados), on 30 de octubre de 2017, Mr. Bonilla Murillo, through his legal representative, filed an amparo proceeding against the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, alleging that, despite a recommendation to close the Terminal de Buses de Ruta 51-53 due to noise pollution, that authority had not issued any administrative act (acto administrativo). This proceeding was denied through decision number 2017020706 issued at 09:15 minutes on 22 de diciembre de 2017, on the ground that no violation of the constitutional right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment had been established.
Thus, although the Chamber found the actions taken by the administrative authorities in the administrative matter that must be reviewed here to have been proper, it did so from the standpoint of a violation of constitutional rights, rather than with respect to the possible nullity of an administrative act, which is the subject of this proceeding. It is therefore not possible to argue, through the doctrine of res judicata, that the actions of the Ministerio de Salud offices that were involved at the time in following up on the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein can no longer be reviewed because the Chamber “endorsed” those administrative actions, since the constitutional jurisdiction (sede constitucional) reviewed only whether the Ministerio de Salud had taken action to ascertain whether the problems at the bus depot violated the right to health and to a healthy environment; it did not conduct any review of the legality of the acts issued, given the highly summary nature of the proceeding.
Indeed, the High Court warned that any new instances of noncompliance or disagreements with what had been stated before that jurisdiction had to be litigated before the jurisdiction responsible for reviewing legality (sede de legalidad) (established fact 10). The amparo proceeding filed in 2017 therefore cannot be deemed to preclude adjudication of this proceeding before this jurisdiction. Accordingly, this defense of res judicata must be rejected on the grounds asserted.-
Essentially, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the declaration of nullity (declaratoria de nulidad) of sanitary order (orden sanitaria) number 067-2018 issued by the Área Rectora de Montes de Oca is warranted and, as a consequence of that annulment, whether the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) granted to Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. should be revoked and the operations conducted at the co-defendant’s facility should likewise be ordered closed. In light of the facts deemed proven, this Chamber determines that the present action must be dismissed, as analyzed below. It is necessary to provide a brief account of the actions taken by the offices of the Ministerio de Salud following the complaint filed on 11 de febrero de 2016 with the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca by Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo, numbered 041-2016, against the bus facility operated by Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres de S.A., which adjoins the plaintiff’s residence.
That complaint challenged the actions of the Ministerio de Salud concerning the granting of operating permits for the facility and construction permits, as well as compliance with regulations on various matters. It added that the facility was being expanded and remodeled, but the various disturbances to neighboring residents continued, particularly noise pollution (contaminación sónica). As a result of that complaint, the Área Rectora de Salud Montes de Oca took several actions, including a visual inspection (inspección ocular), which revealed no sanitary irregularities at the facility, and a noise measurement (medición sónica) conducted on 02 de setiembre de 2016. The measurement showed that the ambient noise exceeded the limits established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, as measured in the bedroom of the residence during nighttime hours, and it was recommended that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca issue the corresponding administrative act (acto administrativo) against the establishment.
Accordingly, sanitary order 061-2016 of 04 de octubre de 2016 was issued, granting the defendant company 22 business days to submit an Acoustic Confinement Plan (Plan de Confinamiento Acústico), including supporting calculations and a schedule of activities, and warning it that failure to submit the Plan would result in the closure of the establishment and suspension of the sanitary operating permit granted to it. The order was served on 06 octubre de 2016. - On 03 de noviembre de 2016, Ruta 51-53 S.A. submitted the Acoustic Confinement Plan to the Área Rectora de Montes de Oca. In the interim, on 30 de noviembre de 2016, the defendant company’s PSF was renewed, with validity through 20 de noviembre de 2021. - On 01 de diciembre de 2016, the representative of Ruta 51-53 S.A. was informed that its Acoustic Confinement Plan had been accepted, without being given a commencement date, although the Plan specified 3 months for its implementation. - On 20 de marzo de 2017, an inspection report (acta de inspección) was prepared at the facility of the company named in the complaint, and it was granted an additional period of three weeks to replace a soundproof fiber panel because the installed panel was not the required one. - On 31 de agosto de 2017, a new noise measurement conducted at the defendant company’s facility determined that the ambient noise, together with the noise generated by the source, exceeded the limits established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39428-S, as measured at the residence during nighttime hours.
It was recommended that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca issue an administrative act against the establishment in accordance with national law, in view of the noise pollution established through the noise measurement conducted. - On 06 de octubre de 2017, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca issued sanitary order number 063-2017, granting Ruta 51-53 S.A. a period of one month to perform the corresponding work in accordance with the Acoustic Confinement Plan submitted, which had proven ineffective. It was required to notify the Área Rectora so that a new noise measurement could be scheduled. The order was served on the company on 17 de octubre de 2017. - On 19 de diciembre de 2017, the company’s legal representative informed the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca that improvements had been made to the structure along the facility’s northern boundary and requested a new inspection. - On 17 de abril de 2018, a new visit to the company’s facility was coordinated and compliance with sanitary order 063-2017 was verified; consequently, a new noise measurement was requested.
That measurement was delayed because the plaintiff refused to allow it to be conducted unless the corrective measures that had been implemented were first explained to him. - On 21 de junio de 2018, a new measurement was conducted, showing that the ambient noise generated by the source exceeded the limits established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, although it had decreased compared with the other two measurements. It was again recommended that an administrative act be issued in view of the proven noise pollution. - On 26 de junio de 2018, sanitary order number 067-2018 was issued, granting the company one month to perform the corresponding work in accordance with the Acoustic Confinement Plan submitted, because the latest measurement demonstrated that the work completed was insufficient. It was instructed that, once the work was completed, it was required to coordinate a new measurement with that office.
It was also warned that, if the noise-confinement work proved ineffective and a new noise measurement confirmed that the limits under the regulations in force were exceeded, the activity conducted at the bus-terminal facility would be closed and the sanitary operating permit would be suspended. That sanitary order was served on the company’s representative on 25 de junio de 2018. - By a letter dated 12 de julio de 2018, Mr. Fabián Bonilla Murillo requested that, because of the failure to comply with sanitary order 063-2017, the Ruta 51-53 S.A. bus facility be closed immediately. - By official letter CS-ARS-MO-1102-208 of 20 de julio de 2018, the Director of the Área Rectora de Salud Montes de Oca responded to the letter submitted by Mr. Bonilla Murillo and explained the actions taken following the noise measurement and the issuance of sanitary order 067-2018. - On 09 de agosto de 2018, through official letter CS-ARS-MP-LACC-202-2018, dated 09 de agosto de 2018, Luis Ángel Castillo Conejo, an official of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, informed the Acting Director of that office that an inspection of the company’s property had been conducted that day and that compliance with sanitary order number 067-2018 had been verified. - On the same day as the inspection of the co-defendant’s facility, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca requested assistance from the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur in conducting a noise measurement at the plaintiff’s residence. - On 09 de agosto de 2018, the Director Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur asked the Head of the Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud to coordinate the noise measurement at Mr.
Bonilla Murillo’s residence with the Área de Salud de Montes de Oca. - Nevertheless, through official letter CS-URS-J-1223-2018 of 17 de agosto de 2018, an official of the Unidad Rectora de la Salud forwarded to the Director of the Área de Salud de Montes de Oca report number CS-URS-0774-2018, signed by Eng. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, stating that the plaintiff had informed him by email that he could not accommodate the request for a noise measurement during the week of 13 al 17 de agosto because he was away on a work-related trip. Additionally, he stated that he was willing to reschedule it for other dates but wanted the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca to provide him with a detailed report on the changes or work performed or implemented by the defendant company, because, as the complainant, he was unaware of the Noise Confinement Plan (Plan de Confinamiento de Ruido) submitted after the first measurement.
In view of that situation, it was recommended that the office provide Mr. Bonilla Murillo with the requested information and schedule the noise measurement. - On 20 de agosto de 2018, in accordance with the recommendation issued by the Unidad Rectora, the plaintiff was informed through official letter CS-ARS-MO-1209-2018 of all matters relating to the complaint he had filed concerning noise from the Ruta 51-53 S.A. facility. - In report CS-URS-1023-2018 of 22 de octubre de 2018, MSc. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, an official with the Regulatory Process of the Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud, informed the Head of that Unit that, as had already been explained in August, the complainant had stated by email that the measurement could be rescheduled, but that on 16 de octubre de 2018 he had again contacted the complainant to measure the noise at his home, and the complainant stated that he wished to wait until an appeal filed with the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca had been decided before any further noise measurement was conducted; consequently, the case file was returned to the health office. - On 01 de marzo de 2019, in visual inspection report number 078-19 prepared at 12:50 hours, an official of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca recorded compliance with sanitary order number 067-2018 at the Ruta 51-53 Bus Terminal. - In a filing dated 12 de marzo de 2019, the representative of Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. stated to the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca that, pursuant to sanitary order 067-2018 and official letter DM-LC-1205-2019, visual inspection report No. 078-2019 dated 01 de marzo de 2019 established that the necessary modifications had been completed in accordance with the approved Plan and, therefore, that the sanitary order had been complied with.
He added that, because the complainant had not allowed access to his home to conduct new noise measurements following the improvements to the boundary wall completed by the company he represented, he requested that new noise measurements be conducted, that sanitary order No. 67-2018 be deemed complied with, that the case be closed, and that the file be archived. - On 18 de marzo de 2019, through official letter CS-ARS-MO-383-2019, the Acting Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca deemed Sanitary Order No. 067-2018 complied with and terminated the proceeding arising from the complaint filed by the plaintiff herein. With the proven facts clearly established, we proceed to analyze the plaintiff’s claims and the co-defendants’ arguments. - The plaintiff relies on the constitutional right established in Article 50 of the Constitution (Carta Magna), and on his right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
He thus alleges that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca has taken no action to protect him and his family from the actions of a private company and has failed to act, which, according to his assertions, had caused serious harm to his health and that of his daughters by the time the action was filed because of the noise pollution produced by that company. He contends that the omissions of the Área Rectora de Salud have impaired his family’s physical and mental health and that the contents of a Sanitary Order—an administrative act which, in his view, is independent, final, and binding—have clearly been disregarded, thereby demonstrating an irregularity that he asks to be subjected to the judicial review of legality (control de legalidad) exercised by this administrative litigation jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso administrativa).
He claims that the company involved should not hold a Health Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento, PSF) to operate a bus yard in a residential area and that it lacks the required municipal permits and licenses, such that its actions are not in accordance with the law. The sound-level measurement tests conducted by the Área Rectora de Salud constitute an appropriate technical method for establishing the existence of noise exceeding the regulatory limit and capable of affecting health, because noise pollution (contaminación sónica) exists. He states that it is questionable that the purported permits of a bus company operating within a residential area should remain in effect, and that this demonstrates that it is impossible for that company to regularize its legal status because it will always be in violation and, worse still, will continue causing noise pollution; therefore, its operating activity should be permanently shut down and its health permit should also be revoked.
