Forestry permit not a prerequisite for quarry licenseImprocedencia de exigir permiso forestal como requisito previo para patente de tajo

No.

ACTOR: FAX= 224-6018 (Lic.Bernán Luis Salazar Ureña) N° 001- 2001 THIRD SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. San José, at nine o'clock on January five, two thousand one.

On appeal by Mr. TEODORO UMAÑA GARCIA, of legal age, married, identity card number one-three hundred-one-four hundred eighty-seven, resident of San Rafael de Coronado, represented by his special judicial attorney, Licenciado Bernán Luis Salazar Ureña, of legal age, lawyer, married once, identity card number one-six hundred forty-four-one hundred sixty-one, resident of Escazú, this Tribunal hears Agreement No. 4 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, which states: "It is agreed to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to this Municipality, as a requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change (cambio de uso de suelos). Agreement definitively approved." and by connection and as a consequence, as will be seen, the agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, which is a simple reminder of the aforementioned one, and which in its relevant part states: "Addressing the request submitted by Mr. Teodoro Umaña – Representative of Quebradores Suerres S.A. by Lic. Bernal Salazar, on last August 18, 96, it is agreed to remind him that through Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, he was requested to present beforehand the forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, granted by the Regional Office of MINAE. Since it is still pending submission as of this date, a resolution on the matter cannot be made." Drafted by Judge Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.-PROVEN FACTS: Of significance for resolving this appeal, the following list is deemed accredited: 1.-That within the administrative procedure for the mining concession, which was granted to him through resolution No. R-297-93 MIRENEM at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993, the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García, provided a “PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (ESTUDIO PRELIMINAR DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL)”, coordinated by Geologist Jorge E. Laguna Morales, in which, among other things, the impacts that may occur during exploitation are described, as well as the mitigation and environmental control measures, including natural risks or those induced by human activity, with the aim of defining a safe and rational exploitation of the natural resource in question, as well as producing the lowest possible environmental cost, both from an operational point of view and from mitigation measures. In the pertinent part, among other things, said environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) states: "Any activity that involves the open-pit exploitation of any material necessarily involves a change in the landscape because said activity includes the removal of soil and vegetation. Naturally, the landscape of the work site begins to experience changes from the very moment the first cubic meter of material is moved. Thus, the quarry site gradually begins to take the form of a series of terraces that tend to give the originally rounded surface (in the case of hills or small mountains) a flat and stepped appearance. In this way, at the end of the exploitation process, the original 'protuberance' that corresponded to the hill of exploitable lithic or mineral material will remain as a small sub-plateau with wide, low steps. That is the case of what is happening here. The landscape will be gradually transformed by a process of artificial or induced 'erosion'. In the end, the terraces abandoned as far as little by little the quarry aspect will integrate into the surrounding landscape and could even go unnoticed by people who are not familiar with quarry operations. As mentioned, then, the final landscape will be like a sequence of steps (terraces) with a gentle slope totally reforested with tree species completely native to the area, such as for example laurel (cordia alliodora), surá (Terminalia oblonga), etc.." Further on it states: "The nature of the activity forces the complete removal of the vegetation cover that may exist at the exploitation site. From this point of view, the loss or environmental impact is strongly negative, since we are in the presence of an interesting Lowland Forest with high diversity corresponding to its Life Zone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we know that the exploitation area is truly small enough to conclude that the loss from cover threatens the environment whose composition is very similar to that of the exploitation site. It is worth noting in this study that the vegetation and fertile soil layer in the zone, due to the fact that much volcanic rock openly outcrops at this site, and that is precisely why it was chosen as the exploitation area." In another paragraph, it adds: "It is necessary to think that the reforestation of the area must be done with the same plant species that naturally grow in the zone. This point must be emphasized to the concessionaire, so that he starts thinking about the creation of a nursery that will ultimately serve him to obtain the species, or otherwise he will have to buy the grown specimens so as not to delay the subsequent ecological succession." Further on it indicates: "In reality, the area recovery plan will comprise almost exclusively the addition of improved soil on the abandoned terraces, on which the reforestation processes must begin as soon as the exploitation of lithic material concludes. The foregoing will give formidable scenic beauty to the abandoned exploitation zones, leaving them as a series of low terraces covered by rows of trees native to the area and green grass (the humid climate of the zone is very favorable for the recovery with grass of new soils)." (…) The techniques to be employed for tree planting will depend on the technician to be hired, as well as the fertilization and tree care processes." (files 134 to 181). 2.-That within the administrative procedure for the mining concession, a “HYDROGEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (ANALISIS HIDROGEOLOGICO)” was also taken into consideration, prepared by Hydrogeologist Julio A. Elizondo M., which concluded the following: "The concession area is within the Jiménez River basin. The quarry exploitation area is outside the spring (manantial) recharge zone. The quarry can be exploited to a level no lower than the height of the spring's outlet. Furthermore, the exploitation will not reach the spring itself. The spring is not captured and as far as is known, it is not being utilized by the Acueducto Integral de Guácimo." (Files 97 to 103). 3.-That in said procedure, a "TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPLOITING THE TAJO SUERRE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL POINT OF VIEW (JUSTIFICACIÓN TECNICA PARA EXPLOTAR EL TAJO SUERRE DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA AMBIENTAL)" was also attached, prepared by Geol. Gerardo Ramirez Villegas and approved by Ing. Carlos Vargas Fallas, from the Dirección de Estudios y Proyectos, Departamento de Cuencas Hidrográficas of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. When considering the current state of the requested area, said report states: "the area of application No. 2287, whose total extension is 1 ha. 9266.91 m2, is found to be totally intervened, as a result of old illegal exploitations, which were carried out many years before Mr. Teodoro Umaña acquired said farm. Therefore, in this area there is an already established exploitation front, which is crossed by a rustic road, whose main function is not only as access to the selected site, but also as a communication route for diverse inhabitants, who own their farms in neighboring mountainous lands." On this same point, later it is said: "The area where the concession of File No. 2287 is located was exploited previously and illegally and without planning. Proof of this is the existence of an abandoned exploitation front, which was observed and analyzed during the field verification work. The current land use is composed mostly by the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and by an area composed of a secondary residual forest, where there are no forest species of relevance. Therefore, the site is found intervened as a result of the exploitation actions carried out by man." Finally, among other recommendations and regulatory measures, said report states: "Grant the exploitation permit to the concessionaire of File No. 2287-TAJO SUERRE, whose owner is Mr. Teodoro Umaña Carcía. Said permit is granted provided that the concessionaire complies with the mitigation and recovery measures, presented in the 'Preliminary environmental impact study', prepared by Geol. Jorge Laguna Morales, in addition to other regulatory measures that will be set forth below." Another of the measures that are established in this report is the following: "Both the Environmental Impact Commission and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through the respective Departments, may conduct periodic inspections, whose fundamental objective will be to provide follow-up and specific control, to the realization of the exploitation works and the implementation of the mitigation and recovery works of the area." (files 106 to 115). 4.-Likewise, within the administrative procedure for the mining concession, Official Letter No. DCH-070-94 dated March 21, 1994, from the Head of the Dpto. Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas, of MINAE, (now Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía) Ing. Nimia Rivera Peña was provided, which says: "In reference to your request for alignment of the watercourses and springs that affect the farm of your property, located in Suerre, districts 2nd. Jiménez and 1st. Guácimo, cantons 2nd. Pococí and 6th. Guácimo, province of Limón, farm with cadastral plan No. L-701870-87, the following is communicated: In accordance with Article 68 of the Ley Forestal No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, and Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 20993-MIRENEM of November 15, 1991, PROTECTED ZONES are determined: The areas bordering springs that emerge in hills within a radius of 200 meters, and 100 meters if the springs emerge on flat lands. A minimum zone of 10 meters on both sides, on the bank of all rivers, streams, or permanent or non-permanent creeks, where the land is flat (slopes equal to or less than 30%) and 50 meters where the land is steep (slopes greater than 30%). The AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS of the springs whose waters are used for human consumption. In accordance with Article 70 of said Ley Forestal, in these PROTECTED ZONES, carrying out agricultural or livestock activities or eliminating vegetation is prohibited. Taking into account that the project will not affect the areas previously indicated according to the report called 'TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPLOITING THE TAJO SUERRE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL POINT OF VIEW', prepared by Geog. Gerardo Ramírez Villegas, sent by Ing. Ronald Calvo Zeledón, Head División Estudios y Proyectos de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, and also taking into account the 'HYDROGEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS' prepared by Hydrogeologist Julio A. Elizondo M., it is determined: That the Dirección General Forestal DOES NOT OBJECT to the realization of the project, provided that the regulations indicated in the aforementioned studies are complied with, in addition to the measures indicated in the 'PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY' prepared by Geol. Jorge Laguna Morales." What is in parentheses is not from the original. (files 27 –28 and 117-118). 5.-That the appellant requested from the Municipalidad de Guácimo that a LICENSE (PATENTE) be granted for a quarry with a crusher, to be exploited in district one, Guácimo, between Río Roca and Río Jiménez, 7 kilometers south of the bridge over Río Roca. (files 52 and 53). 6.-That for this purpose, he provided a certification issued by the Registro Nacional Minero of the Dirección de Geología y Minas of the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, – today Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía – dated April 12, 1994, according to which "a mining exploitation concession contained in administrative file No. 2287 is registered in favor of Mr. Teodoro Umaña García, granted through resolution No. R-297-93 MIRENEM at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993, being current as of this date." (file 54 verso). 7.-That he also provided a certification from the Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, – today Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental – dated June 7, 1994, according to which "the Environmental Impact Study File No. 2287, was approved by the Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, through Article III, Agreement B., Session No. 199, of May 30, 1994." (see file 55). 8.- That by appeal of Mr. Teodoro Umaña García, in his dual capacity as representative of Quebradores Suerre S.A. and in a personal capacity, against the agreements issued by the Municipalidad de Guácimo, namely: a) Agreement # 12 , Ordinary Session # 21 of April 6, 1994, which says: "It is agreed to deny the license application for exploitation of a quarry with crusher, submitted by Quebradores Suerre S.A. Represented by Theodoro (sic.) Umaña García, because (sic.) the concession issued by Mirenem is (sic.) granted in the name of Teodoro Umaña García and not in the name of Quebradores Suerres S.A."; b) Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 24 of April 18, 1994, which ordered: "In accordance with Article V of the Código Municipal and in view of the fact that absolutely nothing has been informed, nor coordinated to date with this Municipal Corporation regarding the granting of the quarry exploitation concession in the name of Mr. Teodoro (sic.) Umaña García, the requested license application is rejected. The appeal filed is admitted (sic.) for before the Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo"; c) Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 43 of July 20, 1994, which resolved in the pertinent part: "Based on an inspection carried out in District One Guácimo, between the Roca River and the Jiménez River, 7 kilometers (sic.) South of the bridge over the Roca River, place where Mr. Teodoro Umaña García, requests a license permit to exploit a quarry, this Municipal Council by unanimity, agrees to deny said application because it is located where the aquifer mantles are found"; this TRibunal, through vote No. 4313-95, at 4:30 p.m. on September 8, 1995, resolved: "Por Tanto: The agreements of the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo adopted in Ordinary Sessions No. 21 of April 6, 1994, # 12 and No. 24 of April 18, 1994, are confirmed, and the agreement adopted by that same body in Ordinary Session No. 43, of July 20, 1994, minutes # 50, is annulled. The administrative remedy is hereby exhausted." That for the confirmation of those agreements this Tribunal considered that the Sociedad Anónima Quebradores Suerre S.A., could not be the beneficiary of the license since it was not to that legal entity that the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas granted the mining exploitation permit, but to Mr. Umaña García in a personal capacity. On the contrary, for the annulment of the Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 43 of July 20, 1994, this Tribunal considered in the pertinent part the following: "II.- The situation of Teodoro Umaña García is different, to whom the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, through a resolution at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993 (files 22-26, 47-50, 54 vto., 56-60)), granted a mining exploitation permit (for the extraction of sand, stone, and ballast) for a term of 25 years and on the property where the quarry with crushers would be located. Likewise, this appellant demonstrated, reliably, that the environmental impact study was approved by the Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, in Session No. 199 of May 30, 1994, Article III, Agreement b (files 55, 119 and 194), a resolution that was ratified by the Dirección de Geología y Minas (MIRENEM), through resolution at 8:14 a.m. on June 13, 1994 (files 122-123). It follows from the foregoing, that Teodoro Umaña García, did fully comply with the requirements demanded by the Código de Minería and its Regulations, whereby the granting of the license could not be denied to him. (sic.) Evidently the grounds for the act denying a municipal license are perfectly regulated, since, under the protection of Article 99 of the Código Municipal, 'The municipal license … may only be denied when the activity were contrary to the law, to morality or to good customs, when the establishment had not met the requirements demanded by current laws and regulations, or when the activity, by reason of physical location, were not permitted by the laws, or failing that, by current municipal regulations'. In the instant case, it was accredited, ad nauseam, that the property where the quarry with crushers is intended to be located, is geographically located 'outside the stipulated limits for the two aquifer protection zones denominated Zona Protectora Guácimo (area: 975 has.) and Zona Protectora Pococí (area: 3295 has.)' (Report prepared by the Geo. Gerardo Ramírez Villegas and approved by Ing. Carlos Vargas Fallas, March 1994, files 35 and 110; report prepared by Hydrologist Julio Elizondo M., February 1994, file 102; Official Letter No. DGH-070-94, of March 21, 1994, from Ing. Nimia Rivera Peña, head Dpto. Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas, MIRENEM, files 77-78 and 117-118; Official Letter DA-428 of March 9, 1994, from Licda. Zoraida Moreira Araya, Head Departamento de Aguas del SNE, files 4 and 73), for which reason, in due course, it was concluded that the proposed exploitation would not affect surface or underground water resources, and specifically aquifer recharge areas. Within this predicate, it turns out that the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García, intends to develop an extractive and industrial activity of mineral substances, which due to its geographic location, according to the pertinent technical studies, is permitted by law (Article 68 of the Ley Forestal No. 7174). It is not superfluous furthermore, to note that if in the denial of the license the Municipal Corporation could, eventually, exercise a residual discretion, the same is subject to the legal limits imposed by the legal system, such as indeterminate legal concepts, the principle of reasonableness (elementary principles of justice, logic or convenience) and the univocal rules or rules of exact application of science, technique and experience (Articles 16.4 and 216.1 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). In the sub –lite, obviously, any discretion of the Territorial Administration in the denial of licenses was fully limited by the technical and scientific studies carried out in the procedure initiated to obtain the mining concession, which turned out, in their conclusions, to be contrary to what was agreed by the Municipal Corporation." (see files 248 to 250).

