Impropriety of Positive Silence in Urban and Environmental MattersImprocedencia del silencio positivo en materia urbanística y ambiental

**File** **File 07-000263-0161-CA** **No. 116-2008.** **SECOND SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** Second Judicial Circuit of San José.— At sixteen hours ten minutes on the second of April, two thousand eight.

On Municipal appeal filed by Nombre71099, of legal age, married twice, businessman, identity card number CED53017, in his capacity as President with powers of unlimited general proxy of the company "CONSULTORÍA JORADRI, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA", developer of the Residential Horizontal Condominium Piedra Grande, this Tribunal hears, as improper hierarchical superior, the challenge to agreement number 6 adopted by the Municipal Council of the Canton of San Rafael de Heredia in ordinary session number 109-2007, held on the sixth of August, two thousand seven, which unanimously resolved:

"FIRST: TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION OF POSITIVE SILENCE, filed by the Company Consultoría Joradri S. A., developer of the project called "RESIDENTIAL HORIZONTAL CONDOMINIUM PIEDRA GRANDE", through its Unlimited General Proxy, Mr. Nombre71099, based on the reasons set forth in the preceding clauses.

SECOND: To instruct the Secretariat of the Municipal Council to proceed to notify the interested parties of this agreement." Judge Fernández Brenes writes; **WHEREAS:** **I.- OF THE PROVEN FACTS.-** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following list of facts is deemed proven: 1.) That without specifying the exact date, but before the thirty-first of May, two thousand seven, the representative of the consulting company Joradri, S.A. requested from the Municipality of San Rafael, Heredia, the approval of the construction plans and the respective construction permits for urban infrastructure of the Piedra Grande Condominium project, Located in San Josecito de San Rafael de Heredia (official communication number 242-2007-DIM-SRH, from the Head of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia, folio 1); 2.) That in response to the above request, by official communication number 242-2007-DIM-SRH, the Head of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia recommends to the Council, "subject to a better technical criterion", the approval of the permit for the construction plans of the "Piedra Grande" Condominium, given that the project "met all legal and technical requirements required by the institutions responsible for its approval, namely the National Institute of Housing and Urban Development (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), Water and Sewer Authority (Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AYA), Ministry of Health, and all other institutions that by law must be consulted, such as the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, MOPT), the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, ICE), the Public Services Company of Heredia, S. A. (Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, S. A., ESPH), the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), the Nomenclature Commission, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Ambiental, Setena), the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, CFIA), among others. It has the water availability granted by the Public Services Company of Heredia, S. A. (ESPH) and has the water connections granted by the Board of Directors of the Public Services Company of Heredia, S. A., according to agreement JD-185-2005. It has the approval of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica, according to registered contract No. Placa11571 of the 31st day of August, 2006. It has the approval of the Urban Planning Directorate of the Costa Rican Institute on the 23rd day of April, 2007. Also approved by the Subdivisions Department of the Costa Rican Institute of Water and Sewers (AYA) on the 4th day of December, 2007 (sic). Approved by the Human Environment Protection Unit of the North Central Region of the Ministry of Health, on the 11th day of October, 2006. It has the general approval granted by the Construction Permit Review Commission on the 7th day of May, 2007. The project has the approved environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) and at the same time the open environmental management stage granted by the National Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), according to resolution No. 116-2006-SETENA, at eight hours and fifty minutes on the 17th day of January, 2006. In addition to the construction plans, Mr. Nombre71099 provides the following documentation: - Photocopy of the property survey plan. - Property registry report. - Stormwater drainage authorization. - Copy of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) and its resolution number 116-2006. - Letter from ESPH with the approval of water connections. - Contaminant traffic study. - Consulting contract from CFIA. - Letter from the Nomenclature Commission. - Letter of land use (uso de suelo). - Copy of approval from AYA. - Copy of approval from the Ministry of Health. - Photocopy of the company's legal identification." (Folios 1 to 3); 3.) That with official communication SCM number 428-2007, of the eleventh of June, two thousand seven, the Council informed the Public Works Commission of communication 242-2007-DIM-SRH, according to an agreement adopted by that body in extraordinary session number 96-2007, held on the sixth of June, two thousand seven (folio 5); 4.) That given the recommendation of the Public Works Commission issued in Opinion 36-CO-2007, on the need to expand the information to obtain a better criterion and issue a pronouncement on the matter, in extraordinary session number 99-2007, held on the twentieth of June, two thousand seven, the Council requested the Municipal Engineer "expand his criterion in light of the events related to the issuance of Voto 04050 of the Constitutional Chamber and the drainage outlets into the Burío River and Quebrada Seca", a decision that was communicated to the Engineering Department on the twenty-second of June following (folios 6 and 7); 5.) That on the twentieth of July, two thousand seven, the representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A. filed a claim that positive silence (silencio positivo) had occurred, by virtue of which he says that at ten hours fifty minutes he drew up the respective notarial act, in which compliance with all requirements and the failure of the municipality to resolve in time is recorded (folios 8 to 11 and 12 to 15); 6.) That in Agreement number 6 of ordinary session number 109-2007, of the sixth of August, two thousand seven, the Council rejected the application for the application of positive silence (silencio positivo) filed by the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A.; which was made known to the interested party at eleven hours thirty minutes on the ninth of August following, by official communication SCM number 671-2007, of the seventh of the indicated month (folios 16 to 21); 8.) That with a brief presented to the Municipality on the fourteenth of August, two thousand seven, the representative of the appellant company filed an appeal for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal against the Council agreement number 6 of ordinary session number 109-2007, of the sixth of August, two thousand seven (folios 28 to 31); 9.) That in ordinary session number 114-2007, held on the 27th of August, two thousand seven, the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael, Heredia, rejected the appeal for reconsideration filed, admitted the appeal before the First Section of the Contentious Administrative Tribunal, by virtue of which, it summoned the appellant before that Court; a decision that was notified to Mr. Nombre71099, on the 29th of that month and year (folios 32 to 36); and 10.) That by judgment number 2005-04050, at ten hours and two minutes on the fifteenth of April, two thousand five, the Constitutional Chamber declared with merit the amparo action brought by Nombre71100 against the municipalities of Flores, Heredia, San Rafael, Barva, and Belén, all of the Province of Heredia, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the North Central Region of the Ministry of Health, the Public Services Company of Heredia, and the Costa Rican Institute of Water and Sewers; by virtue of which, it obligated the defendants to comply with the recommendations given by the Ombudsman's Office in its final reports numbers 1825-23-97 and 09653-23-2000-QJ and the Operational and Evaluative Audit Division of the Comptroller General of the Republic in its report number DFOE-SM-106/2004 (intranet page of the Constitutional Chamber).

**II.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, as it is not derived from the evidence and resolutions provided to the file, the following is deemed an unproven fact: That the appellant had drawn up a notarial act to prove the applicability of positive silence (silencio positivo).

**III.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT.-** The representative of the appellant company (Consultoría Joradri, Sociedad Anónima", developer of the Residential Horizontal Condominium Piedra Grande), challenges the rejection by the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia to consider positive silence (silencio positivo) as having been consolidated regarding the approval of the construction plans and the respective construction permits for the aforementioned Residential Horizontal Condominium Piedra Grande, on grounds of illegality and opportunity, for the following reasons: a.) that they have fulfilled each and every one of the legal requirements, as accredited by the municipality's own engineer, a criterion that is also binding (having recommended the granting of the requested permits); for which reason no other technical criterion is required, and without that local government having, to that effect, requested compliance with any other necessary requirement for the granting of permits and approval; b.) that the municipality has delayed the decision of the matter without any legal basis, as the vote of the Constitutional Chamber is not applicable, since it does not prevent the execution of works, but rather came to regulate them, which the project in question more than meets; c.) that the legal period – two months – has elapsed, so that as of the twentieth of August, two thousand seven, the date on which it is deemed proven that the two-month period established in article 331 of the General Law of Public Administration has elapsed, pursuant to the provisions of the cited number and articles 7 of the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excessive Requirements and Administrative Procedures, number 8220 and 25 of the Regulation of that Law; provisions according to which, a time limit is established for the resolution of administrative procedures; e.) that the decision of the municipality is untimely – having been resolved fifteen days after being filed and not within the period of twenty-four hours –, as well as incomplete. In light of the above, he points out that the Council is prohibited by law from issuing a denial act – as is now intended –, which renders the challenged agreement null and void; and requests that the appeal be admitted and granted, by virtue of which, the challenged agreement must be annulled, the respondent Municipality be ordered to issue an act in accordance with the law, that is, ratifying the existence of positive silence (silencio positivo), starting from the nineteenth of July, two thousand seven, and with it, that the submitted plans be approved and stamped, that it be ordered to pay the damages caused by the illegal action, and that it be ordered to refrain from disturbing the execution of the project.

**IV.- CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT BY THE STATE AND PRINCIPLES THAT INFORM THIS PROTECTION.-** The protection of the environment must be seen in a dual legal dimension; first, as a fundamental right, contained and enshrined in article 50 of the Political Constitution, and from the integrative interpretation of numbers 25, 69, and 89 of the Fundamental Law, which derives from the condition of the human person and tends to guarantee health and ecological balance, giving rise to the so-called right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and second, as a public function, that is, as a true obligation of the State to provide effective protection to the environment that is imposed on the State as a whole – including local governments – and in an integral manner, insofar as it must "guarantee, defend, and preserve the environment", as imposed by the cited constitutional article 50. This obliges taking the necessary measures to prevent attacks on natural resources and people's health, from which the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) must be obligatorily observed; in concrete actions to prevent deforestation, irrational exploitation of natural resources, the preservation of natural beauties, protect wildlife, protect and preserve the public domain assets of the nation, etc. In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber stated in judgment number 2007-2410, at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-first of February, two thousand seven, in what is relevant:

"IV.- It is important to highlight that the reform of constitutional article 50 to include the protection of the environment, in the dual dimension already noted – as a fundamental right and as a public function – is not accidental. Indeed, prior to its adoption by the legislative body, four projects had been promoted to include this protection in the Fundamental Text, but all of them to add to constitutional article 6, and subsequently, article 18 of the same normative body. It was thus considered more appropriate to include it in the Chapter on Social Guarantees, first, because this empowers its defense in the corresponding instances – Constitutional Jurisdiction –, as well as in more expeditious processes (amparo action); as well as subjection to the regulation regime of fundamental rights – by law –, which includes the obligation to respect its essential content. But the second consequence of transcendence is because it is a third-generation fundamental right – in attention to the chronological moment of its recognition, and for being linked to the principle of solidarity, which enjoys the particularity that its injury affects not only the community as a whole, but its individualization is possible –, which, by its content, is closely linked to the productive and economic processes of the community, for which reason it is necessary to link it with the right to development of countries, but which cannot be just any development, but rather that which is carried out in harmony with the environment (sustainable development) so as to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, the application of this environmental principle is directly linked to a parameter of constitutionality of conduct – administrative and private – and of the regulations governing the matter, such as reasonableness – according to the jurisprudence of our Constitutional Court – insofar as its purpose is to tend towards the sustainability of the use of natural resources and the elements that make up the environment, through their 'appropriate use'; and by virtue of which it is clear that environmental protection must be aimed at the appropriate and intelligent use of its elements and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations have the right; insofar as through the production and use of technology, it must be promoted that not only economic gains (freedom of enterprise) are obtained, but above all a favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing them damage or harm, as our Constitutional Court has considered, in its extensive jurisprudence, including from its origins, such as in the supra-cited judgments number 3705-93 and number 2006-17126. By virtue of which, the principle of sustainable development becomes a fundamental parameter of people's quality of life – as indicated in judgment number 2219-99 – insofar as it conditions the actions that man performs on the environment. Finally, it should be noted that the principle of sustainable development comprises three factors that are closely linked: the ecological, the economic, and the social, with which, the State is obligated to design productive processes in such a way as to promote the 'greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country' through the stimulation of production carried out in harmony with the elements that nature provides, for the benefit of the community, in order to procure a dignified life. ..." Thus, in order to guarantee the fundamental right of environmental protection by the State (in a broad and integral manner), a preventive attitude in administrative management is required, that is, the adoption of prior measures and controls, bearing in mind that the decisions adopted can cause environmental damages of impossible or difficult repair, with the consequent affectation of people's health and quality of life, which means that in this matter, subsequent coercion is ineffective. Therefore, at least two of the constitutional environmental principles that affect the public function are of transcendence: the objectification of environmental protection and the precautionary principle (principio precautorio). Regarding the first, as developed by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (starting from judgment number 14293-2005, at fourteen hours fifty-two minutes on the nineteenth of October, two thousand five), it translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to the actions of the Administration and to provisions of a general nature – legal and regulatory –, from which derives the requirement of "linking to science and technique", an element that provides a technical-scientific basis to the Administration's decisions in this matter, and by virtue of which, they limit and condition the Administration's discretion in its actions – in the terms provided in article 16 of the General Law of Public Administration –; and concordantly, article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) for all human activities that "alter or destroy elements of the environment". So that, in attention to the results derived from those technical studies – such as environmental impact assessments –, an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes either the environmental viability of the project or the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, a circumstance that obliges establishing precautionary measures or the rejection of the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of "reasonable doubt", it is mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle). By virtue of the importance and transcendence of carrying out these environmental feasibility studies (estudios de viabilidad ambiental) for projects, works, or human activities that may affect the environment, the Constitutional Chamber itself considered that "the omission of their realization has constitutional relevance, due to the possible affectation of a fundamental right, in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which implies the obligation of the State – as a whole – to carry out due protection of the environment, the resources and elements that make it up, and people's health" (judgment number 2005-14293, at fourteen hours fifty-two minutes on the nineteenth of October, two thousand five). On the other hand, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) finds its basis in article 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of the Rio Declaration, which alludes to the necessary action and effect of anticipating possible damages to the constituent elements of the environment; with which, the implementation of actions aimed at the proper protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources is advocated, that is, through the adoption of all necessary technical or operational measures to avoid, prevent, or contain the possible affectation of the environment or people's health. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage – or an objective doubt in this regard –, a precautionary measure must be adopted, including postponing the activity in question; because subsequent coercion is ineffective in this matter, given that, in most cases, the biological effects are irreversible, where repression may have moral transcendence, but will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment (in this regard, among others, see judgments 2806-98, 2003-06322, 2004-1923, 2005-12039, and 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber).

**V.- CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BY MUNICIPALITIES.-** As indicated in the preceding clause, from the recent reform of constitutional article 50, to expressly enshrine protection in the indicated dual dimension, as a fundamental right and a public function, it translates into specific and concrete duties by the state apparatus – as a whole –, whose essential objective is the preservation and defense of the environment; with which, the State becomes the primary guarantor of the protection and guardianship of the environment and natural resources, insofar as it must guarantee, defend, and preserve this right. It is thus that municipalities, as they are part of the state apparatus – as decentralized entities by reason of territory, limited to the canton, which is entrusted with the administration of "local services and interests", pursuant to articles 168 and 169 of the Political Constitution – have, not only attributions and competences regarding environmental protection, but also, and especially, as constitutional jurisprudence has noted, for example, in judgment number 2001-05737, at fourteen hours forty-one minutes on the twenty-seventh of June, two thousand one:

"V.- CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. In any case, it is necessary to highlight the important role that local governments have in the protection and conservation of the environment, which is not undermined by the considerations made in the preceding Clause. In this sense, it must be remembered that constitutional jurisprudence has been consistent in stating that environmental protection is a task that corresponds to all equally, that is, that there is an obligation for the State – as a whole – to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of pollution, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of the administered. By saying that this duty concerns all equally, it is understood '[...] [both] public institutions, which are responsible for enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; [and] private individuals, complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, the air, and the water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be harmful to the quality of human life' (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours fifty-one minutes on the nineteenth of August, nineteen ninety-four).