He states that, during the most recent sound-level measurement conducted by the Área Rectora de Salud, on 21 de junio del 2018 at 21:31 horas (9:31 pm), the permitted noise limit was being exceeded, making it reasonable to conclude that during the day, under normal operations, that bus company causes a great deal of noise pollution; consequently, this activity must be shut down, given that a constitutional right belonging to him and his family is being infringed. He argues that, in this case, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca is disregarding the content of Health Order (Orden Sanitaria) number 063-2017, served on Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. on 17 de octubre del 17, specifically item 2), which established that if the noise-containment work was ineffective and a new sound-level measurement confirmed that the applicable regulations were being exceeded, the activity conducted at the bus terminal yard would be shut down and the Health Operating Permit would be suspended.
He asserts that, when that new sound-level measurement relating to the cited order was conducted on 21 de junio del 2018 in compliance with Health Order number 063-2017, which, according to technical report number CS-URS0578-2018, was performed in the bedroom of his home, the result showed that the defendant company’s bus yard once again exceeded the standards established in the Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido. He states that, notwithstanding the foregoing, and despite the result set forth in Technical Report number CS-URS-0578-2018, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca did not order the immediate enforcement of Health Order number 063-2017—an order that, he insists, constitutes a final and binding administrative act (acto administrativo final y firme)—thereby avoiding the immediate shutdown of that company’s bus yard even though it had been proven that noise pollution continued to be generated, a situation that, he states, persists even after purported noise-containment work was performed and inspected.- For its part, the co-defendant company stated that this action is part of the campaign of harassment pursued against it by the plaintiff.
It stated that, because his attempts have been frustrated, he is now seeking to impair the very essence of the company’s operations. It stated that it has been demonstrated in administrative, constitutional, and now judicial proceedings that the company complies with the noise standards applicable to a bus yard. It stated that the requested interim relief (medida cautelar) was denied. It stated that Mr. Bonilla intends to bend the Administration to his will through the courts, without following due process of law (debido proceso legal) and despite the existence of duly reasoned and currently effective administrative acts establishing the contrary of what he claims. In this regard, it states that: - The bus yard is duly authorized by law. It states that, in every forum, Mr. Bonilla has attempted to interfere with the operation of the bus yard by repeatedly asserting that the company lacks the corresponding authorizations, even though the company has submitted the relevant evidence.
It adds that the claim that it lacks municipal permits and licenses is entirely false and without merit; that the bus yard is located 150 metros southeast of Bar La Bamba in Sabanilla de Montes de Oca; that the yard is owned by Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. and has held valid land-use permits (permisos de usos de suelo) since 1995; and that, since the 90s, that property has been granted land-use permits, business licenses (patentes comerciales), construction permits, and even health permits issued by the Ministerio de Salud itself, thereby conferring commercial-use status upon it. It argues that it is contradictory for the plaintiff to seek the annulment (anulación) of a permit while asserting that the company has no permits and is operating contrary to the law, particularly when the company is a public-transport concessionaire (concesionaria de transporte público) operating two national routes and, as a condition of that status, has had to prove its qualifications and permits on countless occasions.
It adds that the Ministerio de Salud is one of the many institutions that have validated the company’s lawful status by issuing health operating permits under commercial classifications. It further states that, in connection with this matter, no facts or legal arguments have been presented identifying the technical or legal defects purportedly affecting the health operating permit granted to the company it represents. It states that the action is incomplete and legally incoherent. - With respect to damages, it states that they have not been proven. It states that the plaintiff based all of his reasoning and arguments on the alleged harm that his family has suffered from the company’s ordinary commercial operations; however, all of the foregoing consists merely of assertions intended to elicit sympathy, because the plaintiff submitted no evidence supporting his claims. It states that Mr. Bonilla’s position is that the Court should rule in his favor solely on the basis of his assertions and the remote possibility that they may be true, but this is not what the law provides for a dispute of such seriousness and with potentially grave consequences for the company and the country’s public transportation system.
It recalls that the legal system provides that anyone alleging particular circumstances is required to prove them if that person expects the administration of justice to rule in their favor, pursuant to Article 41.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, which applies supplementarily to this matter. It states that the plaintiff bears the burden of submitting evidence of the alleged harm suffered and that the absence of such evidence demonstrates the reckless manner in which he has initiated these judicial proceedings, in which the legality of the actions of the Public Administration is reviewed and private parties subject to administrative authority (administrado) are protected; vested and lawful individual rights (derechos subjetivos consolidados y legales) are not impaired merely at the parties’ whim.- For its part, the state’s representative, as a co-defendant, asserted that the Área Rectora de Salud did exercise its statutory powers in addressing the complaint filed by the plaintiff.
It states that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca of the Ministerio de Salud did not engage in the omission (conducta omisiva) alleged by the claimant in connection with its handling of the complaint filed against the Ruta 51-53 bus terminal operated by the co-defendant company. It states that the administrative record (expediente administrativo) constitutes conclusive evidence of this. It states that it is not sufficient to claim that the State engaged in omissions that affected the physical health of the plaintiff and his family; rather, it is necessary to identify specifically which rules or duties imposed by the legal system were disregarded by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca and to prove that they were disregarded. It states that, as shown by the documentary evidence, the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca did take the necessary actions, within the scope of its jurisdiction, to address the complaints filed against the co-defendant company, and notes that three health orders were issued: N° 061-2016, 063-2017, and 067-2018; it discusses those orders and the actions of the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca.
Based on this, it recounts the actions taken. It states that the background described above does not show that the party it represents engaged in the omissions alleged by the plaintiff; on the contrary, it has been established that the health authorities acted consistently with the exercise of their public-health powers in addressing and handling the complaint filed by Mr. Bonilla Murillo. It states that multiple physical and sanitary inspections (inspecciones físico-sanitarias) were conducted at the reported site to verify the facts underlying the complaint, confirm the completion of the work performed in accordance with the Acoustic Containment Plan (Plan de Confinamiento Acústico), and monitor compliance with the health orders. In addition, sound-level measurements were taken at the plaintiff’s residence, the results of which led to the imposition of three health orders against Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres.
It adds that the allegation that the Ministry engaged in an omission is incorrect and unfounded. It states that there was no failure to exercise public jurisdiction or powers and that, on the contrary, the party it represents complied with the obligations imposed by Articles 1, 2, 325, 337, 338, 338 bis, 339, 340, 341, 346, 349 of the Ley General de Salud and Articles 2 subsection c), 57 of the Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud in order to address and resolve the complaint filed by the plaintiff. It adds that the Área Rectora de Salud deemed health order N° 67-2018 satisfied and that the plaintiff seeks a declaration of nullity (nulidad) of health order N° 67-2018, issued by the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. It states that, in support of his request, the plaintiff merely asserts that the closure of the Bus Yard should have been ordered, as indicated in health order N° 063-2017, but that the challenged health order was issued instead.
First, it states that health measure (medida sanitaria) N° 63-2017 does not order the closure of the establishment operated by Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, but rather the performance of the corresponding work in accordance with the Acoustic Containment Plan submitted by that company; in any event, the claim for nullity lacks valid grounds because the challenged health order is an administrative act that has already produced the corresponding legal effects. It states that the administrative record shows that the health authorities issued health order N° 063-2017, under which the following was required of Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres: Disagreeing with what had been ordered, the company filed a motion for reconsideration with an appeal in the alternative (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio). Both challenges were denied. Subsequently, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the health order at issue, the co-defendant submitted a document describing the improvements made to the structure adjoining Mr.
Bonilla Murillo’s residence. To establish with due certainty that the structural work performed by the company provided adequate noise containment, a sound-level measurement was conducted at the plaintiff’s residence, the result of which exceeded the sound-pressure levels established by the applicable regulations. Por tanto, exercising the powers conferred upon them by Articles 1, 2, 4, 340 and 341 of the Ley General de Salud, the health authorities issued health order N° 67-2018, ordering Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima to continue the sound-containment work. Disagreeing with the determination set forth in the health order, the co-defendant company filed a motion for reconsideration with an appeal in the alternative.
The challenges filed against that act were denied: the motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), by resolution N°DRCS-1910-2018 issued by the Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Central Sur, and the appeal (apelación), by resolution DM-LC-1205-2019, issued by the Minister of Health. In order to follow up on and verify compliance with health order (orden sanitaria) N° 67-2018, two on-site inspections (inspecciones oculares) were conducted: one on 09 de agosto del 2018 and another on 01 de marzo del 2019; both visits confirmed compliance with the health order in question. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that health order N° 67-2018 was deemed satisfied on the basis of the inspections conducted by the health authorities, which acknowledged that Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima had complied with the requirements of the challenged health order. It adds that, although the health authorities have the power to impose the sanction of closure (clausura) on businesses that violate health regulations and endanger public health (artículo 325 de la Ley General de Salud), in this specific case, compliance with the provisions of health order N° 67-2018 was established.
That circumstance does not warrant the request to close the establishment of Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres. At least not on the basis of that particular order. It makes no sense to request the closure of the terminal on the basis of a health order (N° 063-2017) when that measure was not even included among its provisions. Still less so when the request would be based on the inaccurate premise that the factual circumstances existing at that time (octubre del año 2017) remain the same today. That said, there are no grounds for nullity (motivos de nulidad) capable of invalidating the provisions adopted at the time in health order N° 67-2018, a measure imposed to safeguard the interests of the complainant himself, never to his detriment. Therefore, there is neither a current basis nor a current interest with respect to the claim for annulment (pretensión anulatoria), since the administrative act (acto administrativo) was substantively consistent with the legal system, as provided in artículos 128 y 158 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública.
On a separate point, it raises the State’s lack of standing as a defendant (falta de legitimación pasiva) on the ground that determining whether the activities conducted by the co-defendant conform to the applicable land use (uso del suelo) is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca; accordingly, the request that health operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) N° CS-ARS-MO-968-16 be revoked because the activity is conducted in a residential area and lacks municipal permits and licenses cannot be asserted against the State. It states that artículos 169 de la Constitución Política, 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana recognize that land-use planning within the jurisdictional boundaries of the canton is the exclusive responsibility of municipalities. Because exercising proper oversight of urban and construction development in the canton is not within the jurisdiction of the Ministerio de Salud, it is not that Ministry’s responsibility to determine whether the activity conducted by the co-defendant company falls within the previously defined land uses, since that unavoidable duty rests with the Municipalidad de Montes de Oca.