9.-That after said pronouncement was issued by this Tribunal, the Municipal Council of the canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, adopted the agreement that is the object of this appeal and which says: "It is agreed to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to this Municipality, as a requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change. Agreement definitively approved." That subsequently, another agreement was adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, which is a simple reminder of the aforementioned one, and which in the pertinent part says: "Addressing the request submitted by Mr. Teodoro Umaña – Representative of Quebradores Suerres S.A. by Lic. Bernal Salazar, on last August 18, 96, it is agreed to remind him that through Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, he was requested to present beforehand the forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, granted by the Regional Office of MINAE. Since it is still pending submission as of this date, a resolution on the matter cannot be made." (files 290 verso and 301, pieces of evidence 20 and 13, respectively, and files 353 and 362 verso, also pieces of evidence 13 and 20).

II.-Disagreeing with the resolution of the Municipal Council, of November 15, 1995, Ordinary Session No. 66, Mr. Teodoro Umaña García filed the resources for revocation with subsidiary appeal before this Tribunal, for which he argued, in summary, that the forest permit is not a requirement for the license to be granted since if said exploitation needs it, according to the progress of the exploitation, it will be requested from the administrative entity that oversees it, and that likewise, land-use change is not a requirement for the license to be granted. He adds that this Tribunal already revoked the previous municipal agreement, which had been explicit in indicating the requirements that were missing and therefore, upon being revoked by this Tribunal, in his opinion, no other requirement remained pending fulfillment. By virtue of this, he begs to revoke said agreement, besides the legal consequences that this may entail. (file 259).

III.-That by agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo in Ordinary Session # 20, held on July 28, 1999, it was agreed: "to admit the Appeal filed by Tehodoro Umaña García, against agreement # 4, adopted in Ordinary Session # 66, Minutes # 93, held on November 15, 1995. The interested party is summoned so that within a term of five (5) business days counted from the notification, they may appear to assert their rights before the Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo Sección Tercera. The appellant is warned that they must indicate a means and place for receiving notifications within the perimeter of the II Judicial Circuit of San José (Goicoechea) Notify." (file 264 and 267).

IV.-.-That through official letter dated July 3, 2000, the Municipalidad de Guácimo informs this Tribunal that Mr. Teodoro Umaña García, personally received a copy of the agreement cited in the previous point, # 16, adopted by the Council of said Municipal Corporation, in Ordinary Session # 30, held on July 28, 1999, in which he is summoned so that within a term of five business days counted from this notification he may assert his rights before this Tribunal. (file 268).

V.-Prior to analyzing the merits of the matter, this Tribunal considers it necessary to study the point regarding the admissibility of the appeal. In doctrine, it is peacefully accepted that mere procedural or preparatory acts cannot be subject to challenge, since, in principle, they do not produce direct, immediate, or own legal effects. Exceptionally, procedural administrative acts are susceptible to challenge in the administrative and jurisdictional channels when they are assimilated "ex lege" to a final act. Thus, by way of example, Article 345, paragraph 3, of the Ley General de la Administración Pública stipulates that "A procedural act that indefinitely suspends or makes the continuation of the procedure impossible shall also be considered as a final act." Likewise, Article 163, paragraph 2, of the same normative body establishes that "The own defects of preparatory acts shall be challenged jointly with the act, unless those are, in turn, acts with their own effect." For its part, the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa prescribes in its numeral 18, paragraph 1, that procedural acts are susceptible to challenge "… if they directly or indirectly decide the merits of the matter, in such a way that they put an end to that administrative channel or make impossible or suspend its continuation." The repealed Código Municipal and the current one contain rules of similar content, since they established that municipal agreements of mere procedure are not susceptible to challenge (Article 172, subsection b, of the repealed Código Municipal and 154, subsection b, of the current one –Law No. 7794 of April 3, 1998-). On the matter, see vote of the Sala Constitucional No. 4072-95 at 10:36 a.m. on July 21, 1995; ruling No. 176 at 9 a.m. on October 11, 1991, of the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, and vote of this Tribunal No. 9756-99 at 9 a.m. on June 4, 1999. In the sub-lite, the appellant intends to challenge the municipal agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, in which despite the previously resolved by this same Tribunal, as a new requirement to grant the quarry exploitation license, it is agreed to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to said Municipality, a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change. Evidently, it is a mere procedural act but one that produces its own legal effects, assimilable to a final act, since by its virtue, it indefinitely suspends the course of the procedures making their continuation impossible. By virtue of the foregoing, and especially due to the way this matter is resolved, as will be said later, this tribunal considers that said agreement is indeed susceptible to this appeal.

VI.- The substantive matter to consider for the resolution of this matter is reduced to determining if from a strictly legal point of view, the new requirement requested by the Territorial Administration is appropriate or not, namely the presentation of a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, for the granting of the requested quarry license with crusher and if therefore, the Municipality can validly condition the granting of said license, to the prior presentation of said requirements. In this regard, and for the reasons that will be stated forthwith, this Tribunal considers that said requirement is legally inappropriate. Let us see: The grounds for the denial of a municipal license are perfectly regulated, since, under the protection of Article 99 of the repealed Código Municipal and Article 81 of the new Código, "The license municipal … may only be denied when the activity were contrary to the law, to morality or to good customs, when the establishment had not met the requirements demanded by current laws and regulations, or when the activity, by reason of physical location, were not permitted by the laws, or failing that, by current municipal regulations." As this same tribunal previously resolved, through vote No. 4313-95, at 4:30 p.m. on September 8, 1995, the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, through resolution at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993, granted the appellant a mining exploitation permit (for the extraction of sand, stone, and ballast) for a term of 25 years and on the property where the quarry with crushers would be located.

Likewise, the appellant convincingly demonstrated that the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) was approved by the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Studies (Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental), in Session No. 199 of May 30, 1994, Article III, Agreement b, a resolution that was ratified by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (MIRENEM), by means of a resolution at 8:14 a.m. on June 13, 1994. For this purpose, this Court now adds, it was taken into account that the project and the site to be exploited are not located in a forest reserve, a national wildlife refuge, or a protective zone. Specifically, it was demonstrated that it is located outside the limits stipulated by Executive Decree No. 17390-MAG-S, published in La Gaceta on January 21, 1987, for the two protection zones of the aquifers called Guácimo Protective Zone and Pococí Protective Zone. It follows, then, that the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García intends to develop an extractive and industrial activity of mineral substances, which, by its geographical location, according to the pertinent technical studies, is permitted by law (article 68 of the Forest Law No. 7174).

It follows from the foregoing that the appellant fully complied with the requirements demanded by the Mining Code and its Regulations, and therefore the granting of the license (patente) cannot be denied, and we add, nor can it be conditioned upon the presentation of further requirements. Furthermore, in the present case, we have that the granting of said mining concession implicitly entails, logically and legally, the authorization and/or change of land use (cambio de uso de suelo) accordingly. Namely, the exploitation of a quarry with a crusher. Said exploitation permit assumes that mineral substances susceptible to exploitation exist at the site. In the case file, it was accredited that “the area of application No. 2287, whose total extension is 1 ha. 9266, 91 m2, is found to be completely intervened, as a result of old illegal exploitations, which were carried out many years before Mr. Teodoro Umaña acquired said property. Therefore, in this area there is an already established exploitation front, which is crossed by a rustic road, whose main function is not only as access to the selected site, but also as a communication route for various residents, who own their properties in neighboring mountainous terrains.” Likewise, it was demonstrated that “The area where the concession of Case File No. 2287 is located was exploited previously, illegally, and without planning. Proof of this, it was stated, is the existence of an abandoned exploitation front, which was observed and analyzed during the field verification work. The current land use, it was affirmed, is composed mostly of the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and of an area composed of a secondary residual forest, where there are no forest species of relevance. Therefore, the site is found to be intervened as a result of the exploitation actions carried out by man.” It should also be highlighted that if no Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is in force in the canton of Guácimo, nor the corresponding development regulations, among them, specifically, a zoning regulation, the certificate of land use and/or change of land use demanded as a prerequisite for the granting of the license is inadmissible and inconsequential. Besides, the quarry exploitation itself, as recorded in the environmental impact study, equally implies, logically and legally speaking, the eventual felling of trees. Said report is explicit in indicating that “Any activity involving the open-pit exploitation of any material necessarily involves a change in the landscape because said activity includes the removal of soil and vegetation. Naturally, the landscape of the worksite begins to experience changes from the very moment the first cubic meter of material is moved. Thus, the quarry site gradually begins to take the form of a series of terraces that tend to give the originally rounded surface (in the case of hills or small mountains) a flat and stepped appearance. In this way, at the end of the exploitation process, the original ‘protuberance’ that corresponded to the hill of exploitable lithic or mineral material will remain as a small sub-plateau with wide, low steps. That is the case of what is happening here. The landscape will be gradually transformed by a process of artificial or induced ‘erosion.’ In the end, the terraces abandoned as far as exploitation is concerned will be reforested and covered with grass, in such a way that little by little the quarry appearance will integrate into the surrounding landscape and could even go unnoticed by those people who are not familiar with quarry operations. …”. Although it cannot be affirmed that the concession or the approval of the environmental impact study signify an automatic and indiscriminate authorization for the felling of trees, the appellant is correct in indicating that the forest permit is not a requirement for the license to be granted, since in the event that said exploitation requires it, in accordance with the progress of the exploitation, it must be requested from the administrative entity that oversees and is competent for it. Consider again what was previously stated, that the current land use is composed mostly of the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and only the remainder by an area composed of a secondary residual forest. In any case, the need or not for felling and the forest permits are part of the quarry exploitation. This exploitation presupposes having the municipal license (patente) or operating permit beforehand. In other terms, the interested party may not begin the activity without the municipal license, and it is only once the project is in operation that the need or not for felling will be seen. Therefore, these permits are not a requirement that legally proceeds from nor precedes the operating license, but quite the opposite.