In this task, public institution must be understood to include the Central Administration – Ministries –, institutions specialized in the matter, such as, for example, the General Directorate of Wildlife, the Forestry Directorate, the Costa Rican Institute of Water and Sewers, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), and of course, the municipalities, among others. It is from the conjunction of the provisions of articles 50 and 169 of the Political Constitution that municipalities are vested not only with the power but the duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in this sense, it must not be forgotten that it is the constitutional duty entrusted to local governments, regarding the "administration of local interests and services", duties from which arises the obligation to ensure the physical and mental health of people, as well as to protect and preserve the natural resources of their territorial jurisdiction, as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly and consistently recognized (in that sense see judgments numbers 2051-91; 2728-91; 4480-94, supra cited; 0915-95; 1888-95; 2671-95; 2560-96; 4149-95; and 1360-97, among others). By virtue of that generic constitutional competence, local governments are responsible for providing what is necessary to ensure that the enjoyment of public resources – such as beaches, national parks, forest resources, water resources, or mineral resources – is done in a way that guarantees their natural conditions without alteration, and that natural resources and the environment in general can be preserved. From the foregoing, it is clear that municipalities are responsible for exercising the surveillance functions that the Political Constitution and legislation assign to them in the specific matter of environmental protection; a duty that is obviously immersed in all municipal functions, so that in none of its manifestations can it be ignored. Thus, for example, in the elaboration of the regulatory plan, the municipality always has to take into account the preservation and protection of the environment [...] In this sense, in the various conflicts that have arisen, the Chamber has been clear in considering that the omission or negligence in the actions of the town councils regarding the defense and protection of the environment must be understood as constituting a serious breach of their constitutional duties, insofar as it translates into the violation of fundamental rights (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to health); tasks in which the lack of human or economic resources does not justify their non-compliance [...] And although the question has also been raised that there is an evident national interest in environmental matters, this obviously includes the local interest '[...] it is for this reason that in this matter the activity of the Central Government is of the greatest interest for the Nation – which includes, of course, the local interest –' (judgment number 2671-95, at sixteen hours forty-five minutes on the twenty-fourth of May, nineteen ninety-five).

Now, it is clear that the participation of the Government Ministries and other public institutions that have special duties in the protection and preservation of the environment can in no way diminish the generic competence that municipalities have in this matter, since that would constitute an invasion in the sphere of their constitutional competences, by reason of subject matter ("local affairs"), which must translate into the promotion and knowledge of citizen participation. In any case, it must be clarified that the recognition of this generic competence in environmental matters by municipalities cannot imply, under any circumstance, the transfer of the competences assigned by legal provision to other institutions to local governments. So that to resolve the situation of the supposed conflict of prevalence between the national interest versus the local one, the obligation of coordination between the various public agencies arises, so that the superior interest of the Nation prevails. [...]" **VI.-** In this area, special importance is given to the urban planning functions that local governments carry out in their territorial circumscription, based on the special competence assigned to them by constitutional mandate (constitutional article 169) and developed by legislation, specifically in the Urban Planning Law and Construction Law, normative bodies that entrust the entire urban planning law regime at the local level, which includes, not only the preparation and approval of urban planning regulations (regulatory plan and its complementary regulations, that is, the Zoning Regulation, the Regulation on Subdivision and Urbanizations (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones), the Official Map, and the Urban Renewal Regulation), but also matters concerning the granting of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization permits and construction permits, as well as the sanctioning sphere. It is clear that we are dealing with a clear exercise of the "police power of building", as indicated by Nombre71101, in his work Introduction to Urban Planning Law (Editorial Tecnos, S. A., Second Edition, Spain. 1992, p.

101), inasmuch as the granting of construction permits (licencias de construcción) is conditional upon the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban planning regulations; which entails not only prior control (ex-ante or a priori), to be regarded as an enabling or permissive act, such that it produces effects ex-nunc, that is, from its issuance and into the future; but also concurrent control, that is, the oversight activity in the execution of the authorized activity, so that it is carried out in accordance with the granted permit (licencia) or license (permiso) and the environmental regulations governing the activity; which would allow, in the event of non-compliance by the administered party (due to variation of the plans or excess in construction), the revocation of the same, as well as the demolition of the works, under the terms of articles 88, 89 and 96 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones).

VII.- It should be clarified that the exercise of the urban planning function does not correspond to the municipal engineer or architect, in the terms indicated in article 83 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), but rather, as indicated, to its deliberative body, that is, to the Council (Concejo), as the cited provision merely defines a person responsible for the work; under the legislator's intent that such matters be analyzed with technical and objective criteria, which, given the subject matter, is proper to such professionals; so that the wording or literalness of the rule cannot lead to the confusion that urban planning permits (permisos urbanísticos) are granted by the officials indicated in that provision. Note also, as the appealed decision correctly indicated, that in cases where the municipality does not have a contracted engineer within its staff, it must necessarily refer the application to the nearest local corporation that does have one, so that a criterion may be rendered according to the discipline of the subject matter. For this reason, this Tribunal does not find the action of the Council (Concejo) of the Municipality of San Rafael to be flawed, inasmuch as, prior to resolving the requested construction permit (permiso de construcción), it required the expansion of its engineer's opinion; rather, the prior action is absolutely in accordance with the aforementioned constitutional environmental principles, of objectification of environmental protection (tutela del ambiente), as it seeks to base its decision on a technical and precautionary foundation, since, in accordance with what was decided in ruling number 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the municipalities of the Province of Heredia were ordered to adopt the recommendations given by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), in order to avoid the contamination of the Burío and Quebrada Seca rivers, which obliges the appealed party to adopt all necessary measures in order to give full compliance to that constitutional ruling.

VIII.- ON AFFIRMATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SILENCE (SILENCIO POSITIVO).- Specifically, regarding the petition made by the legal representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A., that the municipality of San Rafael be ordered to resolve in its favor the request for approval of construction plans (visor de planos de construcción) for the Piedra Grande Residential Horizontal Condominium (Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande) project, by direct application of affirmative administrative silence (silencio positivo), the following observations are necessary. It is true that a management, claim, consultation, petition, complaint, or appeal filed by an administered party before a public entity generates the corresponding legal duty—for the entity (the Administration)—to issue a ruling on it, which constitutes an expression of the right of response (article 27 of the Constitution) and access to administrative justice (article 41 of the Constitution). It is thus that article 329 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), in development of this duty, literally states:

"1. The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the deadlines of this law.

2.- Failure to do so shall be deemed a serious service fault.

3.- The final act issued out of time shall be valid for all legal effects, unless otherwise provided by law." It is noted that the Administration is not obligated to resolve favorably to the interests of the administered party, since, as Nombre28 correctly pointed out:

"... the content of the response will depend on the factual and legal circumstances that support the petition and may be in accordance with them, either positively, if those circumstances effectively create in the citizen the subjective right claimed, or negatively, if the opposite. But, whatever the content of the response, it must be given and within a reasonable period that allows it to be qualified as prompt and not delayed." (Los privilegios de la Administración Pública. Mimeographed Edition. Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados). University of Costa Rica. 1973. p. 115.)

So that if this response is not produced, it causes serious harm to the due regularity of administrative activity, to the legitimate interests and subjective rights of administered parties, also to the public or social service purpose of the Administration and, in general, to our Social State of Law (Estado Social de Derecho). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the stated duty of response is not always fulfilled. For this reason, Administrative Legal Science devised an institute to compel the existence of a tacit or presumed will of the Administration—the theory of administrative silence (silencio administrativo)—which our legal system expressly incorporates under the forms of negative silence (silencio negativo)—from which the rejection of the filed management is presumed—and affirmative silence (silencio positivo)—which presumes the acceptance of the petition. Thus, the institute of affirmative silence (silencio positivo) is characteristic of Administrative Law and is applied in relation to the granting of permits (permisos), licenses (licencias), and authorizations (autorizaciones) processed before the Public Administration, pursuant to the rules contained in articles 330 and 331 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), which textually provide:

"Article 330.- 1.- The silence of the Administration shall be understood as affirmative when expressly so established or when dealing with authorizations (autorizaciones) or approvals (aprobaciones) that must be granted in the exercise of oversight (fiscalización) and protection (tutela) functions. 2.- Silence shall also be understood as affirmative when dealing with permits (permisos), licenses (licencias), and authorizations (autorizaciones)." "Article 331.- 1.- The period for affirmative silence to arise shall be one month, from the time the body receives the request for approval (aprobación), authorization (autorización), or license (licencia) with the legal requirements. 2.- Once affirmative silence has occurred, the Administration may not issue an act denying the request, nor extinguish the act except in those cases and in the manner provided for in this law." However, it is important to warn that for the applicability of affirmative administrative silence (silencio administrativo positivo), it is necessary not only to verify an omissive conduct on the part of the Administration before a request for a permit (permiso), license (licencia), or authorization (autorización) from an administered party, and its legal provision—in consideration of the subjection of public action to the principle of legality—but also compliance with all the requirements and demands that, in relation to the filed management, the legal system provides; thus, the lack of the standard requirements entails an interruptive effect regarding the operation of this institute, as considered by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in judgment number 6332-94, a criterion that has been adopted by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling number 88, of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and in a resolution of fifteen hours fifteen minutes of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, and by the Third Section of this Tribunal (Contentious-Administrative Law), thus for example, in resolution number 407-2002, of 10:15 hours of April 19, 2002). In addition, it is important to warn that this institute has no operability in relation to environmental matters—as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly indicated, thus for example in judgments number 6836-93, 1730-94, 1731-94, 2954-94, 5506-94, 6332-94, 0820-95, 5745-99, 2000-1895, 2003-6322, and also in judgment number 0397-F-2001 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice—, of which Urbanism Law (Derecho de Urbanismo) forms part—as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment number 2003-3656, based on the premise that it is the legal discipline concerning land-use planning (ordenación del territorio), which encompasses the delimitation of the content of urban property and the exercise of the urban planning function as a public power, by virtue of which, the constitutional principles of the branch of which it forms part are applicable; nor with respect to public domain goods (bienes de dominio público), in consideration of the matter in question—which compromises the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—and the type of good in question—which is imprescriptible, unattachable, and inalienable, inasmuch as, by vocation, it is intended for the use and enjoyment of the community in general—; as our constitutional jurisprudence has considered (thus, among others, judgments number 6836-93, of 08:54 hours of December 24, 1993, number 1730-94, of 15:06 hours of April 13, 1994; and 2954-94, of 09:09 hours of June 17, 1994, can be consulted); and article 4 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), number 7575, of February thirteen, nineteen ninety-six, regarding natural resources. Consequently, in relation to permits (permisos) and authorizations (autorizaciones) regarding urban planning matters, the institute of affirmative silence (silencio positivo) is not applicable, that is, they cannot be deemed granted by the lapse of the period for their response; although they can generate what is called negative silence (silencio negativo), or also called "presumed negative act" ("acto presunto negativo"), pursuant to the provisions of article 261.3 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), which in this matter would constitute the omission of the respective institutions to know, examine, and duly process the applications for permits (permisos), licenses (licencias), and authorizations (autorizaciones) in urban planning matters within the established period for them, from which point, the interested party has the route for its challenge, first in administrative proceedings, and upon the adoption of the definitive act (emanating from the improper hierarch), through the full contentious-administrative process. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appealed Municipality is reminded that the management at hand must be resolved within a prudential period, so as not to incur a violation of article 41 of the Political Constitution.

THEREFORE (POR TANTO):

The appealed municipal agreement is confirmed, and the administrative route is deemed exhausted.

Nombre5180 Nombre65604 Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Municipal Residential Horizontal Condominium Piedra Grande and others against the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia amv Municipal (Improper Hierarch) Residential Horizontal Condominium Piedra Grande c/ Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia A.; which was brought to the attention of the interested party at eleven hours thirty minutes on the ninth of August following, by means of official letter SCM number 671-2007, of the seventh of the indicated month (folios 16 to 21); **8.)** That with a brief submitted to the Municipality on **August fourteenth, two thousand seven**, the legal representative of the appellant company filed motions for reconsideration with appeal in the alternative against the agreement of the Council number 6 of ordinary session number 109-2007, of August sixth, two thousand seven (folios 28 to 31); **9.)** That in **ordinary session number 114-2007, held on August 27, two thousand seven**, the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael, de Heredia, rejected the reconsideration motion filed, admitted the appeal before the First Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, by virtue of which, it summoned the appellant before that Office; a decision that was notified to Mr. Nombre71099, on the 29th of that month and year (folios 32 to 36); and **10.)** That by means of **judgment number 2005-04050, of ten hours two minutes on April fifteenth, two thousand five**, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) declared admissible the amparo action brought by Nombre71100 against the municipalities Flores, Heredia, San Rafael, Barva, and Belén, all of the Province of Heredia, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), the North Central Region of the Ministry of Health, the Public Services Company of Heredia (Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia), and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados); by virtue of which, it obligated the defendants to comply with the recommendations given by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) in its final reports numbers 1825-23-97 and 09653-23-2000-QJ and the Division of Operational and Evaluative Oversight of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) in its report number DFOE-SM-106/2004 (intranet page of the Constitutional Chamber).

**II.- FACTS NOT PROVEN:** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, as it does not derive from the evidence and resolutions provided to the record, the following is deemed a fact not proven: That the appellant had drawn up a notarial act to certify the applicability of positive silence.

**III.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT.-** The legal representative of the appellant company (Consultoría Joradri, Sociedad Anónima, developer of the Piedra Grande Residential Horizontal Condominium), challenges the rejection by the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia to deem positive silence (silencio positivo) as having been consolidated regarding the approval of the construction plans and the respective construction permits for the indicated Piedra Grande Residential Horizontal Condominium, on grounds of illegality and timeliness, for the following reasons: **a.)** that they have fulfilled each and every one of the legal requirements, as certified by the municipality's own engineer, an opinion which is also binding (having recommended the granting of the requested permits); for which reason no other technical opinion is required and without the local government having requested of them, to that effect, the fulfillment of any other requirement necessary for the granting of the permits and approval; **b.)** that the municipality has delayed the decision on the matter without any legal basis, insofar as the vote of the Constitutional Chamber is not applicable, since it does not prevent the execution of works, but rather came to regulate them, which the project in question more than complies with; **c.)** that the legal term – two months – has elapsed, such that as of August twentieth, two thousand seven, the date on which it is deemed certified that the two-month period provided for in Article 331 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) has elapsed, as provided in the cited article and in Articles 7 of the Law for the Protection of Citizens from the Excess of Administrative Requirements and Procedures, number 8220, and 25 of the Regulation of that Law; provisions under the terms of which, a time limit is established for the resolution of administrative procedures; **e.)** that the municipality's decision is untimely – having been resolved fifteen days after being filed and not within the twenty-four-hour period –, in addition to being incomplete. Under the above terms, he points out that the Council is barred by law from issuing a denying act – as is now being attempted –, which vitiates the challenged agreement with nullity; and requests that the appeal be admitted, and declared admissible, by virtue of which, the challenged agreement must be annulled, the respondent Municipality be ordered to issue an act in accordance with the law, that is, ratifying the existence of positive silence, as of July nineteenth, two thousand seven, and with it, the submitted plans be approved and stamped, it be condemned to pay the damages caused by the illegal action, and that it be ordered to refrain from disturbing the execution of the project.