The plaintiff does not allege the existence of defects giving rise to absolute nullity (vicios de nulidad absoluta) in the subjective elements of health operating permit N° CS- ARS-MO-968-16 concerning jurisdiction, official authority, standing, and intent (artículos 59,65,129,130 inciso
Indeed, a health order (orden sanitaria) is one of these instruments through which the operator of the activity is compelled to bring it into compliance with the permitted parameters; this is its ultimate purpose, which must coexist with its counterpart, namely the protection of the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It is precisely for this reason that health orders have the essential characteristic of being atypical (atipicidad), insofar as they must be tailored to the specific factual circumstances in order to achieve the stated purpose, and it is possible in these proceedings to verify the proper exercise of the public function. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s position cannot be validated by ascribing final and definitive status to this type of act, which, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, constitutes an instrumental measure that, rather than bringing the matter to an end, initiates the process of bringing a regulated activity into compliance.
Note how the evidence in the record discredits the classification of the health order as a final act, which the plaintiff claims ordered the company’s closure for failure to comply with the order. It bears repeating that a health order is an interlocutory act (acto de trámite), as clearly explained by the First Chamber, sitting as a Court of Cassation, which stated the following regarding preparatory acts (actos preparatorios) and final acts (actos finales): “(...) III. Regarding the distinction between preparatory acts and final acts or acts having their own effects, this Court of Cassation stated: ‘For an administrative act (acto administrativo) to have legal effects of its own, it must not be subordinate to any subsequent act. It must produce effects upon private parties, unlike interlocutory or preparatory acts, which inform or prepare for the issuance of the principal administrative act and therefore produce no external effect except through the latter.
Only those acts that indefinitely suspend or make it impossible to continue the proceeding would be deemed challengeable… Consistently with the provisions of the General Law of Public Administration [subsections 2 and 3 of Articles 163 and 345, respectively], the Constitutional Chamber has stated that this does not mean prior acts are not challengeable, but rather that they must be challenged together with the final act, which has legal effects of its own (no. 4075 at 10:36 a.m. in 1995).’ N° 104 at 11:10 a.m. on June 1, 2009.” (See excerpt in judgment number 14 at 08:30 a.m. on March 22, 2012, of the Administrative and Civil Court of Cassation for Treasury Matters). Health order 063-2017 merely establishes, as its name indicates, an order directed at the subject of a complaint—in this case, an obligation requiring the co-defendant company to take specific action—but, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, it contains no provision imposing closure as a penalty for noncompliance with the health order.
A review of health order 063-2017 shows that it does not contain item 2 cited by the plaintiff in the complaint. That order is limited to a single item, 1), directing that the work corresponding to the Acoustic Confinement Plan be performed because the work completed up to that time had not been effective, and requiring notice once the work was completed so that a new measurement could be scheduled. Contrary to what has been asserted, it contains no closure provision; consequently, as requested by the plaintiff, no closure order can be inferred from that health order, nor, therefore, any failure to act by the Montes de Oca Governing Health Area (Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca). From its review of the administrative record (expediente administrativo), this Chamber has detected what appears to be confusion with the provision that is indeed contained in health order number 067-2018 of the Montes de Oca Governing Health Area concerning the closure of the co-defendant commercial establishment; however, as will be explained in the following section, that claim is unfounded.
The request to enforce a health order by means of a nonexistent penalty is therefore unfounded.- 3) The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that health order number 067-2018 of the Montes de Oca Governing Health Area is void. Supervening lack of a current interest (falta de interés actual sobrevenido) due to fulfillment of the purpose of the administrative act sought to be annulled. On this point, it must be noted that although the plaintiff seeks annulment of health order number 067-2018, upon reviewing the complaint this Chamber finds no argument alleging grounds connected to the requested annulment; that is, the plaintiff fails to identify which element of the act is purportedly defective, with the result that it is not possible to determine whether the health order suffered from a defect. In addition, it should be noted that, after reviewing the health order, this Chamber considers that it contains no defect rendering it void that must be examined, much less declared, in this judgment.
The order imposed an obligation on the co-defendant company, and the company complied with it. Although the responsible Administration attempted to verify, through a sound-level measurement (medición sónica), whether the work performed and documented in the administrative record was sufficient to mitigate the noise reaching the home of the plaintiff-complainant, this could not be done because the plaintiff himself prevented it. Thus, the health order was issued and deemed fulfilled by the administrative authority. Consequently—as the State’s counsel argued at the appropriate time—there is no longer a current interest in annulling that preparatory act, which had already been deemed fulfilled; in other words, it accomplished its purpose. On that basis, it was subsequently determined that the proceeding initiated as a result of the complaint was terminated, which was done through official letter CS-ARS-MO-383-2019 of March 18, 2019, issued by the Office of the Montes de Oca Governing Health Area, a final act that the claimant did not challenge in the complaint.
It should be clarified that, as a complainant, a person has the objective right to challenge the outcome of their filing, which the plaintiff did neither in the administrative proceedings nor in these proceedings. During closing arguments at the preliminary hearing, however, the plaintiff’s legal representative presented arguments concerning the requested annulment of order 067-2018 and asserted that the order gave the company another opportunity to correct the confinement plan and that, under an annex to the regulations governing noise pollution (contaminación sónica), when pollution occurred and was not remedied, the activity causing it had to be discontinued; the plaintiff therefore contends that the content of the 2018 order is defective. The plaintiff adds that the company could not be given another opportunity to resume and correct what it had failed to complete, and that the failure to close the operations, together with the manner in which the complaint was concluded—through a visual inspection that did not determine whether noise pollution was occurring—rendered that closure contrary to law.
Nevertheless, because those arguments are new and were not included in the complaint but were raised only at the closing-argument stage, this Chamber will not analyze them, since the co-defendants were not apprised of them at the proper procedural stage, did not address them at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, and did not identify the evidence that, in their view, would rebut the assertions. Considering those arguments in this judgment without first hearing the opposing party would violate the co-defendants’ defense rights. Therefore, for the reasons already stated, the requested annulment is likewise denied.- 4) Annulment of the Operating Permit (Permiso de Funcionamiento) is unfounded because it is linked to compliance with the health orders issued to and fulfilled by the co-defendant company. Intermingling several arguments, the plaintiff claims that the company involved should not hold a Health Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) to operate a bus depot in a residential area.
The plaintiff adds that the company lacks municipal permits and licenses and that its actions do not comply with the law. The plaintiff further alleges that the sound-level measurement tests performed by the Governing Health Area constitute a suitable technical method for establishing the existence of noise exceeding the regulatory limit and capable of affecting health because noise pollution exists. The plaintiff connects this assertion with the argument that, as long as the purported permits of a bus company operating within a residential area remain in effect, it is impossible for that company to regularize its legal status because it will always be in violation and causing noise pollution. In the plaintiff’s view, the operating activity should therefore be permanently shut down and its health permit revoked. The plaintiff reiterates that the most recent sound-level measurement performed by the Governing Health Area, at 21:31 hours on June 21, 2018, showed that the permitted noise limit was being exceeded, making it reasonable to conclude that during the day, under normal operations, the bus company causes a very high level of noise pollution.
The plaintiff contends that it is therefore necessary to shut down this activity, given that a constitutional right of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s family is being infringed. Court’s assessment: This Chamber will not rule on whether granting the co-defendant company land-use authorization (uso de suelo) in a residential area was lawful, or whether the company holds other permits, because the Constitutional Chamber determined in vote number 9963-2007 at 15:49 hours on July 18, 2007, that although the company’s depot is located in a residential area, the rights it acquired under a zoning plan that permitted such use at the time had to be respected; its land use was therefore consistent with the company’s legal status, constituting an urban-planning situation legally classified as consolidated land use (uso de suelo consolidado). It must be recalled that the matter at issue here is not that land use or whether the company holds municipal permits, but rather the requested review of an administrative proceeding initiated as a result of a complaint.
The subject matter is therefore whether one of the two health orders contains the legal effect attributed to it by the plaintiff—a contention already rejected above—and whether the other is void, which has already been determined not to be the case given the absence of an explanation identifying the specific defect in the act. Thus, the question of whether the depot should operate in the residential area is an unrelated issue that the plaintiff improperly attempted to intermingle with the Health Operating Permit issue, and it will not be considered, particularly because no relief was sought in that regard. Moreover, the State’s counsel is correct that this is a matter within municipal, not State, jurisdiction and that it falls outside the scope of the issues in dispute (litis) in this case, given the manner in which the complaint was pleaded. With respect to annulment of the operating permit, this Chamber determines that the requested annulment is unfounded because it was linked to compliance with the health orders issued.
In this specific case, it has been established that the health orders were issued to reduce the noise pollution measured at night from the plaintiff’s residence and originating from the co-defendant company’s bus depot.
This was a lengthy process that involved carrying out special works for noise containment; although the works were completed and were insufficient, in the opinion of this Chamber, the Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud) duly issued the necessary health orders (órdenes sanitarias) and verified, insofar as the plaintiff himself permitted it to do so, whether the works approved in the Containment Plan (Plan de Confinamiento) and the work performed achieved the intended effect, namely, reducing noise pollution (contaminación sónica) to the limits permitted for that activity. In other words, the oversight activity (actividad de fiscalización) was conducted with the follow-up necessary to fulfill the purpose for which those orders were issued. It should be noted here that, although the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the results of the work performed and reiterates that the pollution continues, the record shows that, after health order 067-2018 was issued, it was he who prevented the Ministerio de Salud from taking new measurements at his residence.
After several unsuccessful attempts to schedule a new measurement, the Dirección Regional returned the case file (expediente) without the sound measurement to the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, which, after again verifying that the containment works had been completed, concluded its follow-up on the complaint. No improper action by the Administration is found in this regard; rather, this circumstance is attributable to the unilateral decision of the plaintiff himself, in addition to the fact that his complaint was not accompanied by technical evidence showing that such pollution persisted when the action was filed. There is therefore no persuasive evidence (elementos de convicción) supporting the party’s assertions, and the Court considers that what exists is the party’s dissatisfaction with how his matter was handled, without his having established the defects of illegality (vicios de ilegalidad) that he alleges.
Accordingly, this Chamber finds that, in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca acted contrary to the legal system by allowing the co-defendant company to continue with the procedure for improving the reduction of noise pollution, and by declining to order the company’s automatic closure upon verification of noise pollution, there was no objectionable conduct warranting the closure of the company’s operations through revocation of its health operating permit (Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento), because the co-defendant also has a right, recognized by the Sala Constitucional, to operate in that residential area, subject to compliance with the regulations governing its commercial activity. Finally, with regard to the health operating permit, it must be noted that the plaintiff’s legal representative repeats in his closing arguments some of the arguments already addressed, insisting that the operating permit should not have been renewed in 2016 through 2021 because noise pollution existed.
As stated supra, because this argument is new, it likewise cannot be considered at this stage without violating the co-defendants’ right of defense (derecho de defensa).- 4) Inadmissibility of the total closure of the co-defendant company’s operations. Tribunal’s determination: As part of the relief sought (pretensiones), the plaintiff requests the total closure of the co-defendant company’s operations. Because there are expressly no arguments developing this claim, this Chamber understands it to be based on the assertion that, following health order 067-2018 (and not 063-2017, as he erroneously contends), the bus facility should have been ordered closed because of the pollution. As it has already been determined that the Ministerio de Salud acted diligently by ordering mitigation works—because noise always exists, although it must remain within the limits established as tolerable—to address the noise pollution, closure of the establishment was unwarranted once compliance with the order and completion of the works had been verified.