VII.- Now then, the exploitation permit is conditioned upon compliance with the approved initial Work Plan that is recorded in the administrative file, upon the payment of the obligations that the law imposes, and of course upon the recommendations imposed by the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Control of Environmental Impact Studies (Comisión Interinstitucional de Control de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental), now the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental), upon approving the environmental impact study, with the aim of minimizing the impact on the environment and guaranteeing its recovery; among others, reforestation actions, as expressed above. That non-compliance may give rise to the expiration and cancellation of the exploitation concession (articles 24 final paragraph, 58, and 63 of the Mining Code). Likewise, that article 99 of the Organic Law of the Environment, No. 7554, establishes a series of sanctions for the violation of environmental protection regulations in the face of conduct harmful to the environment clearly established in the law, and specifically in its subsection f) establishes the possibility of partial, total, permanent, or temporary cancellation of the permits, licenses (patentes), premises, or businesses that provoke the complaint, the act, or the polluting or destructive fact. For its part, the new Forest Law No. 7575, in its article 6, subsection f), attributes competence to the State Forestry Administration to coordinate forest and fiscal control with police authorities, the Municipalities, and the Ministry of Finance. Likewise, both the repealed Municipal Code and the current one are explicit in indicating that “The license … may be suspended for non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for the development of the activity. …” (articles 100 and 81 bis of said Codes, respectively). So that, sheltered by this, the Municipalities can and must also monitor and report eventual non-compliance.

VIII.- As a corollary of the foregoing, being inconsistent with the legal order, it is imperative to annul agreement No. 4 taken by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, and by connection and as a consequence the agreement taken in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, a reminder of the aforementioned.

IX.- In accordance with article 6 of Law 7274 of December 10, 1991, the administrative channel must be deemed exhausted.

POR TANTO:

The appealed agreement No. 4 taken by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, is annulled, and by connection and as a consequence the agreement taken in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, a reminder of the aforementioned. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted. The Municipality should take note of what is stated in considering VII.

Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos Teodoro Umaña García c/Municipalidad de Guácimo vic 2287, was approved by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments, by means of Article III, Agreement B., Session No. 199, of May 30, 1994.” (see folio 55).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>8.- That upon appeal by Mr. Teodoro Umaña García, in his dual capacity as representative of Quebradores Suerre S.A. and in his personal capacity, against the agreements issued by the Municipality of Guácimo, namely: a) Agreement # 12, Ordinary Session # 21 of April 6, 1994, which states: “It is agreed to deny the application for a quarry exploitation license with a crusher, submitted by Quebradores Suerre S.A. represented by Theodoro (sic.) Umaña García, inasmuch as (sic.) the concession granted by Mirenem is issued in the name of Teodoro Umaña García and not in the name of Quebradores Suerres S.A.”; b) Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 24 of April 18, 1994, which ordered: “In accordance with Article V of the Municipal Code and given that this Municipal Corporation has not been informed of, nor has it coordinated absolutely anything to date regarding the granting of the quarry exploitation concession in the name of Mr. Teodoro (sic.) Umaña García, the requested license application is rejected. The appeal filed is admitted before the Superior Administrative Litigation Court”; c) Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 43 of July 20, 1994, which resolved in the pertinent part: “Based on an inspection conducted in the First District of Guácimo, between the Roca River and the Jiménez River, 7 kilometers (sic.) south of the bridge over the Roca River, the place where Mr. Teodoro Umaña García requests a license permit for quarry exploitation, this Municipal Council unanimously agrees to deny said application because it is located where the aquifers are found”; this Court, by means of vote No. 4313-95, at 4:30 p.m. on September 8, 1995, resolved: “Therefore: The agreements of the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo adopted in Ordinary Sessions No. 21 of April 6, 1994, # 12 and No. 24 of April 18, 1994, are confirmed, and the agreement adopted by that same body in Ordinary Session No. 43, of July 20, 1994, minutes # 50, is annulled. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.” That for the confirmation of those agreements, this Court considered that the Corporation Quebradores Suerre S.A. could not be the beneficiary of the license because the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines did not grant the mining exploitation permit to that legal entity, but to Mr. Umaña García in his personal capacity. On the contrary, for the annulment of the Agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 43 of July 20, 1994, this Court considered the following pertinent matter. “II.- The situation of Teodoro Umaña García is different, to whom the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, by resolution at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993 (folios 22-26, 47-50, 54 vto., 56-60), granted a mining exploitation permit (for the extraction of sand, stone, and ballast) for a term of 25 years and on the property where the quarry with crushers would be located. Likewise, this appellant demonstrated, reliably, that the environmental impact assessment was approved by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments, in session No. 199 of May 30, 1994, Article III, Agreement b (folios 55, 119, and 194), a resolution that was ratified by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (MIRENEM), by resolution at 8:14 a.m. on June 13, 1994 (folios 122-123). It follows from the foregoing, that Teodoro Umaña García did fully comply with the requirements demanded by the Mining Code and its Regulations, and therefore, the granting of the license could not be denied to him. (sic.) Evidently, the reason for the act denying a municipal license is perfectly regulated, since, under the shelter of Article 99 of the Municipal Code, “The municipal license … may only be denied when the activity is contrary to law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not met the requirements demanded by current laws and regulations, or when the activity, due to its physical location, is not permitted by laws, or failing that, by current municipal regulations”. In the instant case, it was proven, to the point of satiety, that the property where the quarry with crushers is intended to be located is geographically situated “outside the stipulated limits for the two aquifer protection zones called Guácimo Protective Zone (area: 975 ha.) and Pococí Protective Zone (area: 3295 ha.)” (Report prepared by Geo. Gerardo Ramírez Villegas and approved by Eng. Carlos Vargas Fallas, March 1994, folios 35 and 110; report prepared by Hydrologist Julio Elizondo M., February 1994, folio 102; Official Letter No. DGH-070-94, of March 21, 1994, from Eng. Nimia Rivera Peña, head of the Department of Forest Reserves, Protective Zones, and Hydrographic Basins, MIRENEM, folios 77-78 and 117-118; Official Letter DA-428 of March 9, 1994, from Licda. Zoraida Moreira Araya, Head of the Water Department of the SNE, folios 4 and 73), for which reason, in due course, it was concluded that the proposed exploitation would not affect surface or underground water resources, and specifically aquifer recharge areas. Within this premise, it turns out that the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García intends to develop an extractive and industrial activity of mineral substances, which, by its geographical location, according to the pertinent technical studies, is indeed permitted by law (Article 68 of the Forestry Law No. 7174). It is not superfluous, moreover, to warn that if in the denial of the license the Municipal Corporation could, eventually, exercise a residual discretion, the same is subject to the legal limits imposed by the juridical order, such as indeterminate legal concepts, the principle of reasonableness (elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience), and the univocal rules or rules of exact application of science, technique, and experience (Articles 16.4 and 216.1 of the General Law of Public Administration). In the sub–lite case, obviously, any discretion of the Territorial Administration in the denial of licenses was fully limited by the technical and scientific studies carried out in the procedure initiated to obtain the mining concession, which turned out, in their conclusions, to be opposed to what was agreed by the Municipal Corporation.” (see folios 248 to 250).</span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>9.-That after said pronouncement was issued by this Court, the Municipal Council of the canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, adopted the agreement that is the object of this appeal and which states: “It is agreed to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to this Municipality, as a requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change. Agreement definitively approved.”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That subsequently, another agreement was adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, which is a simple reminder of the aforementioned one, and which in the pertinent part states:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“In response to the request submitted by Mr. Teodoro Umaña – Representative of Quebradores Suerres S.A. through Lic. Bernal Salazar, on last August 18, '96, it is agreed to remind him that by means of Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, he is requested to previously present the forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, granted by the Regional Office of MINAE. As it is pending presentation to date, a resolution on the matter cannot be taken.” (folios 290 back and 301, pieces of evidence 20 and 13, respectively, and folios 353 and 362 back, likewise pieces of evidence 13 and 20).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>II.-In disagreement with the resolution of the Municipal Council, of November 15, 1995, Ordinary Session No. 66, Mr. Teodoro Umaña García filed appeals for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal before this Court, for which he argued, in summary, that the forest permit is not a requirement for the license to be granted to him since, in the event that said exploitation needs it, in accordance with the progress of the exploitation, it will be requested from the administrative entity that oversees it, and that likewise, the land-use change is not a requirement for the license to be granted to him. He adds that this Court already revoked the previous municipal agreement, which had been explicit in indicating the requirements that were missing, and therefore, upon being revoked by this Court, in his opinion, no other requirement remained pending to be fulfilled. By virtue of this, he begs to revoke said agreement, in addition to the legal consequences that this may entail. (folio 259). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>III.-That by agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo in Ordinary Session # 20, held on July 28, 1999, it was agreed: “to admit the Appeal filed by Tehodoro Umaña García, against agreement # 4, adopted in Ordinary Session # 66, Minutes # 93, held on November 15, 1995. The interested party is summoned so that within a term of five (5) business days counted from the notification, they may appear to assert their rights before the Superior Administrative Litigation Court, Third Section. The appellant is warned that they must indicate the means and place to receive notifications within the perimeter of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Goicoechea). Notify.” (folio 264 and 267).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>IV.-.-That by official letter dated July 3, 2000, the Municipality of Guácimo informs this Court that Mr. Teodoro Umaña García personally received a copy of the agreement cited in the previous point, # 16, adopted by the Council of said Municipal Corporation, in Ordinary Session # 30, held on July 28, 1999, in which he is summoned so that within a term of five business days counted from this notification, he may assert his rights before this Court. (folio 268).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>V.-Prior to analyzing the merits of the matter, this Court considers it necessary to study the point regarding the admissibility of the appeal. In doctrine, it is peacefully accepted that mere procedural or preparatory acts cannot be the object of challenge, since they do not produce, as a matter of principle, direct, immediate, or own legal effects. Exceptionally, procedural administrative acts are susceptible to challenge in the administrative and jurisdictional channel when they are assimilated “ex lege” to a final act. Thus, by way of example, Article 345, paragraph 3, of the General Law of Public Administration stipulates that “A procedural act that indefinitely suspends or makes impossible the continuation of the procedure shall also be considered a final act.” Equally, Article 163, paragraph 2, of the same normative body establishes that “The inherent defects of preparatory acts shall be challenged jointly with the [final] act, unless those are, in turn, acts with their own effect.” For its part, the Regulatory Law of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction prescribes in its numeral 18, paragraph 1, that procedural acts are susceptible to challenge “… if they decide directly or indirectly on the merits of the matter, in such a way that they put an end to that administrative channel or make impossible or suspend its continuation.” The repealed Municipal Code and the current one contain norms of similar content, since they established that municipal agreements of a mere procedural nature are not susceptible to challenge (Article 172, subsection b, of the repealed Municipal Code and 154, subsection b, of the current one – Law No. 7794 of April 3, 1998-). On the subject, see vote of the Constitutional Chamber No. 4072-95 of 10:36 a.m. on July 21, 1995; judgment No. 176 of 9 a.m. on October 11, 1991, of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and vote of this Court No. 9756-99 of 9 a.m. on June 4, 1999. In the sub-lite case, the appellant party intends to challenge the municipal agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, in which, despite what was previously resolved by this same Court, as a new requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, it agrees to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to said Municipality a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change. Evidently, it is a mere procedural act, but one that produces its own legal effects, assimilable to a final act, since by its virtue,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>it indefinitely suspends the course of the proceedings, making its continuation impossible. By virtue of the foregoing, and especially due to the manner in which this matter is resolved, as will be stated further on,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>this court considers that said agreement is indeed susceptible to the present appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>VI.- The substantive matter to consider for the resolution<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>of the present case is reduced to determining whether, from a strictly legal point of view, the new requirement requested by the Territorial Administration is appropriate or not, namely the presentation of a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, for the granting of the requested quarry license with a crusher, and whether, therefore, the Municipality can or cannot validly condition the granting of said license upon the prior presentation of said requirements. In this regard, and for the reasons that will be stated below, this Court considers that said requirement is legally inappropriate. Let us see: The reason for the act denying a municipal license is perfectly regulated, since, under the shelter of Article 99 of the repealed Municipal Code and Article 81 of the new Code, “The municipal license … may only be denied when the activity is contrary to law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not met the requirements demanded by current laws and regulations, or when the activity, due to its physical location, is not permitted by laws, or failing that, by current municipal regulations.” As this same court previously resolved, by means of vote No. 4313-95, at 4:30 p.m. on September 8, 1995,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, by resolution at 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993, granted the appellant a mining exploitation permit (for the extraction of sand, stone, and ballast) for a term of 25 years and on the property where the quarry with crushers would be located. Likewise, the appellant demonstrated, reliably, that the environmental impact assessment was approved by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments, in session No. 199 of May 30, 1994, Article III, Agreement b, a resolution that was ratified by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (MIRENEM), by resolution at 8:14 a.m. on June 13, 1994. For this, this Court now adds, it was taken into account that the project and site to be exploited are not located in a forest reserve, national wildlife refuge, or protective zone. Specifically, it was demonstrated that it is located outside the limits stipulated by Executive Decree No. 17390-MAG-S, published in La Gaceta on January 21, 1987, for the two aquifer protection zones called Guácimo Protective Zone and Pococí Protective Zone. It turns out, then, that the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García intends to develop an extractive and industrial activity of mineral substances, which, by its geographical location, according to the pertinent technical studies, is permitted by law (Article 68 of the Forestry Law No. 7174).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It follows from the foregoing, that the appellant fully complied with the requirements demanded by the Mining Code and its Regulations, and therefore, the granting of the license cannot be denied to him, and we add, nor can it be conditioned upon the presentation of more requirements. Furthermore,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>in the instant case, we have that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>the granting of said mining concession implicitly entails, logically and legally, the corresponding authorization and/or land-use change. Namely, the exploitation of the quarry with a crusher. Said exploitation permit assumes that mineral substances susceptible to exploitation exist on the site. In the case file, it was accredited that “the area of application No. 2287, whose total extension is 1 ha. 9266, 91 m2, is completely disturbed, as a result of old illegal exploitations, which were carried out many years before Mr. Teodoro Umaña acquired said property. Therefore, in this area, there is an already established exploitation front, which is crossed by a rustic path, whose main function is not only as access to the selected site but also as a communication route for various settlers who own their properties in nearby mountainous terrains.” Likewise, it was demonstrated that “The area where the concession for Case File No. 2287 is located was exploited previously and illegally and without planning. Proof of this, - it was said - is the existence of an abandoned exploitation front, which was observed and analyzed during the field verification work. The current land use – it was affirmed – is composed for the most part by the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and by an area composed of a residual secondary forest, where there are no relevant forest species. Therefore, the site is disturbed as a result of the exploitation actions carried out by man.” It must also be highlighted that if a Regulatory Plan does not govern in the canton of Guácimo, nor the corresponding development regulations, among them, specifically, a zoning regulation, the certificate of land use and/or land-use change demanded as a prior requirement for granting the license is inadmissible and inconsequential. Besides, the exploitation of the quarry itself, as recorded in the environmental impact assessment, equally implies, logically and legally speaking, the eventual felling of trees. Said report is explicit in indicating that “Any activity that involves the open-pit exploitation of any material necessarily involves a change in the landscape because said activity includes the removal of soil and vegetation. Naturally, the landscape of the worksite begins to experience changes from the very moment the first cubic meter of material is moved. Thus, the quarry site gradually begins to take the form of a series of terraces that tend to give the originally rounded surface (case of hills or small mountains) a flat and stepped appearance. In this way, at the end of the exploitation process, the original “protuberance” that corresponded to the hill of exploitable lithic or mineral material will remain as a small sub-plateau with wide and low steps. That is the case of what is happening here. The landscape will be gradually transformed by a process of artificial or induced “erosion.” In the end, the terraces abandoned as far as exploitation is concerned will be reforested and covered with grass, so that little by little the quarry aspect will integrate into the surrounding landscape and could even go unnoticed by those people who are not familiar with quarry operations. …” Although it cannot be affirmed that the concession or the approval of the environmental impact assessment signify an automatic and indiscriminate authorization for tree felling, the appellant is correct in indicating that the forest permit is not a requirement for the license to be granted to him since, in the event that said exploitation needs it, in accordance with the progress of the exploitation, he must request it from the administrative entity that oversees and is competent for it. Take into account again what was previously stated, that the current land use is composed for the most part by the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>only the remainder by an area composed of a residual secondary forest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In any case, the need or not for felling and the forest permits are part of the quarry exploitation. This exploitation presupposes having the license or municipal operating permit beforehand. In other words, the interested party may not start the activity without the municipal license, and it is only once the project is in operation that the need or not for felling will be seen. Therefore, these permits are not a requirement that legally proceeds or precedes the operating license, but quite the opposite. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR>VII.- Now then, the exploitation permit is conditional upon compliance with the approved initial Work Plan contained in the administrative file, upon payment of the obligations imposed by law, and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>of course, upon the recommendations imposed by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control of Environmental Impact Assessments, today the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, when approving the environmental impact assessment, with the aim of minimizing the impact on the environment and guaranteeing its recovery; among others, reforestation actions, as expressed above. That non-compliance may give rise to the expiration and cancellation of the exploitation concession (Articles 24, final paragraph, 58, and 63 of the Mining Code). Likewise, that Article 99 of the Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554, establishes a series of sanctions for the violation of environmental protection regulations<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>for conducts harmful to the environment clearly established in the law, and specifically in its subsection f) it establishes the possibility of partial, total, permanent, or temporary cancellation of the permits, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">the licenses</b>, the premises, or the companies that cause the complaint, the act, or the polluting or destructive event. For its part, the new Forestry Law No. 7575, in its Article 6, subsection f), attributes competence to the State Forestry Administration to coordinate forest and fiscal control with police authorities, the Municipalities, and the Ministry of Finance. Likewise, both the repealed Municipal Code and the current one are explicit in indicating that “The license (sic.) may be suspended due to (sic.) non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for the development of the activity. …” (Articles 100 and 81 bis of said Codes, respectively). So that, under the shelter of this,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>the Municipalities can and must also monitor and report eventual non-compliances.</span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>VIII.-As a corollary of the foregoing, being inconsistent with the juridical order, it is imperative to annul<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Agreement No. 4 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, and by connection and as a consequence, the agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, a reminder of the aforementioned one.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>IX.-In accordance with Article 6 of Law 7274 of December 10, 1991, the administrative channel must be deemed exhausted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:200%'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>THEREFORE:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>The appealed Agreement No. 4 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, is annulled, and by connection and as a consequence, the agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, a reminder of the aforementioned one. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.</span></p> Let the Municipality take note of what was stated in Considerando VII.

Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos *Exp. 99-000764-161-CA Municipal* *Teodoro Umaña García v/Municipalidad de Guácimo* *vic* That non-compliance may result in the expiration (caducidad) and cancellation of the exploitation concession (Articles 24 final paragraph, 58 and 63 of the Mining Code. Likewise, that Article 99 of the Organic Law of the Environment, No. 7554, establishes a series of sanctions for the violation of environmental protection regulations for harmful conduct against the environment clearly established in the law, and specifically in its subsection f) establishes the possibility of partial, total, permanent or temporary cancellation of permits, **patents (patentes)**, the premises or the companies that cause the complaint, the act or the polluting or destructive fact. For its part, the new Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575, in its Article 6 subsection f) assigns competence to the State Forestry Administration to coordinate forest and fiscal control with the police authorities, the Municipalities and the Ministry of Finance. Likewise, both the repealed Municipal Code and the current one are explicit in indicating that "The license (sic.) may be suspended for (sic.) non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for the development of the activity. …" (Articles 100 and 81 bis of said Codes respectively). So that, under the protection of this, the Municipalities can and must also monitor and report potential non-compliances. VIII.-As a corollary of the foregoing, being in disagreement with the legal system, it is imperative to annul agreement No. 4 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No. 66, Minutes No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, and by connection and as a consequence the agreement adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, a reminder of the aforementioned.