**IV.- OF THE PROTECTION OF A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT BY THE STATE AND PRINCIPLES THAT INFORM THIS PROTECTION.-** The protection of the environment must be seen in a double legal dimension; **firstly**, as **a fundamental right**, contained and enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, and from the integrative interpretation of articles 25, 69, and 89 of the Fundamental Law, which derives from the condition of the human person and which tends to guarantee health and ecological balance, giving rise to the so-called right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and **secondly**, as **a public function**, that is, as a true obligation of the State to provide effective protection to the environment that is imposed on the State as a whole – including local governments – and in an integral manner, in that it must "*guarantee, defend, and preserve the environment*," as imposed by the cited Article 50 of the Constitution. This obligates taking the necessary measures to prevent attacks against natural resources and the health of persons, from which the precautionary principle is of mandatory observance; in concrete actions to prevent deforestation, irrational exploitation of natural resources, the preservation of natural beauties, protect wildlife, protect and preserve the public domain property of the nation, etc. In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber stated in judgment number 2007-2410, of sixteen hours fifteen minutes on February twenty-first, two thousand seven, insofar as it is relevant:

"***IV.-** It is of interest to highlight that the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution to include the protection of the environment, in the double dimension already noted – as a fundamental right and as a public function – is not casual. Indeed, prior to its adoption by the legislative organ, four projects had been promoted to include this protection in the Fundamental Text, but all of them to add to Article 6 of the Constitution, and subsequently, Article 18 of the same regulatory body. It was thus considered more appropriate to include it in the Chapter of Social Guarantees, **firstly**, because this empowers its defense in the corresponding instances – Constitutional Jurisdiction –, as well as in more expeditious processes (amparo action); as well as subjection to the regime of regulation of fundamental rights – by law –, which includes the obligation to respect their essential content. But the second consequence of importance is because it is a fundamental right of the third generation – in attention to the chronological moment of its recognition, and because it is linked to the principle of solidarity, which enjoys the particularity that its violation affects, not only the community as a whole, but its individualization is possible –, which, by its content, is closely linked to the productive and economic processes of the community, for which it is necessary to link it with the **right to development** of the countries, but which, cannot be just any, but rather that which is carried out in harmony with the environment (**sustainable development**) so that a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is guaranteed. Thus, the application of this environmental principle is directly linked to a constitutionality parameter of the conduct – administrative and of individuals – and of the regulations governing the matter, such as **reasonableness** – according to the jurisprudential development of our Constitutional Court – insofar as its purpose is to tend towards the **sustainability of the use of natural resources and of the elements that make up the environment**, through their 'adequate use'; and by virtue of which it is clear that the protection of the environment must be directed towards the adequate and intelligent utilization of its elements and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political order relationships, in order to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations have a right; insofar as through the production and use of technology is how it should be promoted that not only economic gains are obtained (freedom of enterprise) but above all a development and favorable evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing damage or harm to them, as our Constitutional Court has considered, in its extensive jurisprudence, even from its origins, thus in the supra-cited judgments number 3705-93 and number 2006-17126. By virtue of which, the principle of sustainable development constitutes a **fundamental parameter of the quality of life of persons** – as indicated in judgment number 2219-99 – insofar as it conditions the action that man carries out on the environment. Finally, it is worth noting that the principle of sustainable development comprises three factors that are closely linked, **the ecological, the economic, and the social**, with which, it is obligatory for the State the design of productive processes in such a way that 'greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country' is promoted through the stimulation of production carried out in harmony with the elements that nature provides, for the benefit of the community, in order to procure a dignified life. ..." Thus, in order to guarantee the fundamental right of environmental protection by the State (in a broad and comprehensive manner), a **preventive attitude in administrative management is required**, that is, the adoption of prior measures and controls, in consideration that the decisions adopted can cause damage to the environment of impossible or difficult repair, with the consequent affectation of the health and quality of life of persons, which makes subsequent coercion ineffective in this matter. For this reason, at least two of the **constitutional environmental principles that affect the public function** are of importance, these are, **that of the objectivization of environmental protection and the precautionary principle**. Regarding the former, as developed by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (from judgment number 14293-2005, of fourteen hours fifty-two minutes on October nineteenth, two thousand five), it translates into the need to support decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to the actions of the Administration and to provisions of a general nature – legal and regulatory –, from which derives the requirement of "**linkage to science and technique**", an element that provides a technical-scientific basis for the decisions of the Administration in this matter, and in such virtue, limit and condition the discretion of the Administration in its actions – in the terms provided in Article 16 of the General Law of Public Administration –; and concordantly, Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) for all human activities that "*alter or destroy elements of the environment*". So that in attention to the results derived from those technical studies – such as environmental impact ones –, an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes, either the environmental viability of the project or the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or the health of persons, a circumstance that obliges establishing precautionary measures or the rejection of the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of a "*reasonable doubt*" it is obligatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle). By virtue of the importance and transcendence that the carrying out of these environmental viability studies has regarding projects, works, or human activities that may affect the environment, the Constitutional Chamber itself considered that "**the omission of its realization has constitutional relevance**, due to the possible affectation of a fundamental right, in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which implies the obligation of the State – as a whole – to carry out the due protection of the environment, the resources and elements that comprise it, and the health of persons" (judgment number 2005-14293, of fourteen hours fifty-two minutes on October nineteenth, two thousand five). For its part, the precautionary principle finds its basis in Article 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of the Rio Declaration, which alludes to the necessary action and effect of anticipating possible damage to the integral elements of the environment; with which, the implementation of actions tending towards the due protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources is advocated, that is, through the adoption of all technical or operational measures necessary to avoid, prevent, or contain the possible affectation of the environment or the health of persons. In this way, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage – or an objective doubt in this regard –, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even postpone the activity in question; because subsequent coercion is ineffective in this matter, given that, in the majority of cases, the biological effects are irreversible, where repression may have moral transcendence, but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment (in this regard, among others, see judgments 2806-98, 2003-06322, 2004-1923, 2005-12039 and 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber).

**V.- OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY MUNICIPALITIES.-** As indicated in the preceding recital (Considerando), from the recent reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, to expressly enshrine the protection in the indicated double dimension, as a fundamental right and public function, it translates into specific and concrete tasks for the state apparatus – as a whole –, whose essential objective is the preservation and defense of the environment; with which, the State becomes the **first guarantor of the protection and defense of the environment and natural resources**, insofar as it must **guarantee, defend, and preserve this right**. It is thus, that municipalities, insofar as they form part of the state apparatus – as decentralized entities by reason of territory, limited to the canton, which is entrusted with the administration of "*local services and interests*," under the terms of Articles 168 and 169 of the Political Constitution – have, not only attributions and competences regarding environmental protection, but also, and especially, as constitutional jurisprudence has pointed out, for example, in judgment number 2001-05737, of fourteen hours forty-one minutes on June twenty-seventh, two thousand one:

"***V.- CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.** In any case, it is necessary to highlight the important role that local governments have with respect to the protection and conservation of the environment, which is not harmed by the considerations made in the previous Recital.*" In this regard, it must be recalled that constitutional case law has been constant in stating that <span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, meaning that there is an obligation for the State –as a whole– to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of the administered.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> By stating that this duty concerns everyone equally, it is understood</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 113.4pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">'[...] [both] </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">public institutions</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, which are responsible for enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; [and] </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">private individuals</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, by complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, air, and water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be detrimental to the quality of human life' (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours fifty-one minutes on August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">I</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">n this task, public institution must be understood to include the Central Administration –Ministries–, specialized institutions in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), and of course, the municipalities, among others. It is from the conjunction of the provisions of Articles 50 and 169 of the Political Constitution that municipalities have not only the power but also the duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in this sense, it must not be forgotten that it is the constitutional task entrusted to local governments, with respect to the "administration of local interests and services," duties from which arises the obligation to ensure the physical and mental health of persons, as well as to protect and preserve the natural resources within their territorial jurisdiction, as constitutional case law has repeatedly and constantly recognized (in this sense, see judgments numbers 2051-91; 2728-91; 4480-94, cited above; 0915-95; 1888-95; 2671-95; 2560-96; 4149-95; and 1360-97, among others). By virtue of this generic constitutional competence, local governments are responsible for arranging what is necessary to ensure that the enjoyment of public resources –such as beaches, national parks, forest resources, water resources, or mineral resources– is carried out in such a way that their natural conditions are guaranteed without alteration, and that natural resources and the environment in general can be preserved. From the foregoing, it is clear that municipalities are responsible for exercising the oversight functions assigned to them by the Political Constitution and legislation in the specific area of environmental protection; a duty that is obviously immersed in all municipal functions, such that in none of its manifestations can it be disregarded. Thus, for example, in the preparation of the regulatory plan (plan regulador), the municipality must always take into account the preservation and protection of the environment </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">[...] </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">In this sense, in the various conflicts that have arisen, the Chamber has been clear in considering that the omission or negligence in the action of the municipal councils regarding the defense and protection of the environment must be understood as a serious breach of their constitutional duties, insofar as it results in the violation of fundamental rights (the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to health); tasks in which the lack of human or economic resources do not constitute justification for their non-compliance </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">[...] </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">And although the question has also been raised that there is an evident national interest in environmental matters, this obviously includes the local interest</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 113.4pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">'</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">[...] </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">it is for this reason that in this matter, the activity of the Central Government is of the greatest interest to the Nation –</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">which includes, of course, the local interest</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">–' (judgment number 2671-95, at sixteen hours forty-five minutes on May twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-five).</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Having said this, it is clear that the participation of the Government Ministries and other public institutions that have special tasks in the protection and preservation of the environment can in no way detract from the generic competence that municipalities have in this matter, given that this would constitute an invasion into the sphere of their constitutional competences, by reason of subject matter ("local matters"), which must translate into the promotion and knowledge of citizen participation. In any case, it must be clarified that the recognition of this generic competence of municipalities in environmental matters cannot imply, under any circumstance, the transfer of competences assigned by legal provision to other institutions to local governments. So, to resolve the situation of the supposed conflict of prevalence between the national interest versus the local interest, the obligation of coordination among the various public agencies arises, so that the superior interest of the Nation prevails.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> [...]"</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VI.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">In this context, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the urban planning functions that local governments perform within their territorial circumscription take on special importance</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, based on the special competence assigned to them by constitutional mandate (Article 169 of the Constitution)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> and developed by legislation, specifically in the Ley de Planificación Urbana and Ley de Construcciones, normative bodies that entrust the entire regime of urban planning law at the local level, which includes not only the elaboration and approval of urban planning regulations (regulatory plan (plan regulador) and its complementary regulations, that is, the Zoning Regulation (Reglamento de Zonificación), the Subdivision and Urbanization Regulation (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones), the Official Map (Mapa Oficial), and the Urban Renewal Regulation (Reglamento de Renovación Urbana)), but also matters concerning the granting of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization permits and construction permits, as well as the sanctioning sphere. It is clear that we are dealing with a clear exercise of the "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">police power of building</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">," as indicated by Nombre71101</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, in his work </span><span style="font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> (Editorial Tecnos, S. A. Second Edition, Spain. 1992, p. 101), insofar as the granting of building permits is conditioned on the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban planning regulations; which entails a control that is not only </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">prior</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(ex-ante or a priori)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, which must be considered as an act of </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">habilitación or permission</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, such that it produces effects </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">ex-nunc</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, that is, from its issuance and into the future; but also </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">concomitant</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, that is, the oversight activity during the execution of the authorized activity, to ensure it is carried out in accordance with the granted license or permit and the environmental regulations governing the activity; which would allow, in the event of non-compliance by the administered (due to variation of the plans or excess in construction), its revocation, as well as the demolition of the works, under the terms of Articles 88,</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> 89 and 96 of the Ley de Construcciones. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VII.- </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">It is worth clarifying that the exercise of the urban planning function does not correspond to the municipal engineer or architect, in the terms indicated in Article 83 of the Ley de Construcciones, but rather, as indicated, to its deliberative body, that is, the Concejo, given that the cited article defines a person responsible for the work; in the spirit of the legislator that such procedures be analyzed with a technical and objective criterion, which, by subject matter, is proper to such professionals; so the wording or literal interpretation of the rule cannot lead to the confusion that urban planning permits are granted by the officials indicated in that provision. Note also, as the appealed decision correctly indicated, that in cases where the municipality does not have an engineer hired within its staff, it </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">must necessarily</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> refer the request to the nearest local corporation that does have one, so that it may render a criterion according to the discipline of the matter. For this reason, this Court does not deem the action of the Concejo of the Municipality of San Rafael to be vitiated, insofar as, prior to deciding on the requested building permit, it required the expansion of its engineer's criterion; rather, the previous action is absolutely in accordance with the indicated constitutional environmental principles, of </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">objectivization of environmental protection</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">, insofar as it seeks to base its decision on a technical and </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">precautionary</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> foundation, since in accordance with the decision in judgment number 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the municipalities of the Province of Heredia were ordered to adopt the recommendations given by the Defensoría de los Habitantes and the Contraloría General de la República, in order to avoid the contamination of the Burío River and Quebrada Seca, which obliges the appealed party to adopt </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">all necessary measures to fully comply with that constitutional ruling.</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VIII.- REGARDING POSITIVE SILENCE.- </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">Specifically, regarding the request made by the legal representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A., that the Municipality of San Rafael be ordered to resolve in its favor the petition for approval (visado) of construction plans for the Piedra Grande Residential Horizontal Condominium project, by direct application of positive silence, it is necessary to make the following observations. It is certain that upon a request, claim, query, petition, complaint, or appeal filed by the administered before a public entity, the corresponding legal duty is generated –for the latter (the Administration)– to issue a ruling on it, which constitutes an expression of the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">right of response</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> (Article 27 of the Constitution) and of </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">access to administrative justice</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> (Article 41 of the Fundamental Charter). Thus, Article 329 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, in development of this duty, literally provides:</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"1. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the time limits set forth in this law.</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">2.- Failure to do so shall be deemed a serious fault of service.</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">3.- The final act issued outside the time limit shall be valid for all legal purposes, unless otherwise provided by </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">law."</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">It is noted that the Administration is not obliged to resolve favorably to the interests of the administered, since, as Nombre28</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">correctly pointed out: </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"... </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the content of the response will depend on the circumstances of fact and law supporting the petition and may be in accordance with them, either positive, if those circumstances effectively create in the citizen the subjective right claimed, or negative, if they do not.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> But, whatever the content of the response, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">it must be given and within a reasonable time that allows it to be qualified as prompt and not as delayed</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">." (</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Los privilegios de la Administración Pública</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">. Mimeographed Edition. Colegio de Abogados. Universidad de Costa Rica. 1973. p. 115.)</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">So that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">if this response is not produced, it causes serious harm to the required regularity of administrative activity, to the legitimate interests and subjective rights of the administered, and also to the purpose of public or social service of the Administration and, in general, to our Social State of Law</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the stated duty of response is not always fulfilled. For this reason, Administrative Legal Science devised an institute to compel the existence of a </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">tacit will</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> or</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> presumed will</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> of the Administration –theory of administrative silence– and which our legal system expressly includes under the forms of negative silence –from which the rejection of the filed request is presumed– and positive silence –which presumes the acceptance of the petition. Thus, the institute of positive silence is characteristic of Administrative Law and applies in relation to the granting of permits, licenses, and authorizations processed before the Public Administration, in accordance with the rules contained in Articles 330 and 331 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which textually provide:</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Article 330.-</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">1.- The silence of the Administration shall be understood as positive when expressly established or when dealing with authorizations or approvals that must be granted in the exercise of oversight and guardianship functions.</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">2.- Silence shall also be understood as positive when dealing with permits, licenses, and authorizations.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Article 331.-</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">1.- The time limit for positive silence to arise shall be one month, from the moment the body receives the request for approval, authorization, or license with the legal requirements.</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 56.7pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">2.- Once positive silence has occurred, the Administration may not issue a denegatory act of the petition, nor extinguish the act except in those cases and in the manner provided for in this law.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">"</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">Now, it is important to note that for positive administrative silence to be applicable, it is necessary not only that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">an omission on the part of the Administration be verified</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> regarding a request for a permit, license, or authorization from an administered, and </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">its legal provision exists</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> –in consideration of the subjection of public action to the</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> principle of legality–, but also that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">all the requisites and requirements that the legal system</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">establishes in relation to the filed request are complied with</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">; thus, the lack of the mandatory requisites entails an interruption effect regarding the</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> operation of this institute, as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) considered in judgment number 6332-94, a criterion that has been adopted by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), in ruling number 88, of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and in a resolution at fifteen hours fifteen minutes on October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, and by the Third Section of this Court (Contentious-Administrative), for example, in resolution number 407-2002, at 10:15 hours on April 19, 2002). Furthermore, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">it is important to note that this institute does not operate in relation to environmental matters</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> –as constitutional case law has repeatedly indicated, for example, in judgments numbers 6836-93, 1730-94, 1731-94, 2954-94, 5506-94, 6332-94, 0820-95, 5745-99, 2000-1895, 2003-6322, and also in judgment number 0397-F-2001 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice–, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">of which Urban Planning Law forms part </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">–as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) indicated in judgment number 2003-3656, based on the fact that it concerns the legal discipline pertaining to land-use planning, which includes the delimitation of the content of urban property and the exercise of the urban planning function as a public power, by virtue of which, the constitutional principles of the branch of which it forms part are applicable to it;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> nor does it apply regarding public domain assets, in consideration of the subject matter in question</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101"> –which compromises the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment– and the type of asset in question –which is imprescriptible, unseizable, and inalienable, insofar as, by vocation, it is available for the use and enjoyment of the community in general–; as our constitutional case law has considered (thus, among others, judgments number 6836-93, at 08:54 hours on December 24, 1993, number 1730-94, at 15:06 hours on April 13, 1994; and 2954-94, at 09:09 hours on June 17, 1994, can be consulted); and Article 4 of the Ley Forestal, number 7575, of February thirteenth, nineteen ninety-six, regarding natural resources. Consequently, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">in relation to permits and authorizations concerning urban planning matters, the institute of positive silence is not applicable, that is, they cannot be deemed granted by the passage of the time limit for their response</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">; although they may generate the so-called negative silence, or also called "</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">negative presumed act</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#010101">," according to the provisions of Article 261.3 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in this matter would constitute the omission of the respective institutions to properly hear, examine, and process requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations in urban planning matters within the established time limit for them, from which point, the interested party has the avenue for its challenge, first in the administrative venue, and upon the adoption of the definitive act (emanating from the improper hierarch), in the plenary contentious-administrative venue.</span></p> Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respondent Municipality is reminded that the proceeding at hand must be resolved within **a prudential period**, so as not to violate Article 41 of the Political Constitution.