It is clear to this Tribunal that the action the plaintiff sought from the Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca was not the action it took, because his objective was the closure of the establishment rather than the completion of works to reduce noise, which was the appropriate measure since, as stated supra, the company has the right to conduct its commercial activity even though the area is residential. Conclusion: Having reviewed the plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds them inadmissible and dismisses the action in its entirety.-
VIII.REGARDING THE DEFENSES OF LACK OF PASSIVE STANDING (falta de legitimación pasiva) AND LACK OF LEGAL RIGHT (falta de derecho): The State’s counsel raised the defenses of lack of legal right and lack of passive standing with respect to the allegations concerning municipal permits. In light of the record, the defense of lack of passive standing is rejected because, contrary to the interpretation of the State’s counsel, this Chamber understood that, since there was no specific claim concerning permits under municipal jurisdiction and the issue was unrelated to the subject matter of the proceeding, the State was not being charged with any potential nullity in their issuance. It is therefore considered unnecessary to declare that the State lacks standing with respect to that issue, and the defense is rejected. The situation is different with regard to the defense of lack of legal right raised, which is upheld, insofar as this Chamber has determined that the plaintiff was indeed not entitled to the right asserted in this action, and the complaint has therefore been dismissed in its entirety.-
IX.REGARDING THE AWARD OF COSTS (condenatoria en costas): Pursuant to section 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural costs and attorneys’ fees (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of having lost. Waiver of such an award is permissible only when, in the Court’s judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered on the basis of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, this Collegiate Body finds no grounds for applying the exceptions established by the applicable rules because, as stated above, the plaintiff has lost this action, as the plaintiff had no legal right to the relief sought; therefore, the losing party is ordered to pay both categories of costs in the proceeding. As requested by the defendant State, the plaintiff is also ordered to pay interest on the costs awarded, beginning on the day following the date on which the ruling setting those costs at the enforcement stage becomes final and continuing until payment in full.-
THEREFORE
The document offered by the plaintiff as evidence to assist the Court in reaching its decision (prueba para mejor resolver) is rejected. The defenses of expiration (caducidad), res judicata (cosa juzgada), and lack of passive standing raised by the co-defendants are denied. The defense of lack of legal right is upheld. Consequently, the action brought by FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO against the STATE and EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A. is hereby DISMISSED. Both categories of costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and awarded to the defendants. Additionally, the plaintiff is also ordered to pay interest on the costs awarded to the State, beginning on the day following the date on which the ruling setting those costs at the judgment-enforcement stage becomes final and continuing until they are paid. Let notice be served.- Amy Miranda Alvarado Claudia Bolaños Salazar Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez ???????????????
AMY MIRANDA ALVARADO - DECIDING JUDGE ???????????????
CLAUDIA BOLAÑOS SALAZAR - DECIDING JUDGE ???????????????
CARLOS JOSE MEJIAS RODRIGUEZ - DECIDING JUDGE Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros west of BNCR, across from Café Dorado. Telephone numbers: 2545-0107 or 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 or 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 or 2545-0006. Email: [email protected]
EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj ????????????????
CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:
FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO DEMANDADO/A:
EL ESTADO N° 2024005378 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las ocho horas con treinta y tres minutos del veintidos de Agosto del dos mil veinticuatro.- Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO, mayor, casado, biólogo, vecino de Sabanilla, portador de la cédula de identidad número 1-1123-0583, representado por el Lic. Walter Brenes Soto, mayor, abogado, portador del carnet de colegiado número 21747, en contra del ESTADO, representado por la procuradora estatal, Licda. Gloria Solano Martínez, mayor, abogada, portadora del carnet de colegiado número 10343, y la EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A., representada por el Lic. Fabian Volio Echeverría, mayor, abogado, portador del carnet de colegiado número 3425.-
RESULTANDO
I.En fecha 28 de mayo de 2019, la parte actora interpone proceso de conocimiento en contra del Estado y la Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, S.A., formulando las siguientes pretensiones: "1. Anular totalmente la orden sanitaria número 067-2018, emitida por el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. 2. Revocar el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento que fue otorgado a la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres de S.A. 3. Se ordene el cierre total de las operaciones realizadas por el plantel de la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres S.A. 4. Se condene a las demandadas al pago de las costas de esta acción". (Ver demanda en imágenes 2 a 7 y audiencia preliminar en imágenes 353 a 357 del expediente digital judicial).-
II.Otorgado el traslado de ley, las partes accionadas se oponen a la acción. La empresa demandada solicita se declare sin lugar la demanda y la condena en costas de la parte actora y el Estado requiere que se rechace la demanda, se condene a la parte accionante al pago de costas e intereses. Aunado a lo anterior, la representación estatal interpone las excepciones de fondo de falta de derecho, falta de interés actual, falta de legitimación pasiva y previa de cosa juzgada. Por su parte, la representación de la empresa interpuso las excepciones previas de caducidad y demandada improponible, las cuales fueron rechazadas a través de la resolución número Nº 08-2020 del 7 de enero de 2020, en la audiencia preliminar. (Ver imágenes 353 a 357 del expediente digital judicial).-
III.La audiencia preliminar fue celebrada el día 7 de enero de 2020, con la presencia de los representantes de todas las partes. El asunto es declarado de puro derecho y las partes proceden a realizar sus conclusiones. (Ver audiencia preliminar y minuta en imágenes 353 a 357 del expediente digital judicial).-
IV.El asunto fue originalmente turnado en febrero de 2020, en manos del juzgadora Karla Madriz, sin embargo, en el marco del rediseño operado en la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda a partir del mes de julio de 2023, el presente asunto fue returnado a este Equipo de Fondo I para ser conocido en el mes de agosto de 2024 bajo el criterio de antigüedad. Se dicta esta sentencia dentro del plazo de ley, por unanimidad y previa deliberación de los integrantes del Tribunal, sin que se observen causales capaces de invalidar lo actuado.-
Redacta la Jueza Miranda Alvarado, con el voto afirmativo de los juzgadores del Equipo I de este Tribunal Bolaños Salazar y Mejías Rodríguez.-
CONSIDERANDO
Posterior a la audiencia preliminar y una vez asignado el expediente para resolución, el representante de la parte actora solicita se tenga como prueba para mejor resolver, copia de la sentencia número 72-2022-V de las dieciséis horas treinta minutos del diez de octubre del dos mil veintidós de la otrora Sección V (actual equipo V) de este Tribunal; sobre dicha prueba se le concedió audiencia a las partes demandadas, quienes se refirieron a la misma. Ahora bien, una vez revisada esta prueba, se concluye que la misma no aporta elementos de convicción necesarios o relevantes para la resolución del presente asunto, en primer termino no es una prueba en sentido técnico sino un antecedente de un tribunal de esta jurisdicción donde según se desprende de la revisión de la misma que, no se revisa lo mismo que se conoce en este proceso, ni las partes tienen alguna coincidencia. En sintonía a lo anterior y como un segundo punto a considerar, si bien la sentencia es del año 2022, no se conoce cuál es el estadio procesal recursivo de la misma, es decir, si se encuentra en casación con lo cual si lo resuelto en la misma de alguna forma afectaba el objeto de este proceso, -que se ha determinado no es la situación- tampoco podría tenerse como un antecedente a tomar en consideración.
Un tercer elemento para su rechazo es que no se explicó la pertinencia de esa prueba y esta Cámara no puede determinar que como prueba de su resorte sea importante para efecto de la toma de una decisión en el asunto que nos ocupa; por lo indicado, se decide rechazar la prueba ofrecida con carácter de mejor proveer, por no aportar un elemento probatorio nuevo o necesario para la resolución de esta litis.-
II.DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tiene como debidamente acreditado lo siguiente:
De interés es mencionar, que no se acreditaron por las partes los siguientes hechos de interés: 1) Los daños graves en salud y mental por contaminación sónica en el actor y su familia. (Los autos) 2) Que el actor permitió verificar si la contaminación sónica persiste después de haberse realizado y revisado los trabajos de confinamiento de ruido. (Los autos).-
En el escrito de demanda, alega el actor que: "(...) FUNDAMENTOS DE DERECHO. El artículo 50 de la Constitución Política responde a una garantía constitucional, como es el derecho a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, así como al hecho de denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho. Es claro que esa protección constitucional sobre el medio ambiente y la salud pública, genera posiciones y acciones, tanto en los particulares, como en la misma Administración Pública, en este caso, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. Es importante evidenciar que la misma Administración debe tomar acción cuando los particulares se están viendo perjudicados, por empresas privadas y por las mismas omisiones de la Administración, a la hora de tomar acción, como es mi situación, quien desde hace más de 3 años mantengo graves perjuicios en mi salud y en las de mis hijas, por la existencia de una contaminación sónica de esa empresa.
Las omisiones del Área Rectora de Salud han generado un desgaste en la salud física y mental de mi familia, cuando ha sido más que evidente que se está desconociendo el contenido de una Orden Sanitaria, su propio acto administrativo, final y firme, evidenciando con ello una irregularidad que deberá ser sometida al tamiz de control de legalidad que realiza esta jurisdicción contencioso administrativa. Es evidente que esa Empresa no debería contar con un Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento para operar un Plantel de Buses en una zona residencial, incluso según Prueba Documental adjunta, no se cuenta con los permisos ni licencias de carácter municipal, siendo que sus acciones no son acordes a nuestra legislación. Asimismo, debemos recordar que las pruebas de medición sónica realizadas por el Área Rectora de Salud, constituyen un método técnico idóneo para comprobar la existencia de ruidos que sobre pasen el límite de la normativa y puedan generar un impacto en la salud, como en este caso, donde existe una contaminación sónica.
Es cuestionable el hecho de que se mantengan los supuestos permisos de una empresa autobusera dentro de una zona Residencial, lo cual evidencia el hecho de que es imposible que esa empresa normalice su situación jurídica, porque siempre estará incumpliendo, y peor aún, contaminando a nivel sónico, debiendo clausurarse definitivamente la actividad operativa y además cancelarse su permiso sanitario. En la última medición sónica realizada por el Área Rectora de Salud, el 21 de junio del 2018 a las 21:31 horas (9:31 pm), se está superando el límite permitido de ruido, por lo que es fácilmente razonable concluir qué durante el día, con una operación normal, esa empresa autobusera, causa muchísima contaminación sónica, siendo necesario clausurar esta actividad, partiendo del hecho de que estamos ante un derecho constitucional que se está menoscabando a mi persona y familia. En este caso, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca (El Estado) está desconociendo el contenido de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017 notificada a la Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. el día 17 de octubre del 2017 específicamente el punto 2), el cual establece lo siguiente: 2) Se le apercibe de que, en caso de que los trabajos de confinamiento de ruido no sean eficientes y de comprobarse con nueva medición sónica que sobrepasa la normativa vigente, se procederá a la clausura de la actividad que desarrolla en el plantel de terminal de autobuses y se suspenderá el Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento (Subrayado y resaltado no son del original).