In the sub‑lite, obviously, any discretion of the Territorial Administration in denying licenses was fully limited by the technical and scientific studies carried out in the procedure initiated to obtain the mining concession, which resulted, in their conclusions, in opposition to what was agreed by the Municipal Corporation.”..(see folios 248 to 250).</span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>9.-That after the issuance of said pronouncement by this Tribunal, the Municipal Council of the canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, adopted the agreement that is the object of the present appeal and that states: “It is agreed to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to this Municipality, as a requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change (cambio de uso de suelos). Definitely approved agreement.” That subsequently another agreement was adopted in Ordinary Session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, which is a mere reminder of the aforementioned, and which in pertinent part states: “Responding to the request submitted by Mr. Teodoro Umaña – Representative of Quebradores Suerres S.A. by Lic. Bernal Salazar, on the past August 18, 96, it is agreed to remind him that through Ordinary Session # 66, held on November 15, 1995, he is requested to first present the forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, granted by the Regional Office of MINAE. As to date it is pending submission, a resolution cannot be taken on the matter.” (folios 290 vuelto and 301, evidence items 20 and 13, respectively and folios 353 and 362 vuelto, likewise evidence items 13 and 20).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>II.-Dissatisfied with the resolution of the Municipal Council, of November 15, 1995, Ordinary Session No. 66, Mr. Teodoro Umaña García filed remedies of reconsideration with subsidiary appeal before this Tribunal, for which he argued, in summary, that the forest permit is not a requirement for granting him the license, since in the event that said exploitation requires it, according to the progress of the exploitation, it shall be requested from the administrative body that oversees it, and that likewise the land-use change is not a requirement for granting him the license. He adds that this Tribunal already revoked the previous municipal agreement, which had been explicit in indicating to him the requirements that were missing, and therefore, upon being revoked by this Tribunal, in his opinion no other pending requirement remained to be fulfilled. By virtue of this, he requests to revoke said agreement, in addition to the legal consequences that this may entail. (folio 259). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>III.-That by agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo in Ordinary session # 20, held on July 28, 1999, it was agreed: “to admit the Appeal filed by Tehodoro Umaña García, against agreement # 4, adopted in Ordinary Session # 66, Record # 93, held on November 15, 1995. The interested party is summoned so that within a period of five (5) business days counted from the notification, he may appear to assert his rights before the Superior Administrative Litigation Tribunal, Third Section. The appellant is warned that he must indicate a means and place for receiving notifications within the perimeter of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Goicoechea). Notify.” (folio 264 and 267).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>IV.-.-That by official communication dated July 3, 2000, the Municipality of Guácimo informs this Tribunal that Mr. Teodoro Umaña García personally received a copy of the agreement cited in the previous point, # 16, adopted by the Council of said Municipal Corporation, in Ordinary Session # 30, held on July 28, 1999, in which he is summoned so that within a period of five business days counted from this notification, he may assert his rights before this Tribunal. (folio 268).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>V.-Before analyzing the merits of the matter, this Tribunal considers it necessary to study the point regarding the admissibility of the appeal. In legal doctrine, it is peacefully accepted that mere procedural or preparatory acts cannot be subject to challenge, since they do not produce, in principle, direct, immediate, or own legal effects. Exceptionally, procedural administrative acts are susceptible to challenge in the administrative and jurisdictional venue when they are assimilated “ex lege” to a final act. Thus, by way of example, Article 345, paragraph 3, of the General Law of Public Administration stipulates that “A procedural act that indefinitely suspends or makes the continuation of the procedure impossible shall also be considered a final act.”. Equally, Article 163, paragraph 2, of the same regulatory body establishes that “The defects inherent to preparatory acts shall be challenged jointly with the act, unless those are, in turn, acts with their own effect.”. For its part, the Regulatory Law of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction prescribes in its numeral 18, paragraph 1, that procedural acts are susceptible to challenge “… if they decide directly or indirectly the merits of the matter, in such a way that they put an end to that administrative venue or make its continuation impossible or suspend it”. The repealed Municipal Code and the current one contain rules of similar content, since they established that municipal agreements of mere procedure are not susceptible to challenge (Article 172, subsection b, of the repealed Municipal Code and 154, subsection b, of the current one –Law No. 7794 of April 3, 1998-). On this particular matter, see ruling of the Constitutional Chamber No. 4072-95 of 10:36 a.m. on July 21, 1995; judgment No. 176 of 9:00 a.m. on October 11, 1991, of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and ruling of this Tribunal No. 9756-99 of 9:00 a.m. on June 4, 1999. In the sub-lite, the appellant seeks to challenge the municipal agreement adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No.66, Record No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, in which despite what was previously resolved by this same Tribunal, as a new requirement to grant him the quarry exploitation license, it agrees to request Mr. Teodoro Umaña García to present to said Municipality a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change. Evidently, it is a mere procedural act but one that produces its own legal effects, assimilable to a final act, since by its virtue, it indefinitely suspends the course of the procedures making its continuation impossible. By virtue of the foregoing, and especially for the way this matter is resolved, as shall be stated later, this tribunal considers that said agreement is indeed susceptible to the present appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>VI.- The substantive matter to consider for the resolution of the present matter is reduced to determining whether, from a strictly legal standpoint, the new requirement requested by the Territorial Administration is proper or not, namely the presentation of a forest permit for tree felling and land-use change, for the granting of the quarry license with crusher applied for, and if therefore, the Municipality can validly or not condition the granting of said license on the prior presentation of said requirements. In this regard and for the reasons that shall be stated below, this Tribunal considers that said requirement is legally improper. Let us see: The grounds for the denial of a municipal license are perfectly regulated, since, under Article 99 of the repealed Municipal Code and Article 81 of the new Code, “The municipal license … may only be denied when the activity was contrary to the law, to morality, or to good customs, when the establishment had not fulfilled the requirements demanded by current laws and regulations, or when the activity, by reason of physical location, was not permitted by the laws, or in their absence, by the current municipal regulations”. As this same tribunal already resolved, through ruling No. 4313-95, of 4:30 p.m. on September 8, 1995, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, through a resolution of 9:50 a.m. on October 4, 1993, granted the appellant a mining exploitation permit (for the extraction of sand, stone, and ballast) for a period of 25 years and on the property where the quarry with crushers would be located. Likewise, the appellant demonstrated, conclusively, that the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental, EIA) was approved by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments, in session No. 199 of May 30, 1994, Article III, Agreement b, a resolution that was ratified by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (MIRENEM), through a resolution of 8:14 a.m. on June 13, 1994. For this purpose, this Tribunal now adds, it was taken into account that the project and site to be exploited are not located in a forest reserve, national wildlife refuge, or protected zone. Specifically, it was demonstrated that it is outside the limits stipulated by Executive Decree No. 17390-MAG-S, published in La Gaceta on January 21, 1987, for the two aquifer protection zones called Guácimo Protected Zone and Pococí Protected Zone. It follows then that the concessionaire Teodoro Umaña García intends to develop an extractive and industrial activity of mineral substances, which by its geographical location, according to the pertinent technical studies, is permitted by law (Article 68 of the Forest Law No. 7174). It follows from the foregoing, that the appellant fully complied with the requirements demanded by the Mining Code and its Regulation, with which he cannot be denied the granting of the license, and we add, nor can it be conditioned on the presentation of more requirements. Furthermore, in the specific case we have that the granting of said mining concession implicitly entails, logically and legally, the corresponding authorization and/or land-use change. Namely, quarry exploitation with crusher. Said exploitation permit assumes that at the site there exist mineral substances susceptible to exploitation. In the case file, it was accredited that “the area of application No. 2287, whose total extension is 1 ha. 9266, 91 m2., is found totally intervened, as a result of old illegal exploitations, which were carried out many years before Mr. Teodoro Umaña acquired said farm. Therefore, in this area there is an already established exploitation front, which is crossed by a rustic road, whose main function is not only as access to the selected site, but also as a communication route for various residents, who possess their farms in adjoining mountainous terrains”. Likewise, it was demonstrated that “The area where the concession of File No. 2287 is located was exploited previously and illegally and without planning. Proof of this, - it was stated - is the existence of an abandoned exploitation front, which was observed and analyzed during the field verification work. The current land use – it was affirmed - is composed for the most part by the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and by an area composed of a secondary residual forest, where there are no forest species of relevance. Therefore, the site is found intervened as a result of the exploitation actions carried out by man”. It should also be highlighted that if no Regulatory Plan is in effect in the canton of Guácimo, nor the corresponding development regulations, among them, specifically, a zoning regulation, the certificate of land use and/or land-use change demanded as a prerequisite for the concession of the license is inadmissible and inconsequential. Apart from that, the exploitation of the quarry itself, as is reflected in the environmental impact assessment, likewise implies, logically and legally speaking, the eventual felling of trees. Said report is explicit in indicating that “Any activity that implies the open-pit exploitation of any material, necessarily involves a change in the landscape because said activity includes the removal of soil and vegetation. Naturally, the landscape of the work site begins to experience changes from the very moment the first cubic meter of material is moved. Thus, the quarry site begins gradually to take the form of a series of terraces that tend to give the originally rounded surface (case of hills or small mountains) a flat and stepped aspect. In this way, upon finishing the exploitation process, the original “protuberance” that corresponded to the hill of lithic or exploitable mineral material will remain as a small sub-meseta with wide and low steps. That is the case of what is happening here. The landscape will be gradually transformed by a process of artificial or induced “erosion”. In the end, the terraces abandoned as far as exploitation is concerned will be reforested and covered with grass, in such a way that little by little the aspect of a quarry will integrate into the landscape that surrounds it and could even go unnoticed by those people who are not familiar with quarry operations. …”. Although it cannot be affirmed that the concession nor the approval of the environmental impact assessment signify an automatic and indiscriminate authorization for tree felling, the appellant is correct in indicating that the forest permit is not a requirement for granting him the license, since in the event that said exploitation requires it, according to the progress of the exploitation, he must thus request it from the administrative body that oversees it and is competent for that purpose. Note again what was previously stated, that the current land use is composed for the most part by the opening of an exploitation front carried out in previous times and only the remainder by an area composed of a secondary residual forest. In any case, the need or not for felling and the forest permits form part of the quarry exploitation. This exploitation presupposes first having the license or municipal operating permit (patente). Stated in other terms, the interested party cannot begin the activity without the municipal license and it will not be until the project is in operation that the need or not for felling will be seen. Therefore, these permits are not a requirement that legally proceeds nor precedes the operating license, but quite the opposite. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR>VII.- Now then, the exploitation permit is conditioned on compliance with the approved initial Work Plan that is contained in the administrative file, on the payment of the obligations that the law imposes, and of course on the recommendations imposed by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Control of Environmental Impact Assessments, today National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), upon approving the environmental impact assessment, with the objective of minimizing the impact on the environment and guaranteeing its recovery; among others, reforestation actions, as expressed above. That its non-compliance may give rise to expiration and cancellation of the exploitation concession (Articles 24 final paragraph, 58 and 63 of the Mining Code. Likewise, that Article 99 of the Organic Law of the Environment, No. 7554, establishes a series of sanctions for the violation of environmental protection regulations for harmful conduct towards the environment clearly established in the law, and specifically in its subsection f) establishes the possibility of partial, total, permanent or temporary cancellation of permits, the licenses (patentes), the premises or the companies that provoke the complaint, the contaminating or destructive act or fact. For its part, the new Forest Law No. 7575, in its Article 6 subsection f) attributes competence to the State Forest Administration to coordinate forest control and surveillance with the police authorities, the Municipalities, and the Ministry of Finance. Likewise, both the repealed and the current Municipal Code are explicit in indicating that “The license may be suspended for non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for the development of the activity. …” (Articles 100 and 81 bis of said Codes respectively). So that, under this, the Municipalities can and must also monitor and report any eventual non-compliance.</span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>VIII.-As a corollary of the foregoing, being inconsistent with the legal system, it is imperative to annul agreement No. 4 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No.66, Record No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, and by connection and as a consequence the agreement adopted in Ordinary session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, reminder of the aforementioned.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>IX.-In accordance with Article 6 of Law 7274 of December 10, 1991, the administrative venue must be deemed exhausted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:200%'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>POR TANTO:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>The appealed agreement No. 4 is annulled, adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of Guácimo, in Ordinary Session No.66, Record No. 93, held on November 15, 1995, and by connection and as a consequence the agreement adopted in Ordinary session No. 46 held on August 28, 1996, reminder of the aforementioned. The administrative venue is deemed exhausted. The Municipality is to take note of what is stated in Considerando VII.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:200%'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p> <h1 style='line-height:200%'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES-CR>Rose Mary Chambers Rivas<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></h1> <h1 style='line-height:200%'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES-CR><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></h1> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:197%;mso-hyphenate: none'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES-CR><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <h3><span lang=ES-CR>Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span><span lang=ES-TRAD style='letter-spacing:-.15pt;mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD'><o:p></o:p></span></h3> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:197%;mso-hyphenate: none'><span lang=ES-TRAD style='letter-spacing:-.15pt;mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight: normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style: normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Exp. 99-000764-161-CA Municipal<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style: normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Teodoro Umaña García c/Municipalidad de Guácimo <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style: normal'><span lang=ES-CR style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>vic<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> </div> </body> </html>

No ACTOR: FAX= 224-6018 (Lic.Bernán Luis Salazar Ureña) N° 001- 2001 SECCION TERCERA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. San José, a las nueve horas del cinco de enero del dos mil uno.