THEREFORE:

The challenged municipal agreement is upheld, and the administrative remedy is deemed exhausted.

**Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** *Exp. 07-263-161-ca* *Municipal* *Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande and others v. Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia* *amv* Municipal (Improper Hierarchy) Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande c/ Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia **IV.- REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT BY THE STATE AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT INFORM THIS PROTECTION.-** The protection of the environment must be viewed in a double legal dimension; *firstly*, as **a fundamental right**, contained and enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitución Política, and from the integrative interpretation of numerals 25, 69, and 89 of the Ley Fundamental, which derives from the condition of the human person and which tends to guarantee health and ecological balance, giving rise to the so-called right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and *secondly*, as **a public function**, that is, as a true obligation of the State to provide effective protection to the environment **which is imposed upon the State as a whole—including local governments—and in an integral manner**, insofar as it must "*guarantee, defend, and preserve the environment*", as mandated by the aforementioned Article 50 of the Constitution. This obliges taking the necessary measures to prevent harm to natural resources and the health of persons, from which the precautionary principle is of mandatory observance; in concrete actions to prevent deforestation, irrational exploitation of natural resources, the preservation of natural beauty, protecting wildlife, protecting and preserving the nation's public domain assets, etc. In this sense, the Sala Constitucional ruled in judgment number 2007-2410, at sixteen hours and fifteen minutes on the twenty-first of February of two thousand seven, in relevant part: "*IV.- It is worth highlighting that the reform of constitutional Article 50 to include therein the protection of the environment, in the double dimension already noted—as a fundamental right and as a public function—is not casual. Indeed, prior to its adoption by the legislative body, four projects had been promoted to include this protection in the Fundamental Text, but all of them to add to constitutional Article 6, and subsequently, Article 18 of the same normative body. It is thus how it was deemed more appropriate to include it in the Chapter on Social Guarantees, firstly, because this empowers its defense in the corresponding instances—Jurisdicción Constitucional—as well as in more expeditious processes (recurso de amparo); as well as subjection to the regime of regulation of fundamental rights—by means of law—which includes the obligation to respect their essential content. But the second consequence of transcendence is because it is a fundamental right of the third generation—in attention to the chronological moment of its recognition, and because it is linked to the principle of solidarity, which enjoys the particularity that its injury affects not only the community as a whole, but individualization is also possible—which, by its content, is closely linked to the productive and economic processes of the community, therefore making it necessary to link it with the **right to development** of countries, but which cannot be just any development, but rather that which is carried out in harmony with the environment (**sustainable development**) in a manner that guarantees a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, the application of this environmental principle is directly linked to a parameter of constitutionality of conduct—administrative and of private parties—and of the regulations governing the matter, such as **reasonableness**—according to the development of the jurisprudence of our Constitutional Court—insofar as its purpose is to tend toward the **sustainability of the use of natural resources and of the elements that make up the environment**, through their 'appropriate use'; and by virtue of which it is clear that environmental protection must be directed toward the appropriate and intelligent utilization of its elements and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political order relationships, in order to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations have a right; insofar as it is through the production and use of technology that it must be promoted that not only economic gains (freedom of enterprise) are obtained but above all a favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing damage or harm to them, as our Constitutional Court has considered, in its extensive jurisprudence, even from its origins, as in the supra-cited judgments number 3705-93 and number 2006-17126. By virtue of which, the principle of sustainable development constitutes a **fundamental parameter of the quality of life of persons**—as indicated in judgment number 2219-99—insofar as it conditions the action that man carries out on the environment. Lastly, it should be noted that the principle of sustainable development comprises three factors that are closely linked: **the ecological, the economic, and the social**, with which it is mandatory for the State to design productive processes in such a way as to promote the 'greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country' through the stimulation of production carried out in harmony with the elements that nature endows, for the benefit of the community, in order to procure a dignified life. ...*" Thus, in order to guarantee the fundamental right of environmental protection by the State (broadly and integrally), a **preventive attitude in administrative management is required**, that is, the adoption of prior measures and controls, in consideration that the decisions adopted may cause damage to the environment of impossible or difficult reparation, with the consequent impact on the health and quality of life of people, which makes subsequent coercion ineffective in this matter. For this reason, at least two of the **constitutional environmental principles that affect public function** are of importance, these being, **the objectivization of environmental protection** and **the precautionary principle**. Regarding the first, as developed by the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional (from judgment number 14293-2005, at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on the nineteenth of October of two thousand five), it translates into the need to support decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to the actions of the Administration and provisions of a general nature—legal and regulatory—from which derives the requirement of "**linkage to science and technique**", an element that provides a technical-scientific basis to the Administration's decisions in this matter, and by virtue thereof, limit and condition the Administration's discretion in its actions—in the terms provided in Article 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública—; and accordingly, Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) for all human activities that "*alter or destroy elements of the environment*". So that, in attention to the results derived from such technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments—an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes either the environmental viability of the project or the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or the health of persons, a circumstance that obliges establishing precautionary measures or the rejection of the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of a "*reasonable doubt*", it is mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle). By virtue of the importance and transcendence that conducting these environmental viability studies regarding projects, works, or human activities that may affect the environment holds, the Sala Constitucional itself deemed that "**the omission of their conduct has constitutional relevance**, due to the possible impact on a fundamental right, in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which implies the obligation of the State—as a whole—to provide due protection for the environment, the resources and elements that comprise it, and the health of persons" (judgment number 2005-14293, at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on the nineteenth of October of two thousand five). For its part, the precautionary principle finds its basis in Article 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of the Rio Declaration, which alludes to the necessary action and effect of anticipating in advance possible damages to the constituent elements of the environment; with which, action is advocated tending toward the due protection, conservation, and proper management of resources, that is, through the adoption of all necessary technical or operational measures to avoid, prevent, or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of persons. In this way, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or an objective doubt in this regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted and even postpone the activity in question; because subsequent coercion is ineffective in this matter, given that, in most cases, the biological effects are irreversible, where repression may have moral transcendence, but will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment (regarding this, among others, consult judgments 2806-98, 2003-06322, 2004-1923, 2005-12039, and 2005-04050 of the Sala Constitucional).

**V.- REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BY MUNICIPALITIES.-** As indicated in the preceding considerando, from the recent reform of constitutional Article 50, to expressly enshrine the protection in the double dimension indicated, as a fundamental right and public function, it translates into specific and concrete tasks charged to the state apparatus—as a whole—whose essential objective is the preservation and defense of the environment; with which, the State constitutes itself as the **primary guarantor of the protection and guardianship of the environment and natural resources**, insofar as it must **guarantee, defend, and preserve this right**. It is so that municipalities, insofar as they form part of the state apparatus—as decentralized entities by reason of territory, circumscribed to the canton, to which is entrusted the administration of "*local services and interests*", pursuant to Articles 168 and 169 of the Constitución Política—have not only attributions and competencies regarding environmental protection, but also and especially, as constitutional jurisprudence has indicated, thus for example, in judgment number 2001-05737, at fourteen hours and forty-one minutes on the twenty-seventh of June of two thousand one: "*V.- CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. In any case, it is necessary to highlight the important role that local governments have regarding the protection and conservation of the environment, which is not injured by the considerations made in the preceding Considerando. In this sense, it must be remembered that constitutional jurisprudence has been constant in the sense that it has indicated that **the protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, that is, there exists an obligation for the State—as a whole—to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, that endanger the health of the administered.** In saying that this task concerns everyone equally, it is understood* '*[...] [both] to public institutions, which are responsible for enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; [and] to private parties, complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, air, and water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality thereof will also be harmful to the quality of human life' (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours and fifty-one minutes on the nineteenth of August of nineteen ninety-four).* *In this task, by public institution, must be understood to include the Administración Central—Ministerios—, institutions specialized in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), and of course, the municipalities, among others. It is from the conjunction of what is provided in Articles 50 and 169 of the Constitución Política that municipalities are vested with not only a faculty but the duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in this sense, it must not be forgotten that it is the constitutional task entrusted to local governments, regarding the "administration of local interests and services", duties from which arises the obligation to watch over the physical and mental health of persons, as well as that of protecting and preserving the natural resources of their territorial jurisdiction, as reiterated and constant constitutional jurisprudence has recognized (in that sense see judgment numbers 2051-91; 2728-91; 4480-94, supra cited; 0915-95; 1888-95; 2671-95; 2560-96; 4149-95; and 1360-97, among others). By virtue of this generic constitutional competence, local governments are responsible for arranging what is necessary to ensure that the enjoyment of public resources—such as beaches, national parks, the forest resource, water resources, or mineral resources—is done in such a way that their natural conditions are guaranteed without alteration, and that natural resources and the environment in general can be preserved. From what has been said, it is clear that municipalities are responsible for exercising the oversight functions that the Constitución Política and legislation assign to them in the specific matter of environmental protection; a duty that is obviously immersed in all municipal function, such that in none of its manifestations can it disregard it. Thus, for example, in the preparation of the regulatory plan (plan regulador), the municipality always has to take into account the preservation and protection of the environment [...] In this sense, in the various conflicts that have arisen, this Chamber has been clear in considering that the omission or negligence in the actions of the town councils regarding the defense and protection of the environment must be understood as constituting a serious breach of their constitutional duties, insofar as it translates into the violation of fundamental rights (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to health); tasks in which the lack of human or economic resources does not constitute a justification for their non-compliance [...] **And although the questioning has also been unleashed that there exists an evident national interest in the environmental matter, obviously this comprises the local interest** '* [...] *it is therefore that in this matter the activity of the Central Government is of the greatest interest to the Nation—**which includes, of course, the local interest**—' (judgment number 2671-95, at sixteen hours and forty-five minutes on the twenty-fourth of May of nineteen ninety-five).* *Now then, it is clear that the participation of the Government Ministries and other public institutions that have special duties in the protection and preservation of the environment in no way can diminish the generic competence that municipalities hold in this matter, given that this would constitute an invasion into the sphere of their constitutional competencies, by reason of the matter ("the local"), which must translate into the promotion and knowledge of citizen participation. In any case, it must be clarified that the recognition of this generic competence in environmental matters of the municipalities cannot imply, in any scenario, the transfer of the competencies that by legal provision have been assigned to other institutions to the local governments.* Thus, in order to resolve the situation of the supposed conflict of prevalence between the national interest versus the local interest, the obligation of coordination among the various public agencies arises, so that the superior interest of the Nation prevails. [...]" **VI.-** In this context, ***the urban planning functions that local governments carry out within their territorial jurisdiction take on special importance***, based on the special competence assigned to them by constitutional mandate (Article 169 of the Constitution) and developed by legislation, specifically in the Urban Planning Law and the Construction Law, regulatory bodies that entrust the entire urban planning law regime at the local level, which includes not only the drafting and approval of urban planning regulations (the regulatory plan and its complementary regulations, namely, the Zoning Regulation, the Subdivision and Urbanization Regulation (Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones), the Official Map, and the Urban Renewal Regulation), but also everything concerning the granting of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization permits and construction permits, as well as the sanctioning sphere. It is clear that we are dealing with a clear exercise of the "police power of building" (poder de policía de la edificación), as indicated by Antonio Carceller Fernández, in his work *Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico* (Editorial Tecnos, S. A. Second Edition, Spain. 1992, p. 101), insofar as the granting of construction licenses is conditioned on the project in question being in accordance with the applicable urban planning regulations; which entails a control that is not only **prior** ***(ex-ante* or *a priori)***, which must be considered an act of ***habilitation or permission***, so that it produces effects *ex-nunc*, that is, from its issuance and towards the future; but also ***concomitant***, that is, the supervisory activity in the execution of the authorized activity, so that it is carried out in accordance with the license or permit granted and the environmental regulations governing the activity; which would allow, in the event of non-compliance by the administered party (due to variation of the plans or excess in construction), the revocation of the same, as well as the demolition of the works, under the terms of Articles 88, 89, and 96 of the Construction Law.