En cumplimiento de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017, el 21 de junio del 2018, se realizó esa nueva medición sónica relacionada con la citada Orden, la cual, según informe técnico número CS-URS0578-2018, se hizo en el dormitorio de mi vivienda -en ese domicilio habito con mi esposa y mis dos hijas de 5 años y 1 año - (ver constancias impresas del Registro Civil del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), arrojando como resultado que el Plantel de Buses de la Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres, S.A. SUPERA NUEVAMENTE la normativa establecida en el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido. En ese sentido, es evidente que el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, a pesar del resultado que se obtuvo en el Informe Técnico número CS-URS-0578-2018, NO ordenó la ejecución inmediata de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017 (esa Orden es un acto administrativo final y firme), evadiendo la clausura inmediata del Plantel de Buses de esa empresa, a pesar de tenerse por probado que se continúa generando contaminación sónica, situación que incluso persiste incluso después de haberse realizado y revisado supuestos "trabajos" de confinamiento de ruido".-
- EL ESTADO: En su contestación, indica la representación estatal: "(...) Falta de derecho y cosa juzgada: Área Rectora de Salud sí ejerció las potestades legales en la atención de la denuncia planteada por la parte actora. Inexistencia de conducta omisiva. La parte accionante reclama una supuesta omisión por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca del Ministerio de Salud, en la atención la denuncia formulada contra la Terminal de buses Ruta 51-53 operada por la sociedad co-demandada. Sin embargo, el expediente administrativo es prueba fehaciente de que esa apreciación es incorrecta e infundada. No basta decir que mi representado incurrió en conductas omisivas que repercutieron en la salud física de la parte actora y su familia, sino que es necesario detallar en concreto cuales normas o deberes impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico fueron omitidos por el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca.
Y demostrarlo. Tal y como consta documentalmente, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca sí ejerció las acciones necesarias, dentro del ámbito de su competencia, para atender las denuncias formuladas contra la empresa codemandada. Lo que comprende la denuncia anónima recibida por la Contraloría del Ambiente del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (y remitida al Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. Prueba N° 1. Folios 36-38) como la presentada por el aquí actor. A la fecha se han dictado tres órdenes sanitarias: la N° 061-2016 (Prueba N° 1. Folio 106), 063-2017 (Prueba N° 1. Folio 269) y 067-2018 (Prueba N° 1. Folio 450). Con relación a esa primera denuncia confidencial presentada ante Contraloría de Ambiente del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y traslada por oficio CA-URID-201-264-SITADA-4809 al Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, se ordenó al Bach. Luis Castillo Conejo realizar visita de inspección.
Según informe N° CS-ARS-MO-LACC 421-2015, el funcionario designado no encontró maquinaria trabajando en el inmueble, ni contaminación por emanaciones de polvo, tampoco problemas de ruido. Por tanto, concluye que no hay ningún tipo de problemática que afecte la salud pública y recomienda el archivo del caso (Prueba N° 1. Folios 37 al 47). Posteriormente, se recibe la denuncia presentada por el actor el día 11 de febrero de 2016 por “contaminación ambiental, sonora, gases y suelo”. A efectos de verificar los hechos denunciados, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, solicita realizar visita en el sitio, en la que constató que la empresa denunciada posee los permisos vigentes para el desarrollo de la actividad. Además, verificó que las tapias perimetrales y la parte frontal del inmueble se realizaron con permiso otorgado por la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca, y que el tanque de abastecimiento de diesel se ubica bajo techo, cumple con la normativa vigente y cuenta con autorización del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía.
Igualmente, corroboró que no hay contaminación por humo, contaminación sónica, ni agentes contaminantes en el entorno. Finalmente, observó que no hay derrames de combustibles en la superficie del piso y que en el inmueble no se está realizando ninguna ampliación, en consecuencia, recomienda archivar el caso (Prueba N° 1. Folios 52-54, 68-70). Sin embargo, como seguimiento a esa denuncia, mediante oficio CS-ARS-MO-432-2016 la Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, presenta solicitud de apoyo técnico a la Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Central Sur para realizar medición sónica en la vivienda de la parte actora (Prueba N° 1. Folio 73). Por oficio CS-URS-J-1083-2016 de fecha 14 de julio de 2016, la Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud Central Sur, habilitó horario extraordinario para atender la solicitud de apoyo en mención (Prueba N° 1. Folio 82). Y el 02 de setiembre de 2016, se practicó evaluación de ruido en la vivienda de la parte actora, obteniendo como resultado que las mediciones eran superiores a los límites máximos permitidos en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 39428-S del 23 de noviembre del 2015 (Prueba N° 1.
Folios 94-102). Con base en los resultados de esa evaluación, es que se procede a dictar una nueva orden sanitaria, la N° 061-2016 contra la empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, que dispuso lo siguiente: Luego, el día 06 de octubre del 2016, a solicitud de la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca el funcionario Luis Castillo Conejo se presentó en el establecimiento de la Empresa Rutas 51-53, para proceder a realizar una inspección físico sanitaria, en la que no observó ninguna infracción sanitaria (Prueba N° 1. Folios 121-123). Posteriormente, la empresa solicitó renovación del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, gestión que fue denegada por el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, por existir una orden sanitaria pendiente de cumplimiento (Prueba N° 1. Folios 110-120 y 126-127). En acatamiento a lo dispuesto en la orden sanitaria N°61-2016, la empresa co-demandada, presentó el Plan de Confinamiento y Mitigación de Ruido conforme a lo dispuesto en el punto
Solicita entonces se declare caduca e inadmisible la demanda. Criterio del Tribunal: De la revisión del objeto de la demanda y los argumentos de la defensa opuesta, esta Cámara determina que la presente demanda no está caduca en los términos expuestos. Básicamente, el objeto de este proceso es la declaratoria de nulidad de la orden sanitaria número 067-2018 del Área Rectora de Montes de Oca, y a partir de esa anulación, -en principio por su supuesto incumplimiento- que se revoque el Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento que fue otorgado a la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres S.A., y se ordene el cierre de las operaciones de ésta. Es decir, no es el objeto principal del proceso la anulación del Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento en forma independiente, sino que está unido a la emisión de las ordenes sanitarias números 063-2017 y 067-2018 y su cumplimiento. Por ello es que no se puede considerar, como lo hace la empresa codemandada, que por ser el permiso sanitario del año 2016 y pretenderse su revocación, el plazo para ello está superado conforme el artículo 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en tanto dicha petición es parte de la eventual consecuencia del incumplimiento de la orden sanitaria número 063-2017 y la petición de anulación de la orden sanitaria 067-2018 y no porque se esté cuestionando el acto de otorgamiento del permiso sanitario del año 2016.
En ese sentido entonces, al estar unida la revocación o no del Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento al cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria que se reclama, es claro para esta Cámara que la caducidad o no del proceso, depende de cuando es que se tienen por concluidos los efectos orden sanitaria y cuando se presenta el presente proceso. Así, tenemos que, el presente asunto fue interpuesto en fecha 29 de mayo de 2019 y que es por medio del oficio CS-ARS-MO-383-2019 del 18 de marzo de 2019, que la Directora a.i. del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, da por cumplido lo ordenado por la orden sanitaria 067-2018 y por ende por terminada la denuncia interpuesta por el acá actor en cuanto a la contaminación sónica en el plantel de la codemandada empresa autobusera. Así las cosas, el plazo del año para interponer el proceso que prescribe el numeral 39 CPCA en asuntos como el que nos ocupa no se cumplió como señaló la codemandada y por ello no se ha producido la caducidad interpuesta.- Asimismo la representación de la parte codemandada, la empresa autobusera, interpuso la excepción de demanda improponible, la cual fue resuelta interlocutoriamente en audiencia preliminar y rechazada y no puede ser reiterada en este estadio procesal.- b) Sobre la Cosa Juzgada: Por su parte la representación estatal interpuso la defensa de cosa juzgada señalando que, además del recuento de actuaciones que señala realizó el Ministerio de Salud en relación a la denuncia planteada por el acá actor y que culminaron con el cumplimiento de las ordenes sanitarias giradas, menciona que, por el voto N° 9963-2007 de las 15:49 horas del 18 de julio de 2007 de la Sala Constitucional, declaró con lugar parcial un recurso de amparo interpuesto y que ordenó la clausura de la terminal de buses que opera la empresa Rutas Cincuenta Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima, hasta tanto se comprobara de manera fehaciente, que cumplía estrictamente con los requisitos que establece el ordenamiento jurídico y que eso se realizó mediante las resoluciones N° 9141-2009 de las 10:38 horas del 09 de junio del 2009, N° 2017-1869 de las 09:05 horas del 08 de febrero del 2017, y N° 2017-3635 de las 09:05 horas del 10 de marzo del 2017, todas de la Sala Constitucional donde se tuvo por demostrado el cumplimiento de lo ordenado en ese voto.
Aunado a eso señala que, mediante sentencia N° 2017-20706 de las 09:15 horas del 22 de diciembre del 2017, en otro recurso de amparo presentado por el señor Fabián Bonilla Murillo, la Sala Constitucional resolvió –con carácter de cosa juzgada– que las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca no han sido omisas en la atención de las denuncias planteadas contra la Terminal de Buses, por contaminación sónica, que no había lesión a derechos fundamentales derivados de los artículos 24 y 50 de la Constitución Política, y que el Ministerio de Salud no había incurrido en las omisiones derivadas de la tramitación de la denuncia instaurada por la parte actora. Criterio del Tribunal: Revisado este argumento, esta Cámara determina que no opera el instituto de la cosa juzgada en el presente asunto con respecto a lo que ha resuelto la Sala Constitucional, en relación a la denuncia presentada por el acá actor.
Conforme los hechos probados, en fecha 30 de octubre de 2017, el señor Bonilla Murillo a través de su representante legal interpone un recurso de amparo contra el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, alegando que a pesar de una recomendación de cierre contra la Terminal de Buses de Ruta 51-53, por contaminación sónica, dicha área no había girado acto administrativo alguno. Este recurso fue declarado sin lugar mediante el voto número 2017020706 de las 09:15 minutos del 22 de diciembre de 2017, al señalar que no se había comprobado la violación del derecho constitucional a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Tenemos entonces que si bien la Sala tuvo por correctas las actuaciones realizadas por las autoridades administrativas en el asunto administrativo que acá se debe de revisar lo hizo desde un punto de vista de la violación de derechos constitucionales, y no referente a una posible nulidad de un acto administrativo que es el objeto de este proceso; por ello no es posible alegar a través de la figura de la cosa juzgada, que no se puede ya revisar las actuaciones de las dependencias del Ministerio de Salud que en su momento estuvieron involucradas con el seguimiento de la denuncia planteada por el acá actor por que la Sala "avaló" las actuaciones administrativas, en tanto, en sede constitucional solo se revisó si se habían realizado acciones por parte del Ministerio de Salud a comprobar la violación del derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano por la problemática del plantel de autobuses, pero no hizo ningún examen de legalidad de los actos emitidos, dada la naturaleza sumarísima del recurso, siendo incluso advertido por el Alto Tribunal que, nuevos incumplimientos o disconformidades con lo dicho ante esa sede, debía discutirse en sede de legalidad (hecho probado 10).