Por apelación del señor TEODORO UMAÑA GARCIA, mayor, casado, cédula de identidad número uno-trescientos-uno-cuatrocientos ochenta y siete, vecino de San Rafael de Coronado, representado por su apoderado especial judicial, licenciado Bernán Luis Salazar Ureña, mayor, abogado, casado una vez, cédula de identidad número uno-seiscientos cuarenta y cuatro-ciento sesenta y uno, vecino de Escazú, conoce este Tribunal del acuerdo No. 4 tomado por el Consejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo, en Sesión Ordinaria No.66, Acta No. 93, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995, que dice: “ Se acuerda solicitarle al Sr. Teodoro Umaña García presentar a esta Municipalidad, como requisito para concederle la patente de explotación de tajo, permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos. Acuerdo definitivamente aprobado.”y por conexión y como consecuencia, como se verá, el acuerdo tomado en sesión Ordinaria No. 46 celebrada el 28 de agosto de 1996, el cual es simple recordatorio del antes citado, y que en lo pertinente dice: “Atendiendo la solicitud presentada por el Sr. Teodoro Umaña – Representante de Quebradores Suerres S.A. por parte del Lic. Bernal Salazar, el pasado 18 de agosto 96, se acuerda recordarle que mediante Sesión Ordinaria # 66, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995, se le solicita presentar de previo el permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos, concedido por parte de la Oficina Regional del MINAE. Como a la fecha está pendiente por presentar, no se puede tomar una resolución al respecto”.

Redacta el Juez Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos; y

CONSIDERANDO:

I.-HECHOS PROBADOS: De trascendencia para resolver el presente recurso, se tiene por acreditado el seguiente elenco: 1.-Que dentro del procedimiento administrativo para la concesión minera, la cual le fue otorgada mediante resolución No. R-297-93 MIRENEM de las 9:50 horas del 4 de octubre de 1993, el concesionario Teodoro Umaña García, aportó “ESTUDIO PRELIMINAR DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL”, coordinado por el Geólogo Jorge E, Laguna Morales, en el que se describen, entre otras cosas, los impactos que puedan ocurrir durante la explotación, así como las medidas de mitigación y control ambiental, incluyendo riesgos naturales o inducidos por la actividad humana, con el fin de definir una explotación segura y racional del recurso natural en cuestión, así como el de producir un costo ambiental lo más reducido posible, tanto desde el punto de vista operacional, como de medidas de mitigación. En lo conducente, entre otras cosas, en dicho estudio de impacto ambiental se afirma: “Toda actividad que implica la explotación a cielo abierto de cualquier material, necesariamente involucra un cambio en el paisaje debido a que dicha actividad incluye la remoción de suelo y vegetación. Naturalmente que el paisaje del sitio de obra empieza a experimentar cambios desde el mismo momento en que se mueve el primer metro cúbico de material. Así, el sitio de cantera empieza paulatinamente a tomar la forma de una serie de terrazas que tienden a darle a la superficie originalmente redondeada (caso de colinas o pequeñas montañas) un aspecto plano y escalonado. De esa forma al finalizar el proceso de explotación la “protuberancia” original que correspondía a la colina de material lítico o mineral explotable quedará como una pequeña submeseta con escalones ámplios y bajos. Ese es el caso de lo que aquí está sucediendo. El paisaje se verá paulatinamente transformado por un proceso de “erosión” artificial o inducida. Al final, las terrazas abandonadas en lo que a poco a poco el aspecto de cantera se irá integrando al paisaje que lo rodea y podría hasta llegar a pasar desapercibido para aquellas personas que no conocen las operaciones de cantera. Como se ha mencionado, entonces, el paisaje final será como una secuencia de escalones (terrazas) de suave pendiente totalmente reforestada con especies arbóreas totalmente nativas de la zona, como por ejemplo laurel (cordia alliodora), surá (Terminalia oblonga), etc..” Mas adelante expresa: “La naturaleza de la actividad obliga a remover completamente la cobertura vegetal que pueda existir en el sitio de explotación. Desde este punto de vista, la pérdida o impacto ambiental es fuertemente negativo, ya que estamos en presencia de un interesante Bosque de Bajura con una alta diversidad correspondiente a su Zona de Vida. No obstante lo anterior, sabemos que el área de explotación es realmente reducida como para concluir que la pérdida por cobertura amenaza el entorno cuya composición es muy parecida a la del sitio de explotación. Vale la pena en este estudio hacer notar que la vegetación y capa de suelo fértil en el área de explotación es bastante reducida en comparación con el resto de la zona, ello debido a que mucha roca volcánica aflora abiertamente en este sitio, y es justamente por ello que se escogió como área de explotación.”. En otro párrafo agrega: “Es necesario pensar que la reforestación del área debe hacerse con las mismas especies de plantas que en forma natural crecen en la zona. Este punto debe ser enfatizado al concesionario, para que vaya pensando en la creación de un vivero que a la postre le sirva para obtener las especies, o de lo contrario tendrá que comprar los especímenes crecidos a efecto de no retardar la sucesión ecológica posterior.” Más adelante indica: “En realidad, el plan de recuperación de áreas comprenderá casi exclusivamente la adición de suelo mejorado en las terrazas abandonadas, sobre las que los procesos de reforestación deberán iniciarse tan pronto como la explotación de material lítico vaya concluyendo. Lo anterior dará una formidable belleza escénica a las zonas abandonadas de explotación, quedando aquello como una serie de terrazas bajas cubiertas por hileras de árboles propios de la zona y pasto verde(el clima húmedo de la zona es muy favorable para la recuperación con pasto de suelos nuevos).” (…) Las técnicas a emplear para la siembra de árboles dependerá el técnico a contratar, así como los procesos de fertilización y cuido de los árboles.”., (folios 134 a 181). 2.-Que dentro del procedimiento administrativo para la concesión minera también se tuvo en consideración un “ANALISIS HIDROGEOLOGICO”, preparado por el Hidrogeólogo Julio A. Elizondo M, el cual concluyó lo siguiente: “El área de la concesión está dentro de la cuenca del río Jiménez. El área de explotación del tajo está fuera de la zona de recarga del manantial. El tajo se puede explotar hasta un nivel no inferior a la altura de la salida del manantial. Además, la explotación no llegará hasta el mismo. El manantial no está captado y hasta donde se conoce, no está siendo aprovechado por el Acueducto Integral de Guácimo.”.(Folios 97 a 103). 3.-Que en dicho procedimiento igualmente se adjuntó “JUSTIFICACIÓN TECNICA PARA EXPLOTAR EL TAJO SUERRE DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA AMBIENTAL”, elaborado por el Geol. Gerardo Ramirez Villegas y aprobado por el Ing. Carlos Vargas Fallas, de la Dirección de Estudios y Proyectos, Departamento de Cuencas Hidrográficas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Al considerar el Estado actual del área solicitada, en dicho informe se expresa: “el área de la solicitud No. 2287, cuya extensión total es de 1 ha. 9266, 91 m2, se encuentra totalmente intervenida, a raíz de antes de que el Sr. Teodoro Umaña adquiriera dicha finca. Por lo tanto, en esta área se encuentra un frente de explotación ya establecido, el cual es atravesado por un camino rústico, cuya función principal no solo es como acceso al sitio seleccionado, sino como vía de comunicación para diversos pobladores, que poseen sus fincas en terrenos aledaños montañosos.”. Sobre este mismo punto, más adelante se dice. “El área donde se sitúa la concesión del planificación. Prueba de esto, es la existencia de un frente de explotación abandonado, que fue observado y analizado durante el trabajo de comprobación de campo. El uso actual de la tierra está compuesto en su mayor parte por la apertura de un frente de explotación llevado a cabo en épocas anteriores y por un área compuesta por un bosque residual secundario, donde no existen especies forestales de relevancia. Por lo tanto., el sitio se encuentra intervenido a raíz de las acciones de explotación llevadas a cabo por el hombre”. Finalmente, entre otras recomendaciones y medidas reguladoras, dicho informe expresa: “Otorgar el permiso de explotación al concesionario del Expediente No. 2287-TAJO SUERRE, cuyo propietario lo es el Sr. Teodoro Umaña Carcía. Dicho permiso se otorga siempre y cuando, el concesionario cumpla con las medidas de mitigación y recuperación, presentadas en el “Estudio preliminar de impacto ambiental”, elaborado por el Geol. Jorge Laguna Morales, además de otras medidas reguladoras que se expondrán a continuación”. Otra de las medidas que en este informe se establecen es la siguiente: “Tanto la Comisión de Impacto Ambiental como el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, por medio de los Departamentos respectivos, podrán realizar inspecciones periódicas, que tendrán como objetivo fundamental, darle un seguimiento y un control específico, a la realización de las obras de explotación y a la puesta en marcha de las obras de mitigación y recuperación del área.”.(folios 106 a 115). 4.-Asimismo, dentro del procedimiento administrativo para la concesión minera se aportó Oficio No. DCH-070-94 de fecha 21 de marzo de 1994, de la Jefa del Dpto. Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas, del MINAE, (hoy Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía) Ing. Nimia Rivera Peña que dice: “En referencia a su solicitud de alineamiento de los cauces de agua y nacientes que afectan la finca de su propiedad, ubicada en Suerre, distritos 2º. Jiménez y 1º. Guácimo, cantones 2º. Pococí y 6º. Guácimo, provincia de Limón, finca con plano catastrado No. L-701870-87, se comunica lo siguiente: De conformidad con el artículo 68 de la Ley Forestal No. 7174 de 28 de junio de 1990 y el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 20993-MIRENEM del 15 de noviembre de 1991, se determinan ZONAS PROTECTORAS: Las áreas que bordeen manantiales que nazcan en cerros en un radio de 200 metros, y de 100 metros si los manantiales nacen en terrenos planos. Una zona mímina de 10 metros a ambos lados, en la ribera de todos los ríos, quebradas o arroyos permanentes o no, donde el terreno fuere plano (pendientes iguales o menores al 30 %) y de 50 metros donde el terreno fuere quebrado(pendientes mayores al 30 %). Las AREAS DE RECARGA ACUIFERA de los manantiales en que sus aguas sean utilizadas para consumo humano. De conformidad con el artículo 70 de dicha Ley Forestal, en estas ZONAS PROTECTORAS queda prohibido efectuar labores agropecuarias o eliminar la vegetación. Tomando en cuenta que el proyecto no afectará las áreas antes indicadas según el informe llamado “JUSTIFICACIÓN TECNICA PARA EXPLOTAR EL TAJO SUERRE DESDE EL PUNTO DE VISTA AMBIENTAL”, elaborado por el Geog. Gerardo Ramírez Villegas, enviado por el Ing. Ronald Calvo Zeledón, Jefe División Estudios y Proyectos de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, y también tomando en cuenta el “ANALISIS HIDROGEOLÓGICO” preparado por el Hidrogeólogo Julio A. Elizondo M., se determina: Que la Dirección General Forestal NO SE OPONE a que se realice el proyecto, siempre que se cumpla con las regulaciones indicadas en los estudios mencionados anteriormente, además de las medidas indicadas en el “ESTUDIO PRELIMINAR DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL” elaborado por el Geol. Jorge Laguna Morales.”. Lo que está entre paréntesis no es del original. (folios 27 –28 y 117-118). 5.-Que el apelante solicitó a la Municipalidad de Guácimo que se le otorgara PATENTE para tajo con quebrador, a explotar en distrito primero, Guácimo, entre el Río Roca y el Río Jiménez, 7 kilómetros al sur del puente sobre el Río Roca.(folios 52 y 53). 6.-Que para ello aportó certificación emitida por el Registro Nacional Minero de la Dirección de Geología y Minas del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, - hoy Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía -de fecha 12 de abril de 1994, según la cual “consta inscrita concesión de explotación minera que corre en expediente administrativo No. 2287 a favor del señor Teodoro Umaña García, otorgada mediante resolución No. R-297-93 MIRENEM de las 9:50 horas del 4 de octubre de 1993, encontrándose a la fecha vigente”. (folio 54 vuelto). 7.-Que igualmente aportó certificación de la Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, - hoy Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental - de fecha 7 de junio de 1994, según la cual “el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental Expediente No. 2287, fue aprobado por la Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, mediante artículo III, Acuerdo B., Sesión No. 199, de 30 de mayo de 1994”. (ver folio 55). 8.- Que por apelación del señor Teodoro Umaña García, en su doble condición de representante de Quebradores Suerre S.A. y a título personal, contra los acuerdos dictados por la Municipalidad de Guácimo, a saber: a) Acuerdo # 12 , Sesión Ordinaria # 21 del 6 de abril de 1994, que dice: “Se acuerda denegar la solicitud de patente Representaa por Theodoro (sic.) Umaña García, por cuanto (sic.) la concesión extendida por Mirenem está (sic) otorgada a nombre de Teodoro Umaña García y no a nombre de Quebradores Suerres S.A.”; b)Acuerdo tomado en Sesión Ordinaria No. 24 del 18 de abril de 1994, que dispuso: “De conformidad con el Artículo V del Código Municipal y en vista de que no se ha informado, ni coordinado hasta la fecha absolutamente nada con ésta Corporación Municipal en relación al otorgamiento de la concesión de explotación de tajo a nombre del Sr. Teodoro (sic.) Umaña García, se rechaza la solicitud de patente solicitada. Se admite para ante el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo el recurso de apelación presentada (sic.)”; c) Acuerdo tomado en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 43 del 20 de julio de 1994, que resolvió en lo conducente: “En base a inspección realizada en el Distrito Primero Guácimo, entre el río Roca y el río Jiménez, 7 kilómetros (sic.) al Sur del puente sobre el río Roca, lugar donde el Sr. Teodoro Umaña García, solicita permiso de patente para explotar tajo, este Concejo Municipal por unanimidad, acuerda denegar dicha solicitud por estar ubicada donde se encuentran los mantos acuíferos”; este TRibunal, mediante voto No. 4313-95, de las 16:30 horas del 8 de setiembre de 1995, resolvió: “Por Tanto: Se confirman acuerdos del Concejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo tomados en Sesiones Ordinarias No. 21 del 6 de abril de 1994, # 12 y No. 24 del 18 de abril de 1994, y se anula el acuerdo adoptado por ese mismo órgano en Sesión Ordinaria No. 43, del 20 de julio de 1994, acta # 50. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa”. Que para la confirmación de aquellos acuerdos este Tribunal consideró que la Sociedad Anónima Quebradores Suerre S.A. , no podía ser beneficiaria de la patente pues no fue a esa persona jurídica a la que el Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas le otorgó el permiso de contrario, para la anulación del Acuerdo tomado en Sesión Ordinaria No. 43 del 20 de julio de 1994, este Tribunal consideró en lo pertinente lo siguiente. “II.- Distinta resulta ser la situación de Teodoro Umaña García, a quien el Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, mediante resolución de las 9:50 hrs del 4 de octubre de 1993 (folios 22-26, 47-50, 54 vto., 56-60)), le concedió un permiso de explotación minera (para extracción de arena, piedra y lastre) por un plazo de 25 años y sobre el inmueble donde se ubicaría el tajo con quebradores. Asimismo, este recurrente demostró, fehacientemente, que el estudio de impacto ambiental fue aprobado por la Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, en sesión No. 199 del 30 de mayo de 1994, Artículo III, Acuerdo b (folios 55, 119 y 194), resolución que fue ratificada por la Dirección de Geología y Minas (MIRENEM), mediante resolución de las 8:14 hrs del 13 de junio de 1994(folios 122-123). Síguese de lo anteriormente expuesto, que Teodoro Umaña García, sí cumplió a cabalidad con los requisitos exigidos por el Código de Minería y su Reglamento, con lo cual no se le podía negar el otorgamiento de la patente. (sic.) Evidentemente el motivo del acto denegatorio de una licencia municipal, se encuentra perfectamente reglado, puesto que, a socaire del artículo 99 del Código Municipal, “La licencia municipal … solo podrá ser dengada cuando la actividad fuere contraria la la ley, a la moral o a las buenas costumbres, cuando el establecimiento no hubiere llenado los requisitos exigidos por leyes y reglamentos vigentes, o cuando la actividad, en razón de ubicación física, no estuviere permitida por las leyes, o en su defecto, por los reglamentos municipales vigentes”. En la especie, quedó acreditado, hasta la saciedad, que el inmueble donde se pretende ubicar el tajo con quebradores, se encuentra localizado geográficamente “fuera de los límites estipuados para las dos zonas de protección de los acuíferos denominadas Zona Protectora Guácimo (área: 975 has.) y Zona Protectora Pococí (área: 3295 has.)” (Informe elaborado por el Geo. Gerardo Ramírez Villegas y aprobado por el Ing. Carlos Vargas Fallas, marzo de 1994, folios 35 y 110; informe elaborado por el Hidrólogo Julio Elizondo M., febrero 1994, folio 102; Oficio No. DGH-070-94, del 21 de marzo de 1994, de la ing. Nimia Rivera Peña, jefe Dpto. Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas, MIRENEM, folios 77-78 y 117-118; Oficio DA-428 del 9 de marzo de 1994 de la Licda. Zoraida Moreira Araya, Jefe Departamento de Aguas del SNE, folios 4 y 73), por lo que, en su oportunidad, se concluyó que la explotación propuesta no afectaría recursos hídricos superficiales o subterráneos, y concretamente áreas de recarga acuífera. Dentro de este predicado, resulta que el concesionario Teodoro Umaña García, pretende desarrollar una actividad extractiva e industrial de sustancias minerales, que por su localización geográfica, según los estudios técnicos pertinentes, sí está permitida por la ley (artículo 68 de la Ley Forestal No. 7174). No sobra por lo demás, advertir que si en la denegatoria de la licencia la Corporación Municipal pudiera, eventualmente, ejercer una discresionalidad residual, la misma está sujeta a los límites jurídicos que le impone el ordenamiento jurídico, tales como los conceptos jurídicos indeterminados, el principio de razonabilidad (principios elementales de la justicia, lógica o conveniencia) y las reglas unívocas o de aplicación exacta de la ciencia, técnica y experiencia (artículos 16.4 y 216.1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). En el sub –lite, obviamente, cualquier discresionalidad de la Administración Territorial en la denegación de las licencias, se encontraba plenamente limitada por los estudios técnicos y científicos efectuados en el procedimiento incoado para obtener la concesión minera, los que resultaron, en sus conclusiones, contrapuestos a lo acordado por la Corporación Municipal”..(ver folios 248 a 250).