**VII.-** It is worth clarifying that the exercise of the urban planning function does not correspond to the municipal engineer or architect, in the terms indicated in Article 83 of the Construction Law, but rather, as indicated, to its deliberative body, that is, to the Council, insofar as the cited number merely defines a person responsible for the work; under the legislator's spirit that such procedures be analyzed with a technical and objective criterion, which, by subject matter, is proper to such professionals; so that the wording or literalness of the rule cannot lead to the confusion that urban planning permits are granted by the officials indicated in that provision. Note also, as the respondent correctly indicated, that in cases where the municipality does not have an engineer contracted within its staff, it ***necessarily*** must refer the request to the nearest local corporation that does have one, so that it may render a criterion in accordance with the discipline of the subject matter. For this reason, this Court does not consider the action of the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael to be vitiated, insofar as, prior to deciding on the requested construction permit, it required the expansion of the criterion of its engineer; rather, the prior action is absolutely in accordance with the indicated constitutional environmental principles, of ***objectification of environmental protection*** (objetivación de la tutela del ambiente), insofar as it seeks to support its decision on a technical and ***precautionary*** basis, since in accordance with what was decided in ruling number 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the municipalities of the Province of Heredia were ordered to adopt the recommendations given by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and the General Comptroller's Office (Contraloría General) of the Republic, in order to prevent the contamination of the Burío and Quebrada Seca rivers, which obligates the respondent to adopt ***all necessary measures in order to fully comply with that constitutional ruling.*** **VIII.- ON POSITIVE SILENCE (SILENCIO POSITIVO).-** Specifically, regarding the request made by the legal representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A., that the Municipality of San Rafael be ordered to resolve in its favor the petition for approval of construction plans for the Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande project, in direct application of positive silence, the following observations must be made. It is true that before a procedure, claim, consultation, petition, complaint, or appeal filed by the administered party before a public entity, the corresponding legal duty is generated - for the latter (the Administration) - to rule on it, which constitutes an expression of the *right to response* (Article 27 of the Constitution) and of *access to administrative justice* (Article 41 of the Fundamental Charter). Thus, Article 329 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), in development of this duty, literally provides: "1. *The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the deadlines set forth in this law.* *2.- Failure to do so shall be deemed a serious fault of service.* *3.- The final act issued after the deadline shall be valid for all legal purposes, unless otherwise provided by law.*" It is noted that the Administration is not obligated to resolve in a manner favorable to the interests of the administered party, since, as Eduardo Ortiz Ortiz correctly pointed out: "... *the content of the response will depend on the factual and legal circumstances supporting the petition and may be in accordance with them, either positive, if those circumstances effectively create the subjective right claimed by the citizen, or negative, if the opposite is true. But, whatever the content of the response, **it must be given and within a reasonable period that allows it to be classified as prompt and not as delayed***." (*Los privilegios de la Administración Pública. Edición Mimeografiada. Colegio de Abogados. Universidad de Costa Rica. 1973. p. 115.*) So that ***if this response is not produced, it causes serious harm to the due regularity of administrative activity, to the legitimate interests and subjective rights of the administered parties, in addition to the public or social service purpose of the Administration and, in general, to our Social State of Law***. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the stated duty to respond is not always fulfilled. For this reason, Administrative Legal Science devised an institute to compel the existence of a ***tacit will*** or ***presumed will*** of the Administration - the theory of administrative silence - and which our legal system expressly incorporates under the forms of negative silence - from which the rejection of the filed procedure is presumed - and positive silence - which presumes the acceptance of the petition. Thus, the institute of positive silence is characteristic of Administrative Law and is applied in relation to the granting of permits, licenses, and authorizations processed before the Public Administration, in accordance with the rules contained in Articles 330 and 331 of the General Law of Public Administration, which textually provide: "***Article 330.-*** *1.- The silence of the Administration shall be understood as positive when expressly so established or when it concerns authorizations or approvals that must be granted in the exercise of oversight and protection functions.* *2.- Silence shall also be understood as positive when it concerns permits, licenses, and authorizations.*" "***Article 331.-*** *1.- The period for positive silence to arise shall be one month, from the date the body receives the request for approval, authorization, or license with the legal requirements.* *2.- Once positive silence has occurred, the Administration may not issue an act denying the petition, nor extinguish the act except in those cases and in the manner provided in this law.*" Now then, it is important to note that for the applicability of positive administrative silence, it is necessary not only to ***verify an omissive conduct on the part of the Administration*** in response to a request for a permit, license, or authorization from an administered party, and ***its legal provision*** - in view of the subjection of public action to the principle of legality -, but also to fulfill ***all the requirements and demands that the legal system*** ***provides*** in relation to the filed procedure; thus, the lack of the requisite requirements entails an interruption effect regarding the operability of this institute, just as the Constitutional Chamber considered in ruling number 6332-94, a criterion that has been adopted by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling number 88, of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and in a resolution of fifteen hours fifteen minutes of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, and by the Third Section (Sección Tercera) of this Court (Contentious-Administrative), for example, in resolution number 407-2002, of 10:15 hours on April 19, 2002). Furthermore, ***it is important to note that this institute has no operability in relation to environmental matters*** - as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly indicated, for example in rulings number 6836-93, 1730-94, 1731-94, 2954-94, 5506-94, 6332-94, 0820-95, 5745-99, 2000-1895, 2003-6322, and also in ruling number 0397-F-2001 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice -, ***of which Urban Planning Law forms a part*** -as the Constitutional Chamber indicated in ruling number 2003-3656, based on the fact that it is the legal discipline pertaining to land-use planning, which includes the delimitation of the content of urban property and the exercise of the urban planning function as a public power, by virtue of which, the constitutional principles of the branch to which it belongs are applicable; ***nor does it apply to public domain assets, in view of the subject matter in question*** -which compromises the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment- and the type of asset in question -which is imprescriptible, unattachable, and inalienable, insofar as, by vocation, it is intended for the use and enjoyment of the community in general-; as our constitutional jurisprudence has considered (thus, among others, rulings number 6836-93, of 08:54 hours on December 24, 1993, number 1730-94, of 15:06 hours on April 13, 1994; and 2954-94, of 09:09 hours on June 17, 1994, can be consulted); and Article 4 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), number 7575, of February thirteenth, nineteen ninety-six, regarding natural resources. Consequently, ***in relation to permits and authorizations related to urban planning matters, the institute of positive silence is not applicable, that is, they cannot be deemed granted by the lapse of the period for their response***; although they can generate what is called negative silence, or also called "*presumed negative act*", according to the provisions of Article 261.3 of the General Law of Public Administration, which in this matter would constitute the omission of the respective institutions to know, examine, and duly process requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations in urban planning matters within the period established for them, from which point, the interested party has the means for its challenge, first in administrative proceedings, and upon the adoption of the definitive act (emanating from the improper hierarchical superior), in the plenary contentious-administrative proceedings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respondent Municipality is reminded that the procedure in question must be resolved within ***a prudential period***, so as not to incur in a violation of Article 41 of the Political Constitution." (ESPH) and has the water connections (pajas de agua) granted by the Board of Directors of the Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, S. A., according to agreement JD-185-2005. It has the approval of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, according to registered contract No. Placa11571 of August 31, 2006. It has the approval of the Dirección de Urbanismo of the Instituto Costarricense on April 23, 2007. Also approved by the Department of Urbanizations of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AYA) on December 4, 2007 (sic). Approved by the Human Environment Protection Unit of the North Central Region of the Ministry of Health, on October 11, 2006. It has a general approval (visado general) granted by the Construction Permit Review Commission on May 7, 2007. The project has the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) approved and simultaneously the environmental management stage opened, granted by the National Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional, SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), according to resolution No. 116-2006-SETENA, of eight hours and fifty minutes on January 17, 2006. Mr. Nombre71099 provides, in addition to the construction plans, the following documentation: - Photocopy of the cadastral plan of the property. - Property registration report. - Stormwater discharge (desfogue pluvial) authorization. - Copy of the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) and its resolution number 116-2006. - Letter from ESPH with the approval of water connections (pajas de agua). - Pollutant transport study. - CFIA consulting contract. - Letter from the Nomenclature Commission. - Land-use certificate (carta de uso de suelo). - Copy of approval from AYA. - Copy of approval from the Ministry of Health. - Photocopy of the company's legal identification card." (Folios 1 to 3); 3.) That by official communication SCM number 428-2007, of June eleventh, two thousand seven, the Council informed the Works Commission of communication 242-2007-DIM-SRH, according to the agreement adopted by that body in extraordinary session number 96-2007, held on June sixth, two thousand seven (folio 5); 4.) That given the recommendation of the Works Commission provided in Opinion 36-CO-2007, regarding the need to expand the information to obtain a better criterion and issue a pronouncement on the matter, in extraordinary session number 99-2007, held on June twentieth, two thousand seven, the Council requested the Municipal Engineer "to expand his criterion in light of the events related to the issuance of Voto 04050 by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and the discharges to the Burío River and Quebrada Seca," a decision communicated to the Engineering Department on the following June twenty-second (folios 6 and 7); 5.) That on July twentieth, two thousand seven, the representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A. filed a claim that tacit approval (silencio positivo) had been effected, by virtue of which he states that at ten hours and fifty minutes he drew up the respective notarial act, which certifies the fulfillment of all requirements and the lack of a timely resolution by the municipality (folios 8 to 11 and 12 to 15); 6.) That in Agreement number 6 of ordinary session number 109-2007, of August sixth, two thousand seven, the Council rejected the request for application of tacit approval (silencio positivo) sought by the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A.; which was made known to the interested party at eleven hours and thirty minutes on August ninth following, via official communication SCM number 671-2007, of the seventh of the indicated month (folios 16 to 21); 8.) That by a brief filed with the Municipality on August fourteenth, two thousand seven, the representative of the appellant company filed motions for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal against the Council's agreement number 6 of ordinary session number 109-2007, of August sixth, two thousand seven (folios 28 to 31); 9.) That in ordinary session number 114-2007, held on August 27, two thousand seven, the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael, de Heredia, rejected the motion for reconsideration filed, admitted the appeal before the First Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, and by virtue thereof, summoned the appellant before that Office; a decision that was notified to Mr. Nombre71099, on the 29th of that month and year (folios 32 to 36); and 10.) That by ruling number 2005-04050, of ten hours and two minutes on April fifteenth, two thousand five, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) declared with merit the amparo action brought by Nombre71100 against the municipalities of Flores, Heredia, San Rafael, Barva, and Belén, all of the Province of Heredia, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the North Central Region of the Ministry of Health, the Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; by virtue of which, it obligated the defendants to comply with the recommendations given by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) in its final reports numbers 1825-23-97 and 09653-23-2000-QJ and the Operational and Evaluative Audit Division of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) in its report number DFOE-SM-106/2004 (intranet page of the Constitutional Chamber).

**II.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, since they do not derive from the evidence and resolutions provided in the case file, the following is held as an unproven fact: That the appellant had drawn up a notarial act to accredit the applicability of tacit approval (silencio positivo).

**III.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT.-** The representative of the appellant company (Consultoría Joradri, Sociedad Anónima, developer of the Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande), challenges the rejection by the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia to deem tacit approval (silencio positivo) as having been consolidated regarding the approval of the construction plans and the respective construction permits for the aforementioned Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande, on grounds of illegality and expediency, for the following reasons: **a.)** that they have fulfilled each and every one of the legal requirements, as accredited by the municipality's own engineer, a criterion which is also binding (having recommended the granting of the requested permits); for which reason no other technical criterion is required and without that local government having asked for the fulfillment of any other necessary requirement for the granting of the permits and approval (visado); **b.)** that the municipality has delayed the decision on the matter without any legal basis, as the ruling (voto) of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) is not applicable, since it does not prevent the execution of works, but rather came to regulate them, which the project in question fully complies with; **c.)** that the legal period – two months – has elapsed, so that as of August twentieth, two thousand seven, the date on which it is credited that the two-month period stipulated in article 331 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) has elapsed, pursuant to the provisions of the cited numeral and articles 7 of the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excessive Requirements and Administrative Procedures (Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos), number 8220, and 25 of the Regulation of that Law; provisions according to which a time limit is established for the resolution of administrative procedures; **e.)** that the municipality's decision is untimely – having been resolved fifteen days after being formulated and not within the twenty-four hour period –, as well as incomplete. In accordance with the foregoing, he points out that the Council is prohibited by law from issuing a denial act – as is now intended –, which renders the challenged agreement void; and requests that the appeal be admitted and declared with merit, by virtue of which, the challenged agreement must be annulled, the respondent Municipality ordered to issue an act in accordance with the law, that is, ratifying the existence of tacit approval (silencio positivo), as of July nineteenth, two thousand seven, and thereby, approve and grant approval (visado) to the submitted plans, condemn it to pay for the damages caused by the illegal action, and order it to refrain from disturbing the execution of the project.

**IV.- REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT BY THE STATE AND THE PRINCIPLES INFORMING THIS PROTECTION.-** The protection of the environment must be viewed in a dual legal dimension; first, as a **fundamental right**, contained and enshrined in article 50 of the Political Constitution, and derived from the integrative interpretation of numerals 25, 69, and 89 of the Fundamental Law, arising from the condition of the human person and tending to guarantee health and ecological balance, which gives rise to the so-called right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and second, as a **public function**, that is, as a true obligation of the State to provide effective protection for the environment, an obligation imposed upon the State as a whole – including local governments – and comprehensively, as it must "guarantee, defend, and preserve the environment," as mandated by the cited article 50 of the Constitution. This obligates the taking of necessary measures to prevent harm to natural resources and people's health, from which derives the mandatory observance of the precautionary principle; in concrete actions to prevent deforestation, irrational exploitation of natural resources, the preservation of natural beauty, protecting wildlife, protecting and preserving the public domain assets of the nation, etc. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) stated in ruling number 2007-2410, of sixteen hours and fifteen minutes on February twenty-first, two thousand seven, as relevant:

"It is important to highlight that the reform of article 50 of the Constitution to include the protection of the environment, in the dual dimension already noted –as a fundamental right and as a public function– is not casual. Indeed, prior to its adoption by the legislative body, four projects had been promoted to include this protection in the Fundamental Text, but all of them to add to article 6 of the Constitution, and later, article 18 of the same normative body. It is thus that it was deemed more appropriate to include it in the Chapter on Social Guarantees, firstly, because this enables its defense in the corresponding instances –Constitutional Jurisdiction–, as well as in more expeditious processes (amparo action); as well as subjection to the regulatory regime for fundamental rights –through law–, which includes the obligation to respect its essential content. But the second consequence of transcendence is because it is a third-generation fundamental right –given the chronological moment of its recognition, and because it is linked to the principle of solidarity, which enjoys the particularity that its violation affects, not only the community as a whole, but that its individualization is possible–, which, by its content, is closely linked to the productive and economic processes of the community, wherefore it is necessary to link it with the **right to development** of countries, but one that cannot be just any development, rather that which is carried out in harmony with the environment (**sustainable development**) so as to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, the application of this environmental principle is directly linked to a parameter of constitutionality of conduct –administrative and private– and of the regulations governing the matter, such as **reasonableness** –according to the development of our Constitutional Court's jurisprudence– insofar as its purpose is to tend toward the **sustainability of the use of natural resources and the elements that make up the environment**, through their 'adequate use'; and by virtue of which it is clear that environmental protection must be directed toward the adequate and intelligent utilization of its elements and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, in order to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations are entitled; insofar as it is through the production and use of technology that it must be promoted to obtain, not only economic gains (freedom of enterprise) but above all favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing harm or damage to them, as our Constitutional Court has considered, in its extensive jurisprudence, including from its origins, such as in the supra-cited rulings number 3705-93 and number 2006-17126. By virtue of which, the principle of sustainable development constitutes a **fundamental parameter of people's quality of life** –as indicated in ruling number 2219-99– insofar as it conditions the action that man undertakes upon the environment. Finally, it should be noted that the principle of sustainable development comprises three factors that are closely linked, the **ecological, the economic, and the social**, with which, it becomes mandatory for the State to design productive processes in such a way that promotes the 'greatest well-being for all the country's inhabitants' through the stimulation of production that is carried out in harmony with the elements that nature provides, for the benefit of the community, in order to procure a dignified life. ..." Thus, in order to guarantee the fundamental right of environmental protection by the State (in a broad and comprehensive manner), a **preventive attitude in administrative management is required**, that is, the adoption of prior measures and controls, considering that the decisions adopted can cause environmental damage that is impossible or difficult to repair, with the consequent impact on people's health and quality of life, which renders subsequent coercion ineffective in this matter. Therefore, at least two of the **constitutional environmental principles that affect public function** are of transcendence, these being, the **objectification of environmental protection** and the **precautionary principle**. As to the first, as developed by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) (from ruling number 14293-2005, of fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on October nineteenth, two thousand five), it translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both regarding the Administration's actions and regarding provisions of a general nature –legal and regulatory–, from which derives the requirement of the "**linkage to science and to technique**," an element that provides a technical-scientific support to the Administration's decisions in this matter, and by such virtue, limits and conditions the Administration's discretion in its action –under the terms provided in article 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)–; and concordantly, article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) for all human activities that "alter or destroy elements of the environment." So that, in light of the results derived from those technical studies –such as environmental impact assessments–, an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes either the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project or the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, a circumstance that obliges the establishment of precautionary measures or the rejection of the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the event of "reasonable doubt," it becomes mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle). By virtue of the importance and transcendence that conducting these environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) studies for projects, works, or human activities that may affect the environment entails, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) itself considered that "**the omission of its realization has constitutional relevance**, due to the possible impact on a fundamental right, in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which implies the obligation of the State –as a whole– to carry out due protection of the environment, the resources and elements that comprise it, and people's health" (ruling number 2005-14293, of fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on October nineteenth, two thousand five).