Por ello no es posible considerar que el recurso de amparo presentado en el año 2017 tiene la virtud de impedir el conocimiento de este proceso en esta sede. Así las cosas, esta defensa de cosa juzgada debe ser rechazada en los términos planteados.-
Básicamente el objeto de este proceso es determinar si procede la declaratoria de nulidad de la orden sanitaria número 067-2018 del Área Rectora de Montes de Oca, y a partir de esa anulación, que se revoque el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento que fue otorgado a la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A., asimismo que, se ordene el cierre de las operaciones realizadas por el plantel de la codemandada. A la luz de los hechos tenidos por probados, esta Cámara determina que el presente asunto debe ser declarado sin lugar como a continuación se analiza. Es necesario hacer un breve recuento de las actuaciones realizadas por las dependencias del Ministerio de Salud a raíz de la denuncia planteada en fecha 11 de febrero de 2016, en el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, por el señor Fabián Bonilla Murillo y numerada 041-2016, contra el plantel de autobuses que posee la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno Cincuenta y Tres de S.A., y que colinda con la casa de habitación del acá actor.
En dicha denuncia se cuestionaba la actuación del Ministerio de Salud en cuanto al otorgamiento de los permisos de funcionamiento del plantel y permisos de construcción y el cumplimiento de la normativa en diferentes temas. Añadía que el plantel estaba siendo ampliado y remodelado, pero las diversas molestias a los vecinos proseguían, sobre todo la contaminación sónica. A partir de esa denuncia, el Área Rectora de Salud Montes de Oca, realiza varias acciones, entre ellas una inspección ocular que no arrojó ninguna irregularidad sanitaria en el plantel y una medición sónica la cual se realiza el día 02 de setiembre de 2016, dando como resultado que el ruido ambiente supera lo establecido en el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido medidos en el dormitorio de la vivienda para las horas nocturnas, sugiriéndose que el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, proceda a girar acto administrativo correspondiente al establecimiento.
Por ello se emite la orden sanitaria 061-2016 del 04 de octubre de 2016, otorgando un plazo de 22 días hábiles a la empresa demandada, para que presentara un Plan de Confinamiento Acústico, con memoria de cálculo y cronograma de actividades y se le apercibe de que en el caso de no presentar el Plan se procedería a la clausura del establecimiento, y a la suspensión del Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento otorgado a su favor. La orden se notificó el 06 octubre de 2016. - En fecha 03 de noviembre de 2016, la empresa Ruta 51-53 S.A., presenta el Plan de Confinamiento Acústico al Área Rectora de Montes de Oca. Siendo que en el intermedio en fecha 30 de noviembre de 2016, se renueva el PSF de la empresa accionada, con vigencia hasta el 20 de noviembre de 2021. - En fecha 01 de diciembre de 2016, se comunica al representante de la empresa Ruta 51-53 S.A., que se acepta su Plan de Confinamiento Acústico, sin que se le dé una fecha de inicio, pero el Plan señala 3 meses para su implementación. - En fecha 20 de marzo de 2017, se realiza acta de inspección en el plantel de la empresa denunciada y se les da un plazo más de tres semanas para sustituir una placa de fibra antiruido ya que la instalada no era la requerida. - En fecha 31 de agosto de 2017, en una nueva medición de ruido realizada en el plantel de la empresa demandada, se determinó que el ruido ambiente más el generado por la fuente, superaba lo establecido en la Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39428-S, medidos en la vivienda, para las horas nocturnas y se sugiere al Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, proceder a girar acto administrativo al establecimiento, según la legislación nacional, en virtud de la contaminación sónica comprobada a través de la medición de ruido realizada. - En fecha 06 de octubre de 2017, se emite la orden sanitaria número 063-2017, por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, y se le otorga a la empresa Ruta 51-53 S.A., un mes plazo para que proceda a realizar los trabajos correspondientes de acuerdo con el Plan de Confinamiento Acústico presentado y que no resultó eficiente.
Debiendo avisar al Área Rectora para programar una nueva medición sónica. La orden se le notificó a la empresa el día 17 de octubre de 2017. - En fecha 19 de diciembre de 2017, el representante legal de la empresa informa al Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca que se procedió a realizar las mejoras en la estructura del lado de la colindancia norte del plantel y solicita se realice una nueva inspección. - En fecha 17 de abril de 2018, se coordina una nueva visita al plantel de la empresa y se verificó el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria 063-2017, por lo que se solicita se realice una nueva medición sónica, la cual se atrasa por la negativa del actor a que se realice la medición si primero no se le explica las medidas correctivas realizadas. -En fecha 21 de junio de 2018, se realiza una nueva medición, dando como resultado que el ruido ambiente generado por la fuente supera (aunque ha disminuido respecto de las otras dos mediciones) lo establecido en el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido.
Se sugiere nuevamente girar un acto administrativo en virtud de la contaminación sónica comprobada. -En fecha 26 de junio de 2018, se gira la orden sanitaria número 067-2018, en la cual se otorga un mes para que la empresa proceda a realizar los trabajos correspondientes de acuerdo con el Plan de Confinamiento Acústico aportado, por cuanto la última medición demostró que lo hecho no era suficiente Se le indica que una vez concluidos los trabajos debía coordinar una mueva medición con esa área. También se le apercibe a que en caso de que los trabajos de confinamiento de ruido no sean eficientes y de comprobarse con una nueva medición sónica que sobrepasa la normativa vigente, se procederá a clausurar la actividad que desarrolla en el plantel de terminal de autobuses y se suspendería el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. Dicha orden sanitaria se notificó el 25 de junio de 2018, al representante de la empresa. -Por nota fechada 12 de julio de 2018, el señor Fabián Bonilla Murillo, solicita ante el no cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria 063-2017, que se proceda a la clausura inmediata del plantel de buses de Ruta 51-53 S.A. -Mediante oficio CS-ARS-MO-1102-208 del 20 de julio de 2018, la Directora del Área Rectora de Salud Montes de Oca, contesta la nota presentada por el señor Bonilla Murillo y explica las acciones realizadas posterior a la medición sónica y la emisión de la orden sanitaria 067-2018. -En fecha 09 de agosto de 2018, mediante oficio CS-ARS-MP-LACC-202-2018, fechado 09 de agosto de 2018, el funcionario del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, Luis Ángel Castillo Conejo, informa a la Directora a.i. de dicha área, que se realizó ese día inspección al inmueble e la empresa, y se constató el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria número 067-2018. - El mismo día de la inspección realizada a las instalaciones del Plantel de la codemandada, se solicita por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, a la Dirección Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur, ayuda para realizar la medición sónica en la vivienda del actor. -En fecha 09 de agosto de 2018, el Director Regional de Rectoría de la Salud Región Central Sur, le pide al Jefe de la Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud, coordine con el Área de Salud de Montes de Oca, la medición sónica en la vivienda del señor Bonilla Murillo. - No obstante, mediante oficio CS-URS-J-1223-2018 del 17 de agosto de 2018, la funcionaria de la Unidad Rectora de la Salud, remite a la Directora del Área de Salud de Montes de Oca, el informe número CS-URS-0774-2018, suscrito por el Ing. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, en el cual comunica que, mediante un correo electrónico el actor, le indica que, no puede de la semana del 13 al 17 de agosto, atender su solicitud de medición de ruido porque se encuentra en una gira laboral.
Adicionalmente, le señala que se encuentra anuente para reprogramar en otras fechas, pero que desea que el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, le brinde un informe detallado sobre los cambios o trabajos realizados o implementados por la empresa demandada, ya que indica que en su condición de denunciante desconoce el Plan de Confinamiento de Ruido que se presentó desde la primera medición. Con vista en dicha situación se recomienda al área se le brinde la información solicitada al señor Bonilla Murillo y programar la medición de ruido. - En fecha 20 de agosto de 2018, y conforme con la recomendación emitida por la Unidad Rectora, por oficio CS-ARS-MO-1209-2018, se le comunica al actor todo lo relacionado con la denuncia por él presentada en relación con los ruidos del plantel de la empresa Ruta 51-53 S.A. - Por informe CS-URS-1023-2018 del 22 de octubre de 2018, el MSc. Pablo Jiménez Zumbado, funcionario del Proceso de Regulación de la Unidad de Rectoría de la Salud, informa a la Jefe de dicha Unidad, que como ya se había explicado en el mes de agosto, el señor denunciante por medio de un correo electrónico les había indicado que se podía reprogramar la medición, pero que, el 16 de octubre de 2018, se había vuelto a contactar al denunciante para medir el ruido en su casa y éste le indica que quiere esperar a que se resuelva una apelación interpuesta ante el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, antes de efectuar alguna otra medición de ruido, y que por lo tanto se devuelve el expediente al área de salud. - En fecha 01 de marzo de 2019, mediante acta de inspección ocular número 078-19 de las 12:50 horas, el funcionario del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, consigna el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria número 067-2018 en la Terminal de Autobuses de la Ruta 51-53. - Por escrito del 12 de marzo de 2019, el representante de la empresa Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A., señala al Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, que conforme la orden sanitaria 067-2018 y el oficio DM-LC-1205-2019, que según el acta de inspección ocular No. 078-2019 de fecha 01 de marzo de 2019, se cumplió con las modificaciones necesarias de acuerdo con el Plan aprobado y por ello, la orden sanitaria estaba cumplida.
Agrega que como el denunciante no permitió el acceso a su casa para hacer nuevas mediciones de ruido luego de las mejoras a la tapia terminada por su representada, pide se realicen nuevas mediciones de ruido y se tenga por cumplida la orden sanitaria No. 67-2018, se cierre el caso y se archive el expediente. - En fecha 18 de marzo de 2019, por oficio CS-ARS-MO-383-2019, la Directora a.i. del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, da por cumplida la Orden Sanitaria No. 067-2018 y se da por terminado el procedimiento seguido a la denuncia del acá actor. Teniendo claros los hechos demostrados, procedamos a analizar el planteamiento del actor y los argumentos de los codemandados. - El actor parte del derecho constitucional establecido en el artículo 50 de la Carta Magna, y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Reclama entonces que, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca no ha tomado acciones que protejan a su persona y familia de las acciones que han realizado una empresa privada y ha sido omisa lo cual al momento de la demanda le había provocado según su dicho graves perjuicios en su salud y en las de sus hijas, por la existencia de una contaminación sónica de esa empresa.