9.-Que luego de emitido dicho pronunciamiento por parte de este Tribunal, el Concejo Municipal del cantón de Guácimo, en sesión Ordinaria # 66, celebrada el día 15 de noviembre de 1995, tomó el acuerdo, que es objeto de la presente apelación y que dice: “Se acuerda solicitarle al Sr. Teodoro Umaña García presentar a esta Municipalidad, como requisito para concederle la patente de explotación de tajo, permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos. Acuerdo definitivamente aprobado.”. Que con posterioridad se tomó otro acuerdo en sesión Ordinaria No. 46 celebrada el 28 de agosto de 1996, el cual es simple recordatorio del antes citado, y que en lo pertinente dice: “Atendiendo la solicitud presentada por el Sr. Teodoro Umaña – Representante de Quebradores Suerres S.A. por parte del Lic. Bernal Salazar, el pasado 18 de agosto 96, se acuerda recordarle que mediante Sesión Ordinaria # 66, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995, se le solicita presentar de previo el permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos, concedido por parte de la Oficina Regional del MINAE. Como a la fecha está pendiente por presentar, no se puede tomar una resolución al respecto”. (folios 290 vuelto y 301, pruebas 20 y 13, respectivamente y folios 353 y 362 vuelto, igualmente pruebas 13 y 20).

II.-Inconforme con la resolución del Concejo Municipal, del día 15 de noviembre de 1995, Sesión Ordinaria No. 66, el señor Teodoro Umaña García interpuso los recursos de revocatoría con apelación en subsidio para ante este Tribunal , para lo cual adujo, en resúmen, que el permiso forestal no es requisito para que se le conceda la patente ya que en caso de que dicha explotación lo necesite, de conformidad con el avance de la explotación, así se irá solicitando al ente administrativo que vela por ello y que de igual manera el cambio de uso de suelo no es requisito para que se le conceda la patente. Agrega que ya este Tribunal revocó el anterior acuerdo municipal, el cuál había sido explícito en indicarle los requisitos que hacían falta y por ende, al ser revocado por este Tribunal, en su opinión no quedó ningún otro requisito pendiente de cumplir. En virtud de ello, ruega revocar dicho acuerdo, amén de las consecuencias legales que ello pueda acarrear. (folio 259).

III.-Que por acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo en sesión Ordinaria # 20, celebrada el 28 de julio de 1999, se acordó: “ admitir el Recurso de Apelación presentado por Tehodoro Umaña García, contra el acuerdo # 4, tomado en Sesión Ordinaria # 66, Acta # 93, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995. Se emplaza a la parte interesada para que en el término de cinco (5 )días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación, para que concurra a hacer valer sus derechos ante el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo Sección Tercera. Se le previene al recurrente que deberá indicar medio y lugar para atender notificaciones dentro del perímetro del II Circuito Judicial de San José(Goicoechea) Nofifíquese.”(folio 264 y 267).

IV.-.-Que mediante oficio de fecha 3 de julio del 2000, la Municipalidad de Guácimo comunica a este Tribunal que el Sr.Teodoro Umaña García, recibió personalmente copia del acuerdo citado en el punto anterior, # 16, tomado por el Concejo de dicha Corporación Municipal, en Sesión Ordinaria # 30, celebrada el 28 de julio de 1999, en el cual se emplaza para que en un término de cinco días hábiles contados a partir de esta notificación haga valer sus derechos ante este Tribunal.(folio 268).