For its part, the precautionary principle finds its support in Article 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of the Rio Declaration, which alludes to the necessary action and effect of preventing in advance possible damage to the constituent elements of the environment; thereby advocating for the implementation of actions aimed at the due protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources, that is, through the adoption of all necessary technical or operational measures to avoid, prevent, or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or an objective doubt in this regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question postponed; since subsequent coercion is ineffective in this matter, given that, in most cases, the biological effects are irreversible, where repression may have a moral significance, but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment (in this regard, among others, see judgments 2806-98, 2003-06322, 2004-1923, 2005-12039 and 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber).

**V.- ON THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BY THE MUNICIPALITIES.-** As indicated in the preceding recital, since the recent reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, to expressly enshrine protection in the double dimension indicated, as a fundamental right and a public function, it translates into specific and concrete duties incumbent upon the state apparatus—as a whole—, the essential objective of which is the preservation and defense of the environment; whereby, the State is constituted as the ***first guarantor*** ***of the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources***, insofar as it must ***guarantee, defend, and preserve this right***. It is thus that the municipalities, insofar as they form part of the state apparatus—as decentralized entities by reason of territory, circumscribed to the canton, which is entrusted with the administration of "*local services and interests*", in accordance with Articles 168 and 169 of the Political Constitution—have, not only powers and competencies regarding the protection of the environment, but also, and especially, as constitutional jurisprudence has pointed out, for example, in judgment number 2001-05737, of fourteen hours and forty-one minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand one:

"***V.- CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.*** *In any case, it is necessary to highlight the important role that local governments have regarding the protection and conservation of the environment, which is not harmed by the considerations made in the previous Recital. In this sense, it must be remembered that constitutional jurisprudence has been constant in the sense that it has indicated that* ***the protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, that is, that there is an obligation for the State—as a whole—to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of the administered.*** *By saying that this duty concerns everyone equally, it is understood* *'[...] [both]* ***the public institutions***, *to which it corresponds to enforce current legislation and promote efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; [and]* ***private individuals***, *complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, the air, and the water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be detrimental to the quality of human life' (judgment number 4480-94, of ten hours and fifty-one minutes of August nineteenth, nineteen hundred and ninety-four).* *In this task, by public institution, it must be understood to include the Central Administration—Ministries—, institutions specialized in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), and of course, the municipalities, among others. It is from the conjunction of the provisions of Articles 50 and 169 of the Political Constitution that the municipalities are vested not only with a power but also the duty to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and in this sense, it must not be forgotten that it is the constitutional duty entrusted to local governments, regarding the "administration of local interests and services", duties from which arises the obligation to ensure the physical and mental health of persons, as well as to protect and preserve the natural resources of their territorial jurisdiction, as constitutional jurisprudence has recognized in a reiterated and constant manner (in that sense see judgments numbers 2051-91; 2728-91; 4480-94, cited above; 0915-95; 1888-95; 2671-95; 2560-96; 4149-95; and 1360-97, among others). By virtue of this generic constitutional competence, local governments are responsible for making the necessary arrangements so that the enjoyment of public resources—such as beaches, national parks, forest resources, water resources, or mineral resources—is carried out in such a way that their natural conditions are guaranteed without alteration, and that natural resources and the environment in general can be preserved. From what has been said, it is clear that the municipalities are responsible for exercising the surveillance functions that the Political Constitution and the legislation assign to them in the specific matter of environmental protection; a duty that is obviously immersed in all municipal functions, so that in none of its manifestations can it ignore it. Thus, for example, in the preparation of the regulatory plan (plan regulador), the municipality must always take into account the preservation and protection of the environment* [...] *In this sense, in the various conflicts that have arisen, the Chamber has been clear in considering that the omission or negligence in the performance of local councils regarding the defense and protection of the environment, must be understood to constitute a serious breach of their constitutional duties, insofar as it translates into the violation of fundamental rights (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to health); tasks in which the lack of human or economic resources do not constitute justification for their non-compliance* [...] ***And although the question has also been raised that there is an evident national interest in environmental matters, this obviously includes the local interest*** *'*[...] *that is why in this matter the activity of the Central Government is of the greatest interest to the Nation—* ***which includes, of course, the local interest***—*' (judgment number 2671-95, of sixteen hours and forty-five minutes of May twenty-fourth, nineteen hundred and ninety-five).* *Now then, it is clear that the participation of the Government Ministries and other public institutions that have special duties in the protection and preservation of the environment can in no way detract from the generic competence that the municipalities have in this matter, given that this would constitute an invasion in the sphere of their constitutional competencies, by reason of the subject matter ("the local"), which must translate into the promotion and knowledge of citizen participation. In any case, it must be clarified that the recognition of that generic competence in environmental matters of the municipalities cannot imply, under any circumstances, the transfer of competencies that by legal provision have been assigned to other institutions to local governments. So, in order to resolve the situation of the supposed conflict of prevalence between the national interest versus the local one, the obligation of coordination between the various public agencies is born, so that the superior interest of the Nation prevails.* [...]" **VI.-** In this context, ***the urban planning functions that local governments carry out in their territorial circumscription take on special importance***, based on the special competence that by constitutional mandate (Article 169 of the Constitution) has been assigned to them and that is developed by legislation, specifically in the Ley de Planificación Urbana and the Ley de Construcciones, normative bodies in which the entire regime of urban planning law at the local level is entrusted, which includes not only the elaboration and approval of urban planning regulations (regulatory plan and its complementary regulations, that is, the Reglamento de Zonificación, Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones, the Mapa Oficial, and the Reglamento de Renovación Urbana), but also everything concerning the granting of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and development and construction permits, as well as the sanctioning sphere. It is clear that we are facing a clear exercise of the "*police power of building*", as Nombre71101 indicates, in his work *Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico* (Editorial Tecnos, S. A. Segunda Edición, Spain. 1992, p. 101), insofar as the granting of construction licenses is conditioned upon the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban planning ordinances; which entails a control that is not only **prior** ***(ex-ante* or *a priori)***, which must be considered an act of **enablement or permission**, such that it produces effects ***ex-nunc***, that is, from its issuance and into the future; but also ***concomitant***, that is, the oversight activity in the execution of the authorized activity, so that it is carried out in accordance with the license or permit granted and the environmental regulations governing the activity; which would permit, in the event of non-compliance on the part of the administered (for variation of the plans or excess in construction), the revocation thereof, as well as the demolition of the works, in the terms of Articles 88, 89, and 96 of the Ley de Construcciones.

**VII.-** It is pertinent to clarify that the exercise of the urban planning function does not correspond to the municipal engineer or architect, in the terms indicated in Article 83 of the Ley de Construcciones, but rather, as indicated, to its deliberative body, that is, to the Council, insofar as the cited article defines a person responsible for the work; in the spirit of the legislator that such procedures be analyzed with a technical and objective criterion, which, by the subject matter, is proper to such professionals; so that the wording or literalness of the rule cannot lead to the confusion that urban planning permits are granted by the officials indicated in that provision. Note also, as the appealed decision well indicated, that in cases where the municipality does not have an engineer hired within its staff, it ***necessarily*** must refer the request to the nearest local corporation that does have one, so that it may render a criterion in accordance with the discipline of the subject matter. For this reason, this Tribunal does not consider the action of the Council of the Municipality of San Rafael to be vitiated, insofar as, prior to resolving the requested construction permit, it required the expansion of the criterion of its engineer; rather, the prior action is absolutely in conformity with the indicated constitutional environmental principles, of ***objectification of environmental protection***, insofar as it seeks to base its decision on a technical and ***precautionary*** foundation, since, in accordance with what was decided in judgment number 2005-04050 of the Constitutional Chamber, the municipalities of the Province of Heredia were ordered to adopt the recommendations given by the Defensoría de los Habitantes and the Contraloría General de la República, in order to avoid the contamination of the Burío and Quebrada Seca rivers, which obligates the appellee to adopt ***all necessary measures in order to give full compliance to that constitutional ruling.*** **VIII.- ON POSITIVE SILENCE.-** Specifically, regarding the request made by the legal representative of the company Consultoría Joradri, S. A., that the municipality of San Rafael be ordered to resolve in its favor the petition for approval of construction plans for the Piedra Grande Residential Horizontal Condominium project, in direct application of positive silence, it is necessary to make the following observations. It is true that in the face of a proceeding, claim, consultation, petition, complaint, or appeal formulated by the administered before a public entity, the corresponding legal duty is generated—for the latter (the Administration)—to pronounce upon it, which constitutes an expression of the *right of response* (Article 27 of the Constitution) and of *access to administrative justice* (Article 41 of the Fundamental Charter). It is thus that Article 329 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, in development of this duty, literally provides:

"1. *The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the deadlines of this law.* *2.- Failure to do so shall be deemed a serious fault of service.* *3.- The final act issued outside the deadline shall be valid for all legal purposes, unless otherwise provided by law.*" It is noted that the Administration is not obligated to resolve favorably to the interests of the administered, since, as Nombre28 well pointed out:

"... *the content of the response will depend on the circumstances of fact and law that support the petition and may be in accordance with them, either positive, if those circumstances effectively create in the citizen the subjective right they claim, or negative, if the contrary. But, whatever the content of the response,* ***it must be given and within a reasonable period that allows it to be classified as prompt and not delayed***." (*Los privilegios de la Administración Pública*. Edición Mimeografiada. Colegio de Abogados. Universidad de Costa Rica. 1973. p. 115.)

So that ***if this response is not produced, it causes serious harm to the due regularity of administrative activity, to the legitimate interests and subjective rights of the administered, in addition to the purpose of public or social service of the Administration and, in general, to our Social State of Law***. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the stated duty of response is not always fulfilled. For this reason, Administrative Legal Science devised an institute in order to compel the existence of an ***implied will*** or ***presumed*** will of the Administration—the theory of administrative silence—and which our legal system expressly incorporates under the forms of negative silence—which presumes the rejection of the formulated proceeding—and positive silence—which presumes the acceptance of the petition.

Thus, the doctrine of positive silence (silencio positivo) is inherent to Administrative Law and applies in relation to the granting of permits, licenses, and authorizations processed before the Public Administration, in accordance with the rules contained in Articles 330 and 331 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which textually provide:

" Article 330.- 1.- The silence of the Administration shall be understood as positive when expressly so established or when it concerns authorizations or approvals that must be agreed upon in the exercise of oversight and supervisory functions.

2.- Silence shall also be understood as positive when it concerns permits, licenses, and authorizations." " Article 331.- 1.- The period for positive silence to arise shall be one month, from the moment the body receives the request for approval, authorization, or license with the legal requirements.

2.- Once positive silence has occurred, the Administration may not issue an act denying the petition, nor extinguish the act except in those cases and in the manner provided for in this law." Now, it is important to note that for administrative positive silence to be applicable, it is necessary not only that an omission by the Administration be verified in response to a request for a permit, license, or authorization by an individual, and its legal provision -in consideration of the subjection of public action to the principle of legality-, but also in compliance with all the requirements and demands that the legal system stipulates in relation to the formulated proceeding; thus, the lack of the rigorous requirements entails an interruption effect regarding the operation of this doctrine, as considered by the Sala Constitucional in judgment number 6332-94, a criterion that has been adopted by the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, in ruling number 88, of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and in a resolution at fifteen hours fifteen minutes of October nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, and by the Third Section of this Court (Contentious-Administrative), for example, in resolution number 407-2002, at 10:15 hours of April 19, 2002). Furthermore, it is important to note that this doctrine has no operability in relation to environmental matters -as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly indicated, for example in judgments number 6836-93, 1730-94, 1731-94, 2954-94, 5506-94, 6332-94, 0820-95, 5745-99, 2000-1895, 2003-6322, and also in judgment number 0397-F-2001 of the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia-, of which Urban Planning Law forms a part -as indicated by the Sala Constitucional in judgment number 2003-3656, based on the fact that it is the legal discipline concerning land-use planning, which includes the delimitation of the content of urban property and the exercise of the urban planning function as a public power, by virtue of which the constitutional principles of the branch of which it forms a part are applicable to it; nor is it applicable regarding public domain property, in consideration of the matter in question -which compromises the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment- and the type of property in question -which is imprescriptible, unattachable, and inalienable, insofar as, by vocation, it is designated for the use and enjoyment of the community in general-; as our constitutional jurisprudence has considered (thus, among others, judgments number 6836-93, at 08:54 hours of December 24, 1993, number 1730-94, at 15:06 hours of April 13, 1994; and 2954-94, at 09:09 hours of June 17, 1994, can be consulted); and Article 4 of the Ley Forestal, number 7575, of February thirteenth, nineteen ninety-six, regarding natural resources. Consequently, the doctrine of positive silence is not applicable in relation to permits and authorizations concerning urban planning matters, that is, they cannot be deemed granted by the mere passage of the deadline for their response; although they may generate the so-called negative silence (silencio negativo), or also denominated "presumed negative act (acto presunto negativo)", pursuant to the provisions of Article 261.3 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in this matter would constitute the omission by the respective institutions to properly hear, examine, and process the requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations in urban planning matters within the established deadline, from which point the interested party has the avenue for their challenge, first in administrative proceedings, and upon the adoption of the definitive act (emanating from the improper hierarch), in the full contentious-administrative proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appellant Municipality is reminded that the management in question must be resolved within a reasonable period (plazo prudencial), so as not to incur in a violation of Article 41 of the Constitución Política.

POR TANTO:

The appealed municipal agreement is confirmed, and the administrative process is hereby deemed exhausted.

Nombre5180 Nombre65604 Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Municipal Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grnade y otros contra la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia amv Municipal (Improper Hierarchy) Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande c/ Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia

No. 116-2008.

SECCIÓN SEGUNDA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José.- A las dieciséis horas diez minutos del dos de abril del dos mil ocho.

Por apelación Municipal interpuesta por Nombre71099 , mayor, casado dos veces, empresario, con cédula de identidad número CED53017, en su condición de Presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de la sociedad "CONSULTORÍA JORADRI, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA", desarrolladora del Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande, conoce este Tribunal como jerarca impropio, de la impugnación del acuerdo número 6 adoptado por el Concejo Municipal del Cantón de San Rafael de Heredia en sesión ordinaria número 109- 2007, celebrada el seis de agosto del dos mil siete, que dispuso por unanimidad:

"PRIMERO: RECHAZAR LA SOLICITUD DE APLICACIÓN DE SILENCIO POSITIVO, que interpone la Empresa Consultoría Joradri S. A., desarrolladora del proyecto denominado "CONDOMINIO HORIZONTAL RESIDENCIAL PIEDRA GRANDE", mediante su Apoderado Generalísimo, señor Nombre71099 , con fundamento en las razones expuestas en los considerandos anteriores.