Plantea que las omisiones del Área Rectora de Salud le han generado un desgaste en la salud física y mental de su familia, y que ha sido evidente que se ha desconocido el contenido de una Orden Sanitaria, que en su criterio es un acto administrativo propio, final y firme, evidenciando con ello una irregularidad que pide sea sometida al tamiz de control de legalidad que realiza esta jurisdicción contencioso administrativa. Reclama que la empresa involucrada no debería contar con un Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento (PSF) para operar un plantel de buses en una zona residencial, y que no cuenta con los permisos ni licencias de carácter municipal, siendo que sus acciones no son acordes a la legislación. Las pruebas de medición sónica realizadas por el Área Rectora de Salud constituyen un método técnico idóneo para comprobar la existencia de ruidos que sobrepasan el límite de la normativa y puedan generar un impacto en la salud, porque existe una contaminación sónica.
Menciona que es cuestionable el hecho de que se mantengan los supuestos permisos de una empresa autobusera dentro de una zona residencial, y que ello evidencia el hecho de que es imposible que esa empresa normalice su situación jurídica, porque siempre estará incumpliendo, y peor aún, contaminando a nivel sónico, debiendo clausurarse definitivamente la actividad operativa y además cancelarse su permiso sanitario. Señala que, en la última medición sónica realizada por el Área Rectora de Salud, el 21 de junio del 2018 a las 21:31 horas (9:31 pm), se estaba superando el límite permitido de ruido, por lo que es fácilmente razonable concluir qué durante el día, con una operación normal, esa empresa autobusera, causa muchísima contaminación sónica, siendo necesario clausurar esta actividad, partiendo del hecho de que es un derecho constitucional que se le está menoscabando a él y su familia. Plantea que, en este caso, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca está desconociendo el contenido de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017 notificada a la Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. el día 17 de octubre del 17 específicamente en el punto 2), que establecía que si los trabajos de confinamiento de ruido no eran eficientes y de comprobarse con nueva medición sónica que sobrepasaba la normativa vigente, se procedería a la clausura de la actividad que desarrollaba en el plantel de terminal de autobuses y se suspendería el Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento.
Manifiesta que cuando en cumplimiento de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017, el día 21 de junio del 2018, se realizó esa nueva medición sónica relacionada con la citada orden, la cual, según informe técnico número CS-URS0578-2018, se hizo en el dormitorio de su vivienda, el resultado arrojó que el plantel de buses de la empresa demandada, superaba nuevamente la normativa establecida en el Reglamento para el Control de la Contaminación por Ruido. Indica que no obstante lo anterior, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca, a pesar del resultado que se obtuvo en el Informe Técnico número CS-URS-0578-2018, no ordenó la ejecución inmediata de la Orden Sanitaria número 063-2017, orden que insiste es un acto administrativo final y firme, evadiendo la clausura inmediata del plantel de buses de esa empresa, a pesar de tenerse por probado que se continuaba generando contaminación sónica, situación que señala incluso persiste después de haberse realizado y revisado supuestos trabajos de confinamiento de ruido.- Por su parte la empresa codemandada indicó que esta demanda es parte de la persecución que el actor ha realizado en su contra.
Que como sus intentos han sido frustrados, ahora intenta afectar a la esencia misma de la empresa en su funcionamiento. Que en las sedes, administrativa, constitucional y ahora judicial, se ha demostrado que la empresa cumple las normas para el ruido de un plantel de buses. Que la medida cautelar intentada fue rechazada. Que la intención del señor Bonilla es doblegar a la Administración a través de la Justicia, sin seguir un debido proceso legal y a pesar de que existen actos administrativos debidamente fundados y vigentes que comprueban lo contrario a su dicho. En ese sentido señala que: - El plantel de buses está debidamente autorizado por el derecho. Que el señor Bonilla en todas las sedes ha intentado afectar el funcionamiento del plantel de buses, repitiendo que, la empresa no cuenta con las autorizaciones correspondientes, esto a pesar de ellos han aportado las pruebas respectivas.
Agrega que es absolutamente falso y carente de seriedad que no se cuenta con los permisos ni licencias de carácter municipal, que el plantel de buses está localizado a 150 metros sureste del Bar La Bamba en Sabanilla de Montes de Oca, plantel que es propiedad de la sociedad Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres S.A. y cuenta con los permisos de usos de suelo vigentes desde el año 1995, y a dicho inmueble le han sido concedidos desde los años 90 permisos de uso de suelo, patentes comerciales, permisos de construcción e incluso permisos sanitarios otorgados por el propio Ministerio de Salud; dándole la condición de uso comercial. Plantea que es contradictorio que el actor pretenda la anulación de un permiso cuando afirmó que la empresa no tiene permisos y es contraria a la legislación, específicamente tratándose de una empresa que es concesionaria de transporte público con dos rutas nacionales, y para esa condición ha tenido que demostrar sus atestados y permisos innumerable cantidad de veces.
Añade que, el Ministerio de Salud es una de las tantas instituciones que ha validado la condición de derecho de la empresa emitiendo permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento con clasificaciones comerciales. Y que, relacionado con esto, no existen hechos ni consideraciones de derecho que describan cuáles son los defectos técnicos ni legales que sufre el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento otorgado a su representada. Menciona que es una demanda incompleta e incoherente desde el punto de vista jurídico. - En cuanto a los daños señala que estos no se prueban. Que el actor fundamentó todo su razonamiento y argumentación en el supuesto de daño que ha sufrido su familia por parte del giro comercial propio de la empresa pero, sin embargo, todo lo anterior son dichos que solo apelan a la lástima porque el actor no aportó ninguna prueba de sus dichos. Que la apuesta del señor Bonilla es que el Tribunal decida en su favor por el simple dicho y la posibilidad remota de que ese dicho sea cierto, pero esto no es lo que el derecho prevé para una contención tan seria y con posibles consecuencias tan graves para la empresa y el transporte público del país.
Recuerda que el ordenamiento establece que aquel que alegue determinadas circunstancias está obligado a probarlas si pretende que la administración de justicia le dé la razón, conforme el artículo 41.1 del Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria a esta materia. Que la parte actora es la obligada a aportar pruebas de los supuestos daños sufridos, y que por ello la falta de dicha prueba demuestra la forma temeraria de presentarse ante estos procesos judiciales en los cuales se revisa la legalidad de las actuaciones de la Administración Pública y se protege al administrado, no se afectan derechos subjetivos consolidados y legales por el simple querer de las partes.- Por su parte la representación estatal como codemandada, manifestó que, el Área Rectora de Salud sí ejerció las potestades legales en la atención de la denuncia planteada por la parte actora. Menciona que no existe la conducta omisiva que reclama el accionante por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca del Ministerio de Salud, en la atención la denuncia formulada contra la terminal de buses Ruta 51-53 operada por la sociedad codemandada.
Que el expediente administrativo es prueba fehaciente de ello. Que no basta decir que el Estado incurrió en conductas omisivas que repercutieron en la salud física de la parte actora y su familia, sino que es necesario detallar en concreto cuales normas o deberes impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico fueron omitidos por el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca y demostrarlo. Que como consta documentalmente, el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca sí ejerció las acciones necesarias, dentro del ámbito de su competencia, para atender las denuncias formuladas contra la empresa codemandada y señala que se dictaron tres órdenes sanitarias: la N° 061-2016, la 063-2017 y 067-2018 y se refiere a las mismas y las actuaciones del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. A partir de ello hace un recuento de las actuaciones realizadas. Indica que, de los antecedentes expuestos, no se observa que su representado incurriera en las conductas omisivas acusadas por la parte actora y, por el contrario, está probado que las autoridades de salud han actuado de manera congruente con el ejercicio de las potestades sanitarias, en la atención y abordaje de la queja planteada por el señor Bonilla Murillo.
Que se constata que se han realizado múltiples inspecciones físico-sanitarias en el sitio denunciado, para verificar los hechos objeto de la denuncia, constatar la realización de los trabajos ejecutados de acuerdo con el Plan de Confinamiento Acústico y dar seguimiento al cumplimiento de las ordenes sanitarias. Además, se realizaron mediciones sónicas en la casa de habitación de la parte actora, cuyo resultado ocasionó la imposición de tres órdenes sanitarias giradas contra la Empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres. Añade que, es incorrecto e infundado reclamar que ha habido una conducta omisiva atribuible al Ministerio. Que no existe ausencia en el ejercicio de competencias o potestades públicas y por el contrario, se aprecia que su representado cumplió con las obligaciones impuestas en los artículos 1, 2, 325, 337, 338, 338 bis, 339, 340, 341, 346, 349 de la Ley General de Salud, artículos 2 inciso c), 57 de la Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Salud, a fin de atender y resolver la queja formulada por la parte actora.
Añade que, el Área Rectora de Salud tuvo por cumplida la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018 y la parte actora solicita se declare la nulidad de la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018, emitida por el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca. Menciona que, para sustentar su petición, se limita a señalar que se debía ordenar el cierre del Plantel de Autobuses, según se indicó en la orden sanitaria N° 063-2017, pero que en su lugar se emitió la orden sanitaria que se impugna. Indica en primer término, que la medida sanitaria N° 63-2017 no ordena la clausura del establecimiento de la empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres, sino la ejecución de los trabajos correspondientes de acuerdo al Plan de Confinamiento Acústico presentado por esa empresa que, en todo caso, la pretensión de nulidad carece de fundamentación válida, toda vez que la orden sanitaria impugnada es un acto administrativo que ya surtió los efectos jurídicos correspondientes.
Que el expediente administrativo da cuenta de que las autoridades de salud giraron la orden sanitaria N° 063-2017, en la que se exigió a la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres: Inconforme con lo ordenado, la empresa formuló recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio. Ambas impugnaciones fueron declaradas sin lugar. Seguidamente, con la finalidad de cumplir con lo requerido en la orden sanitaria en cuestión, la co-demandada presentó un documento que describe las mejoraras realizadas en la estructura que colinda con la casa de habitación del señor Bonilla Murillo. Con el propósito de poder establecer con la debida certeza que los trabajos estructurales ejecutados por la empresa indicada permitían un adecuado confinamiento del ruido, se llevó a cabo medición sónica en la casa de habitación de la parte actora, cuyo resultado superó los niveles de presión sonora establecidos en la reglamentación vigente.
Por tanto, las autoridades de salud, en uso de las facultades que les confieren los artículos 1, 2, 4, 340 y 341 de la Ley General de Salud, giraron la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018, que ordenó a la empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima continuar con las obras de confinamiento de sonido. No conforme con lo resuelto en la orden sanitaria, la empresa codemandada interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio. Los recursos planteados contra ese acto fueron rechazados, el de revocatoria mediante resolución N°DRCS-1910-2018 dictada por la Dirección Regional de Rectoría de Salud Central Sur y el de apelación por resolución DM-LC-1205-2019, dictada por el señor Ministro de Salud. Con la finalidad de dar seguimiento y verificar el acatamiento de la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018, se realizaron dos inspecciones oculares: una el 09 de agosto del 2018 y otra el 01 de marzo del 2019, constatándose en ambas visitas, el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria en cuestión.
A partir de lo expuesto, es claro que la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018, se tuvo por satisfecha con base en las inspecciones llevadas a cabo por las autoridades de salud, en las que se reconoció que la empresa Ruta Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres Sociedad Anónima cumplió con lo requerido en la orden sanitaria impugnada. Agrega, que si bien las autoridades de salud ostentan la potestad para imponer la sanción de clausura a aquellos negocios que infrinjan normas sanitarias y atenten contra la salud pública (artículo 325 de la Ley General de Salud), en el caso en concreto, se acreditó lo dispuesto en la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018. Circunstancia que no da lugar a la solicitud de clausura del establecimiento de empresa Rutas Cincuenta y Uno y Cincuenta y Tres. Al menos con sustento en dicha orden en particular. No tiene sentido pedir la clausura de la terminal con fundamento en una orden sanitaria (N° 063-2017) cuando esa medida ni siquiera estuvo contemplada como parte de sus disposiciones.
Y menos, cuando se estaría partiendo de una premisa inexacta, que el cuadro fáctico de aquel entonces (octubre del año 2017) es el mismo en la actualidad. Dicho lo anterior, no existen motivos de nulidad capaces de invalidar lo dispuesto en su momento en la orden sanitaria N° 67-2018, medida que fue dispuesta en aras de resguardar el interés del propio denunciante, nunca en su perjuicio. Por tanto, no hay motivo ni interés actual respecto a la pretensión anulatoria, que el acto administrativo estuvo conforme sustancialmente con el ordenamiento jurídico, según se dispone en los artículos 128 y 158 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En otro orden de ideas, plantea la falta de legitimación pasiva del Estado en cuanto a que la conformidad de las actividades que desarrolla la codemandada según uso del suelo es competencia exclusiva de la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca y por ello la solicitud de que se revoque el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento N° CS-ARS-MO-968-16, porque la actividad se desarrolla en zona residencial y no cuenta con permisos ni licencias de carácter municipal, no es oponible al Estado.
Que los artículos 169 de la Constitución Política, 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, reconocen que es competencia exclusiva de los municipios la labor de planificar el territorio, dentro de los límites jurisdiccionales del cantón. Que por no ser competencia del Ministerio de Salud ejercer el debido control sobre el desarrollo urbano y constructivo en el cantón, no le corresponde verificar si la actividad que desarrolla la empresa codemandada se enmarca en los usos de suelo previamente definidos, pues ese deber ineludible recae en la Municipalidad de Montes de Oca. Que la parte actora no cuestiona la existencia de vicios de nulidad absoluta, en los elementos subjetivos del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento N° CS- ARS-MO-968-16, referidos a la competencia, investidura, legitimación y voluntad (artículos 59,65,129,130 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), tampoco infracciones en los elementos objetivos relativos al contenido, fin y motivo, (artículos 131 al 133), ni transgresiones en los elementos formales, concernientes a la motivación, procedimiento administrativo y formas de expresión o manifestación de aquel (artículos 134, 136, 214).
Es decir, que si la invalidez del acto radica en que el requisito del uso de suelo conforme está viciado, hasta tanto ese certificado no se haya declarado así, el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento constituye un acto totalmente válido y conforme sustancialmente con el ordenamiento jurídico.- Criterio del Tribunal: 1) No existe omisión por parte del Estado en atender la denuncia planteada por el actor, ni prueba del supuesto daño por la supuesta actuación omisiva. Indicó el actor en su demanda que el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca violentó los derechos constitucionales de su persona y familia, al no resolver su denuncia, lo cual sin embargo la Sala Constitucional al conocer un recurso de amparo interpuesto por el acá actor, (voto 2017020706 de las 09:15 horas del 22 de diciembre de 2017) determinó que no había sucedido. Asimismo, en cuanto al recurso de amparo del año 2007, tenemos que este no tenía -como lo alegó desde la denuncia el acá actor- la virtud de amparar el cierre del plantel; cualquier discusión que se tuviera relacionado con el dimensionamiento de lo dispuesto en el año 2007, respecto del plantel de buses, fue aclarado en el mes de febrero de 2017, a partir de la notificación del voto completo del año 2007 (voto 009963-2007 de las 15:49 horas del 18 de julio de 2007 de la Sala Constitucional), a las partes (hecho probado 9) y la posterior aclaración solicitada por el representante de la codemandada, Compañía Cincuenta y uno y Cincuenta y tres S.A., ya que mediante el voto número 2017001869 de las 09:05 horas del 8 de febrero de 2017, la Sala Constitucional contesta que quedó por demostrado que no existía motivo para aplicar una clausura a raíz del amparo del 2007, por cuanto ya se había demostrado el cumplimiento de los requisitos respectivos y que cualquier diferencia en cuanto a nuevos motivos debía ser objeto de un proceso de constitucionalidad o legalidad.
Así no existe la supuesta violación de derechos constitucionales alegada pero que en todo caso esta jurisdicción está vedada de conocer. Lo que se conoce en esta jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa es si a partir de la denuncia del acá actor, se verificó la actividad omisiva que éste acusa al Estado y que reclama le produjo daños en su salud. De los hechos que se tienen por probados, esta Cámara de Juzgadores determina que el Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca tomó acciones a partir de la denuncia del accionante. El expediente administrativo es abundante en cuanto a las acciones de verificación realizadas por el Ministerio de Salud relacionadas con el cumplimiento por parte del Plantel de Autobuses de la empresa codemandada de las ordenes sanitarias giradas. A partir de la interposición de la denuncia, y a lo largo de varios años, el Área atendió y verificó que el plantel estuviera cumpliendo la normativa competencia del sector salud.
En ese sentido, no solo giró las ordenes sanitarias necesarias, sino que verificó su cumplimiento y la contaminación sónica del plantel realizando mediciones de sonido desde la vivienda del actor, esto mientras éste lo permitió, por cuanto como también consta en los autos, el actor desde mediados del año 2018, no permitió más mediciones de sonido. Hemos de recordar que la reclamación de responsabilidad basada en la omisión comprende una doble situación que ha de acreditarse para sustentar la aplicación de dicho instituto, por un lado, encontramos la existencia de un deber activo, imperativo y no optativo de determinada conducta administrativa, exigible consecuentemente a ésta y, por otro, la efectiva comprobación de que tal conducta no ha sido realizada. En esa línea, no ha de confundirse las conductas o manifestaciones administrativas defectuosas, incompletas o diferentes a las esperadas con una omisión, que corresponden a una pasividad sancionada por el ordenamiento ante la exigencia de una acción conforme al ordenamiento aplicable.
Entonces, a partir de la amplia prueba que consta en el expediente administrativo, no existe una omisión del Área Rectora de Salud de Montes de Oca que deba ser reprochada como omisiva o irregular en cuanto a la atención de la denuncia y siendo que el actor atribuye a la supuesta omisión de la administración daños de diferente índole en su persona y familia, debe de señalarse que, no solo no se demostró que no existiese esa omisión atribuida al Ministerio de Salud, sino que tampoco se demostró el supuesto daño. En el expediente no existe ninguna prueba en cuanto a afectaciones que el actor denomina como “graves” en la salud por contaminación sónica, ni el “desgaste” que afirma tuvo en su salud física y mental. Recordemos que el Código Procesal Civil, en su numeral 41.1 aplicable supletoriamente por disposición del artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, señala: "41.1 Carga de la prueba.
Incumbe la carga de la prueba: 1. A quien formule una pretensión, respecto de los hechos constitutivos de su derecho. 2. A quien se oponga a una pretensión, en cuanto a los hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos del derecho del actor. (...)". Conforme a la exigencia normativa, no basta con indicar que se ha sufrido un daño, sino que debe ser probado y en la prueba que consta en autos, el actor solo demuestra el nacimiento de sus hijas pero no una supuesta afectación ni de él ni de sus hijas, por ello este daño debe ser rechazado, recordando de igual manera la carga que tiene la parte de no sólo demostrar la existencia del daño, sino de vincularla causalmente a la conducta que le reprocha a los accionados, conforme determinado modelo de responsabilidad, aspectos que no se cumplen en caso en marras.
La representación estatal interpuso las excepciones de falta de derecho, y falta de legitimación pasiva en cuanto a los alegatos de permisos municipales. A la luz de los autos la excepción de falta de legitimación pasiva se rechaza en cuanto contrario a lo que interpretó la representación estatal, esta Cámara entendió que por no existir una pretensión concreta sobre permisos de resorte municipal y ser un tema ajeno al objeto del proceso no se estaba achacando al Estado una posible nulidad en su otorgamiento, por ello se considera que no es necesario decretar una falta de legitimación del Estado en ese tema y se rechaza la defensa. Diferente ocurre con la falta de derecho planteada, la cual se acoge, en tanto esta Cámara ha determinado que efectivamente no le asistía al actor el derecho en esta demanda y se ha procedido a rechazar la demanda en todos sus extremos.-
De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encuentra este Órgano Colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable, por cuanto como se indicó supra, la parte actora ha perdido esta demanda al no asistirle el derecho; por ende, se condena a la parte vencida al pago de ambas costas del proceso. Por haberlo pedido la parte demandada Estado, se condena asimismo al pago de intereses sobre las costas otorgadas, a partir del día siguiente de la firmeza de la resolución que las fije en la etapa de ejecución y hasta su efectivo pago.-
POR TANTO
Se rechaza el documento ofrecido como prueba para mejor resolver por la parte actora. Se declaran sin lugar las defensas de caducidad, cosa juzgada y falta de legitimación pasiva interpuestas por las codemandadas. Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho. En consecuencia, se declara SIN LUGAR la demanda interpuesta por FABIAN BONILLA MURILLO contra el ESTADO y la EMPRESA RUTAS CINCUENTA Y UNO Y CINCUENTA Y TRES S.A. Son ambas costas a cargo de la parte actora y a favor de las demandadas. Adicionalmente, se condena asimismo al pago de intereses sobre las costas otorgadas al Estado, a partir del día siguiente de la firmeza de la resolución que las fije en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia y hasta el pago de estas. Notifíquese.- Amy Miranda Alvarado Claudia Bolaños Salazar Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez ???????????????
AMY MIRANDA ALVARADO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????
CLAUDIA BOLAÑOS SALAZAR - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????
CARLOS JOSE MEJIAS RODRIGUEZ - 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]
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.