V.-De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto, este Tribunal considera necesario estudiar el punto relativo a la admisibilidad de la apelación. En la doctrina se encuentra pacíficamente aceptado que los actos de mero trámite o preparatorios no pueden ser objeto de impugnación, por cuanto, no producen, en tesis de principio, efectos jurídicos directos, inmediatos o propios. Excepcionalmente, los actos administrativos de trámite son susceptibles de impugnación en la vía administrativa y jurisdiccional cuando son asimilados “ex lege” a un acto final. Así, a guisa de ejemplo, el artículo 345, párrafo 3º, de la Ley General de la Administración Pública estipula que “Se considerará como acto final también el acto de tramitación que suspenda indefinidamente o haga imposible la continuación del procedimiento.”. Igualmente, el artículo 163, párrafo 2º , del mismo cuerpo normativo establece que “Los vicios propios de los actos preparatorios se impugnarán conjuntamente con el acto, salvo que aquellos sean, a su vez, actos con efecto propio.”. De su parte la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa preceptúa en su numeral 18, párrafo 1º , que los actos de trámite son susceptibles de impugnación” … si deciden directa o indirectamente el fondo del asunto, de tal modo que pongan término a aquella vía administrativa o hagan imposible o suspendan su continuación”. El Código Municipal derogado y el vigente recogen normas de contenido similar, puesto que, establecieron que no son susceptibles de impugnación los acuerdos municipales de mero trámite (artículo 172, inciso b, del Código Municipal derogado y 154, inciso b, del vigente –Ley No. 7794 del 3 de abril de 1998-). Sobre el partícular véase voto de la Sala Constitucional No. 4072-95 de las 10:36 horas del 21 de julio de 1995; sentencia No. 176 de las 9 horas del 11 de octubre de 1991de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y voto de este Tribunal No. 9756-99 de las 9 horas del 4 de junio de 1999. En el sub-lite, la parte recurrente pretende impugnar el acuerdo municipal tomado por el Consejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo, en Sesión Ordinaria No.66, Acta No. 93, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995, en que pese a lo anteriormente resuelto por este mismo Tribunal, como nuevo requisito para concederle la patente de explotación de tajo acuerda solicitarle al Sr. Teodoro Umaña García presentar a dicha Municipalidad, permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos. Evidentemente se trata de un acto de mero trámite pero que produce efectos jurídicos propios, asimilable a un acto final, ya que por su virtud, suspende indefinidamente el curso de los procedimientos haciendo imposible su continuación. En virtud de lo expuesto, y especialmente por la forma como se resuelve este asunto, tal y como más adelante se dirá, este tribunal considera que dicho acuerdo sí es susceptible del presente recurso de apelación.

VI.- El asunto de fondo a considerar para la resolución del presente asunto se reduce a determinar si desde el punto de vista estrictamente legal resulta procedente o no el nuevo requisito solicitado por la Administración Territorial, a saber la presentación de permiso forestal de corta de árboles y cambio de uso de suelos, para el otorgamiento de la patente de tajo con quebrador solicitada y si por ende, válidamente puede o no la Municipalidad condicionar el otorgamiento de dicha patente, a la previa presentación de dichos requisitos. Al respecto y por las razones que de seguido se dirán, este Tribunal considera que dicha exigencia resulta jurídicamente improcedente. Veamos: El motivo del acto denegatorio de una licencia municipal, se encuentra perfectamente reglado, puesto que, a socaire del artículo 99 del Código Municipal derogado y artículo 81 del nuevo Código, “La licencia municipal … solo podrá ser denegada cuando la actividad fuere contraria la la ley, a la moral o a las buenas costumbres, cuando el establecimiento no hubiere llenado los requisitos exigidos por leyes y reglamentos vigentes, o cuando la actividad, en razón de ubicación física, no estuviere permitida por las leyes, o en su defecto, por los reglamentos municipales vigentes”.Como ya antes resolvió este mismo tribunal, mediante voto No. 4313-95, de las 16:30 horas del 8 de setiembre de 1995, el Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, mediante resolución de las 9:50 hrs del 4 de octubre de 1993, le concedió al apelante un permiso de explotación minera (para extracción de arena, piedra y lastre) por un plazo de 25 años y sobre el inmueble donde se ubicaría el tajo con quebradores. Asimismo, el apelante demostró, fehacientemente, que el estudio de impacto ambiental fue aprobado por la Comisión Interinstitucional de Control y Evaluación de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, en sesión No. 199 del 30 de mayo de 1994, Artículo III, Acuerdo b, resolución que fue ratificada por la Dirección de Geología y Minas (MIRENEM), mediante resolución de las 8:14 hrs del 13 de junio de 1994. Para ello, agrega ahora este Tribinal, se tuvo en cuenta que el proyecto y sitio a explotar no se encuentra en reserva forestal, refugio nacional de vida silvestre ni en zona protectora. Concretamente, se demostró que se encuentra fuera de los límites estipulados por el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 17390-MAG-S, publicado en La Gaceta el día 21 de enero de 1987, para las dos zonas de protección de los acuíferos denominados Zona Protectora Guácimo y Zona Protectora Pococí. Resulta entonces que el concesionario Teodoro Umaña García, pretende desarrollar una actividad extractiva e industrial de sustancias minerales, que por su localización geográfica, según los estudios técnicos pertinentes, está permitida por la ley (artículo 68 de la Ley Forestal No. 7174). Síguese de lo anteriormente expuesto, que el recurrente cumplió a cabalidad con los requisitos exigidos por el Código de Minería y su Reglamento, con lo cual no se le puede negar el otorgamiento de la patente, y agregamos, tampoco condicionarla a la presentación de más requisitos. A mayor abundamiento, en la especie tenemos que el otorgamiento de dicha concesión minera conlleva implícitamente, lógica y legalmente, la autorización y/o cambio de uso de suelo conforme. A saber, la el sitio existen sustancias minerales susceptibles de explotación. En el total es de 1 ha. 9266, 91 m2,. se encuentra totalmente intervenida, a raíz de antes de que el Sr. Teodoro Umaña adquiriera dicha finca. Por lo tanto, en esta área se encuentra un frente de explotación ya establecido, el cual es atravesado por un camino rústico, cuya función principal no solo es como acceso al sitio seleccionado, sino como vía de comunicación para diversos pobladores, que poseen sus fincas en terrenos aledaños montañosos”. Asimismo se demostró, que “El área donde se sitúa la concesión del Expediente No. 2287 fue explotada con anterioridad y en forma ilegal y sin planificación. Prueba de esto, - se dijo - es la existencia de un frente de explotación abandonado, que fue observado y analizado durante e trabajo de comprobación de campo. El uso actual de la tierra – se afirmó - está compuesto en su mayor parte por la apertura de un frente de explotación llevado a cabo en épocas anteriores y por un área compuesta por un bosque residual secundario, donde no existen especies forestales de relevancia. Por lo tanto, el sitio se encuentra intervenido a raíz de las acciones de explotación llevadas a cabo por el hombre”.. Cabe resaltar además, que si en el cantón de Guácimo no rige un Plan Regulador, ni los reglamentos de desarrollo correspondientes, entre ellos, específicamente, un reglamento de zonificación, resulta inadmisible e inconducente el certificado de uso de suelo y/o de cambio de uso de suelo exigido como requisito previo para la concesión de la patente. Aparte, la propia explotación del tajo, tal y como se recoge en el estudio de impacto ambiental, igualmente implica, lógica y legalmente hablando, la corta eventual de árboles. Dicbo informe es explícito al indicar que “Toda actividad que implica la explotación a cielo abierto de cualquier material, necesariamente involucra un cambio en el paisaje debido a que dicha actividad incluye la remoción de suelo y vegetación. Naturalmente que el paisaje del sitio de obra empieza a experimentar cambios desde el mismo momento en que se mueve el primer metro cúbico de material. Así, el sitio de cantera empieza paulatinamente a tomar la forma de una serie de terrazas que tienden a darle a la superficie originalmente redondeada(caso de colinas o pequeñas montañas) un aspecto plano y escalonado. De esa forma al finalizar el proceso de explotación la “protuberancia” original que correspondía a la colina de material litico o mineral explotable quedará como una pequeña submeseta con escalones amplios y bajos. Ese es el caso de lo que aquí está sucediendo. El paisaje se verá paulatinamente transformado por un proceso de “erosión” artificial o inducida. Al final, las terrazas abandonadas en lo que a explotación se refiere serán reforestadas y cubiertas de pasto, de tal forma que poco a poco el aspecto de cantera se irá integrando al paisaje que lo rodea y podría hasta llegar a pasar desapercibido para aquellas personas que no conocen las operaciones de cantera. …”. Si bien no se puede afirmar que la concesión ni la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental signifiquen una autorización automática e indiscriminada para la corta de árboles, lleva razón el apelante al indicar que el permiso forestal no es requisito para que se le conceda la patente ya que en caso de que dicha explotación lo necesite, de conformidad con el avance de la explotación, así lo deberá ir solicitando al ente administrativo que vela y que es competente para ello. Téngase en cuenta de nuevo lo que ya antes se dijo, de que el uso actual de la tierra está compuesto en su mayor parte por la apertura de un frente de explotación llevado a cabo en épocas anteriores y sólo el resto por un área compuesta por un bosque residual secundario. En cualquier caso, la necesidad o no de la corta y los permisos forestales forman parte de la explotación del tajo. Esta explotación presupone contar de previo con la patente o permiso de funcionamiento municipal. Dicho en otros términos, el interesado no podrá iniciar la actividad sin la licencia municipal y no será sino una vez en funcionamiento el proyecto que se verá la necesidad o no de la corta. Luego, estos permisos no son un requisito que proceda legalmente ni anteceda a la licencia de funcionamiento sino todo lo contrario.

VII.- Ahora bien, el permiso de explotación está condicionado al cumplimiento del Plan inicial de Trabajo aprobado y que consta en el expediente administrativo, al pago de las obligaciones que la ley impone y por supuesto a las recomendaciones impuestas por la Comisión Interinstitucional de Control de Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, hoy Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental, al aprobar el estudio de impacto ambiental, con el objeto de reducir al mínimo el impacto al ambiente y garantizar la recuperación del mismo; entre otras, acciones de reforestación, como más arriba se la concesión de explotación (artículos 24 párrafo final, 58 y 63 del Código de Minería. Asimismo, que el artículo 99 de la Ley orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554, establece una serie de sanciones ante la violación de la normativa de protección ambiental ante conductas dañinas al ambiente claramente establecidas en la ley, y concretamente en su inciso f) establece la posibilidad de cancelación parcial, total, permanente o temporal, de los permisos, las patentes, los locales o las empresan que provocan la denuncia, el acto o el hecho contaminante o destructivo. Por su parte la nueva Ley Forestal No. 7575, en su artículo 6 inciso f) atribuye competencia a la Administración Forestal del Estado para coordinar el control forestal y fiscal con las autoridades de policía, las Municipalidades y Ministerio de Hacienda. Asimismo, Tanto el Código Municipal derogado como el actual son explícitos al indicar que “La licencia (sic.) podrá suspenderse por (sic.) incumplimiento de los requisitos ordenados en las leyes para el desarrollo de la actividad. …” (artículos 100 y 81 bis de dichos Códigos respectivamente). De modo que, a socaire de ello, las Municipalidades pueden y deben también vigilar y denunciar los eventuales incumplimientos.

VIII.-Como corolario de lo expuesto, al ser disconforme con el ordenamiento jurídico, se impone anular el acuerdo No. 4 tomado por el Consejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo, en Sesión Ordinaria No.66, Acta No. 93, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995 y por conexión y como consecuencia el acuerdo tomado en sesión Ordinaria No. 46 celebrada el 28 de agosto de 1996, recordatorio del antes citado.

IX.-De conformidad con el artículo 6 de la ley 7274 del 10 de diciembre de 1991, debe tenerse por agotada la vía administrativa.

POR TANTO:

Se anula el acuerdo apelado No. 4 tomado por el Consejo Municipal del Cantón de Guácimo, en Sesión Ordinaria No.66, Acta No. 93, celebrada el 15 de noviembre de 1995 y por conexión y como consecuencia el acuerdo tomado en sesión Ordinaria No. 46 celebrada el 28 de agosto de 1996, recordatorio del antes citado. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa. Tome nota la Municipalidad de lo dicho en el considerando VII.

Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos 99-000764-161-CA Municipal Teodoro Umaña García c/Municipalidad de Guácimo vic