SEGUNDO: Instruir a la Secretaría del Concejo Municipal, para que proceda a comunicar el presente acuerdo a los interesados." Redacta la Juez Fernández Brenes;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución del presente asunto, se tiene por probado el siguiente elenco de hechos: 1.) Que sin precisarse la fecha exacta, pero antes del treinta y uno de mayo del dos mil siete, el personero de la empresa consultora Joradri, S.A. requirió a la Municipalidad de San Rafael, de Heredia, la aprobación de los planos constructivos y los respectivos permisos de construcción de infraestructura urbanística del proyecto Condominio Piedra Grande, Ubicado en San Josecito de San Rafael de Heredia (oficio número 242-2007-DIM-SRH, del Jefe de Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, folio 1); 2.) Que ante el requerimiento anterior, mediante oficio número 242-2007-DIM- SRH, del Jefe de Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia recomienda al Concejo, "salvo mejor criterio técnico", la aprobación de permiso de los planos constructivos del Condominio "Piedra Grande, en atención a que el proyecto "cumplió con todos los requisitos legales y técnicos requeridos por parte de las instituciones encargadas de su aprobación, a saber Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU), Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AYA), Ministerio de Salud, y de todas las demás instituciones que por ley deben ser consultadas, tales como Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, S. A. (ESPH), Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), Comisión de Nomenclatura, Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (Setena), Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica (CFIA), entre otros. Cuenta con la disponibilidad de agua otorgada por la Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, S. A. (ESPH) y tiene las pajas de agua otorgadas por la Junta Directiva de la Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia, S. A., según acuerdo JD-185- 2005. Tiene la aprobación del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, según contrato inscrito No. Placa11571 del día 31 de agosto del 2006. Tiene la aprobación de la Dirección de Urbanismo del Instituto Costarricense el día 23 de abril del año 2007. Aprobado también por el Departamento de Urbanizaciones del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AYA) el día 4 de diciembre del año 2007 (sic). Aprobado por la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano de la Región Central Norte del Ministerio de Salud, el día 11 de octubre del año 2006. Cuenta con visado general otorgado por la Comisión Revisora de Permisos de Construcciones del día 7 de mayo del 2007. El proyecto cuenta con la viabilidad ambiental aprobada y a la vez abierta la etapa de gestión ambiental otorgada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional (SETENA) del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), según resolución No. 116- 2006-SETENA, de las ocho horas y cincuenta minutos del día 17 de enero de 2006. Aporta el señor Nombre71099 además de los planos constructivos, la siguiente documentación: - Fotocopia de plano de catastrado de la propiedad. - Informe registral de la propiedad. -Autorización de desfogue pluvial. - Copia de estudio de impacto ambiental y su resolución número 116-2006. - Carta de la ESPH con la aprobación de pajas de agua. - Estudio de tránsito de contaminantes. - Contrato de consultoría de CFIA. - Carta de la Comisión de Nomenclatura. - Carta de uso de suelo. -Copia de aprobación conforme del AYA. -Copia de aprobación del Ministerio de salud. - Fotocopia de la cédula jurídica de la sociedad." (Folios 1 a 3); 3.) Que con oficio SCM número 428-2007, del once de junio del dos mil siete, el Concejo puso en conocimiento de la Comisión de Obras el oficio 242-2007-DIM-SRH, según acuerdo adoptado por ese órgano en sesión extraordinaria número 96-2007, celebrada el seis de junio del dos mil siete (folio 5); 4.) Que ante la recomendación de la Comisión de Obras dada en Dictamen 36-CO-2007, de la necesidad de ampliar la información para obtener un mejor criterio y emitir un pronunciamiento al respecto, en sesión extraordinaria número 99- 2007, celebrada el veinte de junio del dos mil siete, el Concejo solicitó al Ingeniero Municipal "ampliar su criterio en atención a los acontecimientos relacionados con la emisión del Voto 04050 de la Sala Constitucional y los desfogues al Río Burío y Quebrada Seca", decisión que se comunicó al Departamento de Ingeniería el veintidós de junio siguiente (folios 6 y 7); 5.) Que el veinte de julio del dos mil siete, el personero de la empresa Consultoría Joradri, S. A. formuló requerimiento de haber operado silencio positivo, en virtud de lo cual dice que a las diez horas cincuenta minutos levantó la respectiva acta notarial, en la que se hace constar el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos y la no resolución en tiempo de parte de la municipalidad (folios 8 a 11 y 12 a 15); 6.) Que en Acuerdo número 6 de la sesión ordinaria número 109-2007, del seis de agosto del dos mil siete, el Concejo rechazó la solicitud de aplicación de silencio positivo gestionada por la empresa Consultoría Joradri, S. A.; el cual fue puesto en conocimiento del interesado a las once horas treinta minutos del nueve de agosto siguiente, mediante oficio SCM número 671-2007, del siete de del mes indicado (folios 16 a 21); 8.) Que con escrito presentado a la Municipalidad el catorce de agosto del dos mil siete, el personero de la sociedad recurrente formuló recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidión respecto del acuerdo del Concejo número 6 de la sesión ordinaria número 109-2007, del seis de agosto del dos mil siete (folios 28 a 31); 9.) Que en sesión ordinaria número 114-2007, celebrada el 27 de agosto del dos mil siete, el Concejo de la Municipalidad de San Rafael, de Heredia, rechazó el recurso de revocatoria formulado, admitió la apelación para ante la Sección Primera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, en virtud de lo cual, emplazó al recurrente ante ese Despacho; decisión que fue notificada al señor Nombre71099 , el 29 de ese mes y año (folios 32 a 36); y 10.) Que mediante sentencia número 2005-04050, de las diez horas dos minutos del quince de abril del dos mil cinco, la Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el recurso amparo promovido por Nombre71100 contra las municipalidades Flores, Heredia, San Rafael, Barva y Belén, todas de la Provincia de Heredia, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, la Región Central Norte del Ministerio de Salud, la Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; en virtud de lo cual, obligó a las demandadas a cumplir con las recomendaciones dadas por la Defensoría de los Habitantes en sus informes finales números 1825-23-97 y 09653-23-2000-QJ y la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa de la Contraloría General de la República en su informe número DFOE-SM- 106/2004 (página intranet de Sala Constitucional).

II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, por no derivarse de las probanzas y resoluciones aportadas a los autos, se tienen como hechos no probado el siguiente: Que el recurrente hubiese levantado acta notarial para acreditar la procedencia del silencio positivo III.- AGRAVIOS DEL APELANTE.- El personero de la empresa apelante (Consultoría Joradri, Sociedad Anónima", desarrolladora del Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande), impugna el rechazo del Concejo de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia de tener por consolidado el silencio positivo respecto de la aprobación de los planos constructivos y los respectivos permisos de construcción del señalado Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande, por motivos de ilegalidad y oportunidad, por los siguientes motivos: a.) que han cumplido todas y cada uno de los requisitos legales, según lo acreditó el propio ingeniero de la municipalidad, criterio que además es vinculante (al haber recomendado el otorgamiento de los permisos solicitados); motivo por el cual no se requiere ningún otro criterio técnico y sin que al efecto se le haya pedido de parte de ese gobierno local, el cumplimiento de ninguna otra exigencia necesaria para el otorgamiento de los permisos y visado; b.) que la municipalidad ha retrasado la decisión del asunto sin ninguna base legal, en tanto no resulta de aplicación el voto de la Sala Constitucional, ya que el mismo no impide la realización de obras, sino que vino a regular las mismas, las que cumple sobradamente el proyecto en cuestión; c.) que ha transcurrido el plazo de ley -dos meses-, de manera que a partir del veinte de agosto del dos mil siete, fecha en el que se tiene por acreditado que ha transcurrido el plazo de dos meses dispuesto en el artículo 331 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, conforme lo dispuesto en el citado numeral y en los artículos 7 de la Ley de Protección al ciudadano del exceso de requisitos y trámites administrativos, número 8220 y 25 del Reglamento de esa Ley; disposiciones al tenor de las cuales, se establece un límite de tiempo para la resolución de las gestiones administrativos; e.) que la decisión de la municipalidad es extemporánea -al haber sido resuelto quince días después de formulada y no en el plazo de veinticuatro horas-, además de incompleta. Al tenor de lo anterior, señala que al Concejo le está vedado por ley dictar un acto denegatorio -como ahora se pretende-, lo que vicia de nulidad el acuerdo impugnado; y solicita que se admita la apelación, declarándose con lugar, en virtud de lo cual, debe de anularse el acuerdo impugnado, se ordene a la Municipalidad recurrida dictar acto conforme a derecho, esto es, ratificando la existencia del silencio positivo, a partir del diecinueve de julio del dos mil siete, y con ello, se apruebe y visen los planos presentados, se le condene al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados con la actuación ilegal, y que se le ordene abstenerse de perturbar la ejecución del proyecto.

IV.- DE LA TUTELA A UN AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO A CARGO DEL ESTADO Y PRINCIPIOS QUE INFORMAN ESTA TUTELA.- La tutela del ambiente debe verse en una doble dimensión jurídica; en primer lugar, como un derecho fundamental, contenido y consagrado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, y de la interpretación integrativa de los numerales 25, 69 y 89 de la Ley Fundamental, que deriva de la condición de la persona humana y que tiende a garantizar la salud y el equilibrio ecológico, que da lugar al denominado derecho a ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado; y en segundo lugar, como una función pública, esto es, como una verdadera obligación del Estado de dar efectiva tutela al ambiente que se impone al Estado en su conjunto -comprendiendo a los gobiernos locales- y en forma integral, en tanto debe "garantizar, defender y preservar el ambiente", según impone el citado artículo 50 constitucional. Ello obliga a tomar las medidas necesarias para impedir que se atente contra los recursos naturales y la salud de las personas, de donde resulta de obligado acatamiento el principio precautorio; en acciones concretas para impedir la deforestación, aprovechamiento irracional de los recursos naturales, la preservación de las bellezas naturales, proteger la fauna silvestre, proteger y preservar los bienes demaniales de la nación, etc. En este sentido, se manifiestó la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 2007-2410, de las dieciséis horas quince minutos del veintiuno de febrero del dos mil siete, en lo que interesa:

"IV.- Interesa resaltar que la reforma del artículo 50 constitucional para incluir en ella la tutela del ambiente, en la doble dimensión ya anotada –como derecho fundamental y como función pública– no es casual. En efecto, previo a su adopción por el órgano legislativo, se habían promovido cuatro proyectos para incluir esta protección en el Texto Fundamental, pero todos ellos para adicionar el artículo 6 constitucional, y posteriormente, el artículo 18 del mismo cuerpo normativo. Es así como como se estimó más apropiado incluirlo en el Capítulo de las Garantías Sociales, en primer lugar, por cuanto ello faculta su defensa en las instancias correspondientes –Jurisdicción Constitucional–, así como en procesos más expeditos (recurso de amparo); así como la sujeción al régimen de regulación de los derechos fundamentales –mediante ley–, lo que comprende la obligación de respetar su contenido esencial. Pero la segunda consecuencia de trascendencia es por cuanto se trata de un derecho fundamental de tercera generación –en atención al momento cronológico de su reconocimiento, y por estar vinculado al principio de solidaridad, que goza de la particularidad de que su lesión afecta, no sólo a la colectividad en su conjunto, sino que es posible su individualización–, que, por su contenido, está estrechamente vinculado a los procesos productivos y económicos de la colectivad, por lo que resulta necesario ligarlo con el derecho al desarrollo de los países, pero que, no puede ser cualquiera, sino aquél que se realice en armonía con el ambiente (desarrollo sostenible) de manera que se garantice un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Así, la aplicación de este principio ambiental está directamente vinculada con un parámetro de constitucionalidad de la conducta –administrativa y de los particulares– y de la normativa que rige la materia, como lo es la razonabilidad –según desarrollo de la jurisprudencia de nuestro Tribunal Constitucional– en tanto su finalidad es tender a la sostenibilidad del el uso de los recursos naturales y de los elementos que conforman el ambiente, a través de su 'uso adecuado'; y en virtud de los cuales queda claro que la protección al ambiente debe encaminarse a la utilización adecuada e inteligente de sus elementos y en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicos y de orden político, para con ello salvaguardar el patrimonio al que tienen derecho las generaciones presentes y futuras; en tanto a través de la producción y uso de la tecnología es que debe de promoverse que se obtengan, no sólo ganancias económicas (libertad de empresa) sino sobre todo un desarrollo y evolución favorable del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales con el ser humano, esto es, sin que se cause a éstos daño o perjuicio, como lo ha considerado nuestro Tribunal Constitucional, en su amplia jurisprudencia, inclusive desde sus orígenes, así en las sentencias supra citadas número 3705-93 y número 2006-17126. En virtud de lo cual, el principio del desarrollo sostenible se constituye en un parámetro fundamental de la calidad de vida de las personas –como se indicó en sentencia número 2219-99– en tanto condiciona la actuación que el hombre realiza sobre ambiente. Por último, cabe señalar que el principio del desarrollo sostenible comprende tres factores que están estrechamente vinculados, lo ecológico, lo económico y lo social, con lo cual, resulta obligado para el Estado el diseño de procesos productivos de manera tal que se promueva el 'mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país' a través del estímulo de la producción que se realice en armonía con los elementos que la naturaleza dota, para el beneficio de la comunidad, a fin de procurar una vida digna. ..." Así, a fin de garantizar el derecho fundamental de la tutela del ambiente a cargo del Estado (en forma amplia e integral), se requiere de una actitud preventiva de la gestión administrativa, esto es la adopción de medidas y controles previos, en atención a que las decisiones adoptadas pueden provocar en el ambiente daños de imposible o difícil reparación, con la consiguiente afectación de la salud y calidad de vida de las personas, lo que hace que en esta materia, la coacción posterior sea ineficaz. Por ello resultan de trascendencia, al menos dos de los principios constitucionales ambientales que inciden en la función pública, estos son, el de la objetivación de la tutela ambiental y el precautorio. En cuanto al primero, como lo ha desarrollado la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional (a partir de la sentencia número 14293-2005, de las catorce horas cincuenta y dos horas del diecinueve de octubre del dos mil cinco), se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con la actuación de la Administración como de las disposiciones de carácter general –legales y reglamentarias–, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la "vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica", elemento que le da un sustento técnico-científico a las decisiones de la Administración en esta materia, y en tal virtud, limitan y condicionan la discrecionalidad de la Administración en su actuación –en los términos previstos en el artículo 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública–; y en forma concordante, el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente exige evaluación de impacto ambiental respecto de todas las actividades humanas que "alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente". De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos –tales como los de impacto ambiental–, se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote, o la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto o la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, circunstancia que obliga a establecer medidas de precaución o el rechazo del proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una "duda razonable" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura). En virtud de la importancia y trascendencia que reviste la realización de estos estudios de viabilidad ambiental respecto de los proyectos, obras o actividades humanas que puedan afectar el ambiente, es que la propia Sala Constitucional estimó que "la omisión de su realización tiene relevancia constitucional, por la posible afectación a un derecho fundamental, en este caso, el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que implica la obligación del Estado –como un todo– de realizar la debida tutela del ambiente, los recursos y elementos que lo conforman y la salud de las personas" (sentencia número 2005-14293, de las catorce horas cincuenta y dos minutos del diecinueve de octubre del dos mil cinco). Por su parte, el principio precautorio encuentra su sustento en el artículo 15 de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo de la Declaración de Río, que alude a la necesaria acción y efecto de prevenir anticipadamente los posibles daños en los elementos integrantes del ambiente; con lo cual, se propugna por la implementación de acciones tendentes a la debida protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos, esto es, a través de la adopción de todas las medidas técnicas u operativas necesarias para evitar, prevenir o contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda objetiva al respecto–, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate; por cuanto la coacción posterior resulta ineficaz en esta materia, dado que, en la mayoría de los casos, los efectos biológicos son irreversibles, donde la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados al ambiente (al respecto, entre otros, consultar las sentencias 2806-98, 2003-06322, 2004-1923, 2005-12039 y 2005-04050 de la Sala Constitucional).

V.- DE LA TUTELA DEL AMBIENTE A CARGO DE LAS MUNICIPALIDADES.- Como se indicó en el considerando anterior, a partir de la reciente reforma del artículo 50 constitucional, para consagrar expresamente, la tutela en la doble dimensión indicada, como derecho fundamental y función pública, se traduce en en cometidos específicos y concretos a cargo del aparato estatal -en su conjunto-, cuyo objetivo esencial es la preservación y defensa del medio ambiente; con lo cual, el Estado se constituye en el primer garante de la protección y tutela del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales, en tanto debe garantizar, defender y preservar este derecho. Es así, como las municipalidades, en tanto integran el aparato estatal -como entes descentralizados en razón del territorio, circunscrita al cantón, al que se le encomienda la administración de los "servicios e intereses locales, al tenor de artículos 168 y 169 de la Constitución Política- tienen, no sólo atribuciones y competencias en lo que respecta la tutela del ambiente, sino también, y en especial, como lo ha señalado la jurisprudencia constitucional, así por ejemplo, en la sentencia número 2001-05737, de las catorce horas cuarenta y un minutos del veintisiete de junio del dos mil uno:

"V.- CONSIDERACIONES ACERCA DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL EN LA CONSERVACIÓN DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE. En todo caso, resulta necesaria resaltar el importante papel que tienen los gobiernos locales en lo que respecta la protección y conservación del medio ambiente, que no se ve lesionada por las consideraciones hechas en el Considerando anterior. En este sentido debe recordarse que la jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido constante en el sentido de que ha señalado que la protección del medio ambiente es una tarea que corresponde a todos por igual, es decir, que existe una obligación para el Estado –como un todo- de tomar las medidas necesarias para proteger el medio ambiente, a fin de evitar grados de contaminación, deforestación, extinción de flora y fauna, uso desmedido o inadecuado de los recursos naturales, que pongan el peligro la salud de los administrados. Al decir que este cometido les atañe a todos por igual se entiende '[...] [tanto] a las instituciones públicas, a las que corresponde hacer respetar la legislación vigente y promoviendo esfuerzos que prevengan o eliminen peligros para el medio ambiente; [como] a los particulares, acatando aquellas disposiciones y colaborando en la defensa del suelo, el aire y el agua, pues todo cambio nocivo resultante de un acto humano en la composición, contenido o calidad de éstos resultará también perjudicial para la calidad de vida del humano' (sentencia número 4480-94, de las diez horas cincuenta y un minutos del diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).

En esta tarea, por institución pública, debe entenderse comprendida la Administración Central –Ministerios-, instituciones especializadas en la materia, como por ejemplo, la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, la Dirección Forestal, el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), y por supuesto, las municipalidades, entre otros. Es de la conjunción de lo dispuesto en los artículos 50 y 169 de la Constitución Política que a las municipalidades les asiste no sólo una facultad sino el deber de garantizar, defender y preservar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y en este sentido, no debe olvidarse que es el cometido constitucional encomendado a los gobiernos locales, en lo que respecta a la "administración de los intereses y servicios locales", deberes de los que nace la obligación de velar por la salud física y mental de las personas, así como la de proteger y preservar los recursos naturales de su jurisdicción territorial, como lo ha reconocido en forma reiterada y constante la jurisprudencia constitucional (en ese sentido ver las sentencia números 2051-91; 2728-91; 4480-94, supra citada; 0915-95; 1888-95; 2671-95; 2560- 96; 4149-95; y 1360-97, entre otras). En virtud de esa competencia constitucional genérica, a los gobiernos locales les corresponde disponer lo necesario para hacer que el disfrute de los recursos públicos –como las playas, los parques nacionales, el recurso forestal, los recursos hídricos, o los recursos minerales-, se haga en forma tal que se garanticen sus condiciones naturales sin alteración, y que se puedan preservar los recursos naturales y el medio ambiente en general. De lo dicho, queda claro que a las municipalidades les corresponde ejercer las funciones de vigilancia que la Constitución Política y la legislación le asignan en la materia específica de protección ambiental; deber que obviamente está inmerso en toda la función municipal, de suerte que en ninguna de sus manifestaciones puede desconocerlo. Así por ejemplo, en la elaboración del plan regulador, la municipalidad siempre tiene que tener en cuenta la preservación y protección al medio ambiente [...] En este sentido, en los diversos conflictos suscitados, la Sala ha sido clara en considerar que la omisión o negligencia en la actuación de los ayuntamientos en lo que se refiere a defensa y protección del medio ambiente, debe entenderse que constituye un incumplimiento grave a sus deberes constitucionales, en tanto se traduce en la violación de derechos fundamentales (derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y a la salud); tareas en las que la falta de recursos humanos o económicos no resultan justificante para su incumplimiento [...] Y aunque también se ha desatado la cuestionante de que existe un evidente interés nacional en la materia ambiental, obviamente éste comprende el interés local '[...] es por ello que en esta materia la actividad del Gobierno Central resulta del mayor interés para la Nación –lo que incluye, desde luego el interés local-' (sentencia número 2671-95, de las dieciséis horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veinticuatro de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cinco).

Ahora bien, queda claro que la participación de los Ministerios de Gobierno y demás instituciones públicas que tengan cometidos especiales en la protección y preservación del medio ambiente en modo alguno pueden restarle la competencia genérica que en esta materia tienen las municipalidades, dado que ello constituiría una invasión en la esfera de sus competencias constitucionales, en razón de la materia ("lo local"), la cual debe traducirse a la promoción y conocimiento de la participación ciudadana. En todo caso, debe aclararse que el reconocimiento de esa competencia genérica en materia ambiental de las municipalidades no puede implicar, en ningún supuesto, el traslado de las competencias que por disposición legal se ha asignado a otras instituciones a los gobiernos locales. De manera que para resolver la situación del supuesto conflicto de la prevalencia entre el interés nacional versus el local, es que nace la obligación de coordinación entre las diversas dependencias públicas, a fin de que prevalezca el interés superior de la Nación. [...]" VI.- En este ámbito, cobran especial importancia las funciones urbanísticas que los gobiernos locales realizan en su circunscripción territorial, con fundamento en la especial competencia que por mandato constitucional (artículo 169 constitucional) les ha sido asignada y que desarrolla la legislación, en concreto en la Ley de Planificación Urbana y Ley de Construcciones, cuerpos normativos en los que se encomienda todo el régimen del derecho urbanístico en el ámbito local, lo que comprende, no sólo la elaboración y aprobación de las regulaciones urbanísticas (plan regulador y sus regulaciones complementarias, sea, el Reglamento de Zonificación, Reglamento de Fraccionamiento y Urbanizaciones, el Mapa Oficial y el Reglamento de Renovación Urbana), sino también lo concerniente el otorgamiento de los permisos de fraccionamiento y urbanizaciones y de construcciones, así como el ámbito sancionatorio. Es claro que estamos ante un claro ejercicio del "poder de policía de la edificación", como lo indica Nombre71101 , en su obra Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico (Editorial Tecnos, S. A. Segunda Edición, España. 1992, p. 101), en tanto el otorgamiento de las licencias de construcción está condicionado a que el proyecto en cuestión resulte conforme con la ordenación urbanística aplicable; lo cual supone un control no sólo previo (ex-ante o a priori), que se debe tener como un acto de habilitación o permisión, de manera que produce efectos ex-nunc, es decir, desde su emisión y hacia futuro; sino también concomitante, esto es, la actividad de fiscalización en la ejecución de la actividad autorizada, a fin de que se realice conforme a la licencia o permiso concedido y a las regulaciones ambientales que rigen la actividad; lo que permitiría, en caso de inumplimiento de parte del administrado (por variación de los planos o exceso en la edificación), la revocatoria del mismo, así como el derribo de las obras, en los términos de los artículos 88, 89 y 96 de la Ley de Construcciones.

VII.- Conviene aclarar que el ejercicio de la función urbanística, no le corresponde al ingeniero o arquitecto municipal, en los términos en que se indica en el artículo 83 de la Ley de Construcciones, sino, como se indicó, a su órgano deliberativo, esto es, al Concejo, en tanto el citado numeral, lo que se hace es definir a una persona responsable de la obra; bajo el espíritu del legislador de que tales gestiones se analicen con un criterio técnico y objetivo, lo cual, por la materia, es propia de tales profesionales; de manera que la redacción o literalidad de la norma no puede llevar a la confusión de que los permisos urbanísticos son dados por los funcionarios indicados en esa disposición. Nótese además, como bien lo indicó la recurrida, que en los supuestos en que la municipalidad no tenga ingeniero contratado dentro de su planta, necesariamente debe de remitir la solicitud a la corporación local más cercana que sí lo tenga, a fin de que rinda criterio conforme a la disciplina de la materia. Por tal motivo, es que, no estima este Tribunal como viciada la actuación del Concejo de la Municipalidad de San Rafael, en tanto, previo a resolver el permiso de construcción solicitado, requirió la ampliación del criterio de su ingeniero; más bien la actuación anterior resulta absolutamente conforme con los señalados principios constitucionales ambientales, de objetivación de la tutela del ambiente, en tanto busca sustentar su decisión en un basamento técnico y precautorio, ya que conforme a lo decidido en la sentencia número 2005-04050 de la Sala Constitucional, se ordenó a las municipalidades de la Provincia de Heredia a adoptar las recomendaciones dadas por la Defensoría de los Habitantes y la Contraloría General de la República, a fin de evitar la contaminación de los ríos Burío y Quebrada Seca, lo cual obliga a la recurrida, a adoptar todas las medidas necesarias a fin de dar cabal cumpliento de ese fallo constitucional.

VIII.- DEL SILENCIO POSITIVO.- Concretamente, en torno a la solicitud que hace el personero de la empresa Consultoría Joradri, S. A., de que se ordene a la municipalidad de San Rafael resolver a su favor la petición de visado de planos de construcción del proyecto de Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande, en aplicación directa del silencio positiva, es necesario hacer las siguientes observaciones. Es lo cierto que frente a una gestión, reclamo, consulta, petición, queja o recurso formulado por el administrado ante una entidad pública, se genera el correspondiente deber jurídico -para ésta (la Administración)- de pronunciarse sobre ella, lo cual se constituye en expresión del derecho de respuesta (artítuculo 27 constitucional) y del acceso a la justicia administrativa (artículo 41 de la Carta Fundamental). Es así como el artículo 329 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en desarrollo de este deber dispone literalmente "1. La Administración tendrá siempre el deber de resolver expresamente dentro de los plazos de esta ley.

2.- El no hacerlo se reputará falta grave de servicio.

3.- El acto final recaído fuera de plazo será válido para todo efecto legal, salvo disposición en contrario de la ley." Se advierte, que la Administración no está obligada a resolver en forma favorable a los intereses del administrado, por cuanto, como bien lo señaló Nombre28 :

"... el contenido de la respuesta dependerá de las circunstancias de hecho y de derecho que apoyen la petición y podrá ser de conformidad con las mismas, tanto positiva, si aquellas circunstancias crean efectivamente en el ciudadano el derecho subjetivo que reclama, como negativa, si lo contrario. Pero, sea cual fuere el contenido de la respuesta, ésta tiene que darse y en un plazo razonable que permita calificarla como pronta y no como retrasada." (Los privilegios de la Administración Pública. Edición Mimeografiada. Colegio de Abogados. Universidad de Costa Rica. 1973. p. 115.)

De manera que si esta respuesta no se produce, ello causa un grave perjuicio a la regularidad debida de la actividad administrativa, a los intereses legítimos y derechos subjetivos de los administrados, además a la finalidad de servicio público o social de la Administración y, en general, a nuestro Estado Social de Derecho. No obstante lo anterior, el deber de respuesta enunciado, no siempre se cumple. Por ello, la Ciencia Jurídica Administrativa ideó un instituto a fin de comninar la existencia de una voluntad tácita o presunta de la Administración -teoría del silencio administrativo- y que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico recoge en forma expresa bajo las formas del silencio negativo -del que se presupone el rechazo de la gestión formulada- y el silencio positivo -que presupone la aceptación de la petición. Así, el instituto del silencio positivo es propio del Derecho Administrativo y se aplica en relación con el otorgamiento de los permisos, licencias y autorizaciones que se tramitan ante la Administración Pública, conforme a las reglas contenidas en los artículos 330 y 331 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que disponen textualmente:

"Artículo 330.- 1.- El silencio de la Administración se entenderá positivo cuando así se establezca expresamente o cuando se trate de autorizaciones o aprobaciones que deban acordarse en el ejercicio de funciones de fiscalización y tutela.

2.- También se entenderá positivo el silencio cuando se trate de permisos, licencias y autorizaciones." "Artículo 331.- 1.- El plazo para que surja el silencio positivo será de un mes, a partir de que el órgano reciba la solicitud de aprobación, autorización o licencia con los requisitos legales.

2.- Acaecido el silencio positivo no podrá la Administración dictar un acto denegatorio de la instancia, ni extinguir el acto sino en aquellos casos y en la forma previstos en esta ley." Ahora bien, es importante advertir que para la procedencia del silencio administrativo positivo es necesario, no sólo que se constate una conducta omisiva de parte de la Administración ante una solicitud de permiso, licencia o autorización de parte de un administrado, y su previsión legal -en atención a la sujeción de la actuación pública al principio de legalidad-, sino también en cumplimiento de todos los requisitos y exigencias que en relación a la gestión formulada, el ordenamiento jurídico disponga, así, la falta de los requisitos de rigor conlleva un efecto de interrupción en lo que a la operancia de este instituto, tal y como lo consideró la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 6332-94, criterio que ha sido recogido por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en fallo número 88, del diecinueve de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro y en resolución de las quince horas quince minutos del diecinueve de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, y por la Sección Tercera de este Tribunal (Contencioso Administrativo), así por ejemplo, en resolución número 407-2002, de las 10:15 horas del 19 de abril del 2002). Además, es importante advertir que este instituto no tiene operatividad en relación con la materia ambiental -como lo ha señalado en forma reiterada la jurisprudencia constitucional, así por ejemplo en sentencias número 6836-93, 1730-94, 1731-94, 2954-94, 5506-94, 6332-94, 0820-95, 5745-99, 2000-1895, 2003-6322, y también en la sentencia número 0397-F-2001 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia-, de la que forma parte el Derecho de Urbanismo -como lo señaló la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 2003-3656, partiéndo de la base que se trata de la disciplina jurídica atinente a la ordenación del territorio, que comprende la delimitación del contenido de la propiedad urbana y el ejercicio de la función urbanística como potestad pública, en virtud de lo cual, le son aplicables los principios constitucionales de la rama de la que forma parte; así como tampoco respecto de los bienes de dominio público, en atención a la materia de que se trata -que compromete el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado- y al tipo de bien de que se trata -que es imprescriptible, inembargable e inalienable, en tanto, por vocación está dispuesto al uso y disfrute de la colectividad en general-; como lo ha considerado nuestra jurisprudencia constitucional (así, entre otras, pueden consultarse las sentencias número 6836-93, de las 08:54 horas del 24 de diciembre de 1993, número 1730-94, de las 15:06 horas del 13 de abril de 1994; y 2954-94, de las 09:09 horas del 17 de junio de 1994); y el artículo 4 de la Ley Forestal, número 7575, de trece de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y seis, respecto de los recursos naturales. Consecuentemente, en relación con los permisos y autorizaciones relativas a la materia urbanística no resulta aplicable el instituto del silencio positivo, es decir, no pueden estimarse otorgadas por el transcurso del plazo para su contestación; aunque sí pueden generar el llamado silencio negativo, o también denominado "acto presunto negativo", al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 261.3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que en esta materia constituiría la omisión de las respectivas instituciones de conocer, examinar y tramitar debidamente las solicitudes de permisos, licencias y autorizaciones en materia urbanística en plazo establecido para las mismas, a partir del cual, el interesado tiene la vía para su impugnación, primero en sede administrativa, y al adoptarse el acto definitivo (emanado del jerarca impropio), en la vía plenaria contenciosa. No obstante lo anterior, se recuerda a la Municipalidad recurrida, que la gestión en marras debe de ser resuelta en un plazo prudencial, para no incurrir en la lesión del artículo 41 de la Constitución Política.

POR TANTO:

Se confirma el acuerdo municipal impugnado y se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

Nombre5180 Nombre65604 Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Municipal Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grnade y otros contra la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia amv Municipal (Jerarquía impropia) Condominio Horizontal Residencial Piedra Grande c/ Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia