Client list without banking transactions does not violate bank secrecyLista de clientes sin operaciones bancarias no viola secreto bancario

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Email ...01 _______________________________________________________________________ File: 10-000668 -1027-CA Pure Law Proceeding Plaintiff: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica Defendant: The State No. 2958 -2010 CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. SIXTH SECTION, JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Office 144. Goicoechea, at eight o'clock on the tenth of August, two thousand ten.

Contentious administrative proceeding declared one of pure law, filed by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, represented by its Acting General Manager, Nombre66802, of legal age, married once, Agricultural Engineer, holder of identity card number CED48939 and resident of Alajuela, against The State, represented by the Deputy Procuradora, Georgina Inés Chaves Olarte, of legal age, attorney, married, holder of identity card number CED401 and resident of Moravia.

WHEREAS

1- The plaintiff Bank files the lawsuit that has given rise to this proceeding, stating the following verbatim claims in its complaint: "That the suspension of the effects and execution of the vote of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition (COPROCOM) No. 03-2010 of 7:55 p.m. on January 12, 2010, be ordered as a provisionalísima precautionary measure, both with regard to the supply of information protected by banking secrecy and the improperly imposed fine. Once the legal hearing has been granted, that the same suspension requested in the previous point be maintained as a precautionary measure. That this lawsuit be granted, and consequently, that the absolute nullity of the sanction issued by COPROCOM in file No. 018-09 be declared. That is, of COPROCOM's Agreement No. 6 of ordinary session No. 30-2009 of September 29, 2009, notified to the Bank on October 26, 2009, which imposed on Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a fine of NINE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY EXACT COLONES (¢9,811,650), and of Vote No. 03-2010 of 7:55 p.m. on January 12, 2010, notified to Banco Nacional de Costa Rica on February 23, 2010, for contravening Article 24 of the Political Constitution and reiterated constitutional jurisprudence, as well as the order issued by COPROCOM for Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to hand over information that is protected by banking secrecy. That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding." 2- By resolution issued by the Case Management Judge at eight thirty on March two, two thousand ten, the following provisional precautionary measure was taken: "The immediate suspension of the effects of Vote No. 03-2010 of 7:55 p.m. on January 12, 2010, issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition." Likewise, by resolution number 1321-2010, the precautionary measure indicated above was definitively confirmed.

3- The State representation answered the complaint in a timely and proper manner, requesting that it be denied, as well as raising the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, and lack of current interest. Likewise, it requested that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs, as well as to pay interest on the costs.

4- At the preliminary hearing held starting at two o'clock p.m. on June fifteen, two thousand ten, the claims were not adjusted, remaining the same as those indicated in the complaint. Likewise, at this same hearing, this proceeding was declared one of pure law, as there was no testimonial or expert evidence to be presented, in accordance with Article 98, subsection 2) of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code, with both parties proceeding to give their conclusions orally.

5- The case file for this matter was sent to the reporting judge on July 19, 2010 (see folio 181 verso of the judicial file). This resolution is issued within the period of fifteen business days stipulated in Article 82, subsection 4), of the Organic Regulations of Organization and Service of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction, and it was also notified within the period regulated in Article 2 of the Law on Judicial Notifications number 8687. Likewise, no errors or omissions are noted that would compel the annulment of the proceedings. This judgment is issued in writing by the reporting judge González Vílchez, with the affirmative vote of judges Leiva Poveda and Garita Navarro.

WHEREAS

I- PROVEN FACTS: Of relevance for the purposes of this proceeding, the following are considered accredited: 1) The Commission for the Promotion of Competition, in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo ordinario) against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, for the purpose of ascertaining the real truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (uncontroverted fact and see folios 17 through 19 of the administrative file); 2) By official letter number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition indicated to the Special Administrative Attorney of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, the following verbatim: "In order to obtain essential information for the investigation and in accordance with articles 27 subsection c) and 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and article 264 of the General Law of Public Administration, you are requested to provide, within a period no longer than ten business days from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of pension fund operator affiliates who have credit operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone number, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that in accordance with article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and 64 of its Regulations, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and according to article 28 subsection c), a fine of up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary may be imposed on the economic agent who has delivered false information. Similarly, a sanction of up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary may be imposed for delaying the delivery of information as stipulated in article 28 subsection d) of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. Likewise, the party is warned that in the event of a delay in delivering the requested information, summary proceedings will be initiated." (see folios 17 through 19 of the administrative file); 3) By resolution of the Technical Support Unit to the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, issued at eleven thirty on April twenty-four, two thousand nine, the following was verbatim indicated regarding what is relevant for the issuance of this judgment: "In article four of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 5:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, the Commission for the Promotion of Competition opened an ordinary administrative procedure against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for an alleged violation of articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Law No. 7472. Thus, based on the power conferred on this body by article 67 of the cited law, information was requested from that party that was considered necessary in order to fulfill the objective of the procedure, to ascertain the real truth of the facts that will serve as grounds for the final act, that is, to determine whether that banking entity incurred in any of the monopolistic practices provided for in article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, the BNCR sent the requested information, except that corresponding to point number 13, which refers to information about its clients, considering that this information is protected by banking secrecy. (...) IT IS RESOLVED: To order Banco Nacional de Costa Rica that within a period no longer than ten business days from this notification, provide the following information: List of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating, Name62 or corporate name, identity or legal identification card number, address, and telephone number." (see folios 20 and 21 of the administrative file); 4) By official letter of May 4, 2009, the Special Administrative Attorney of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica indicated to the Technical Support Unit, Commission for the Promotion of Competition, that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity or legal identification card number, address, and telephone number, is confidential information, as it is protected by banking secrecy, in accordance with the provisions of article 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code. Likewise, it was indicated in this official letter that the bank accounts of its clients are inviolable, and information can only be provided if there is written authorization from the account holder or a court order from a competent judicial authority. Therefore, the defendant bank indicated that it was legally prevented from complying with the order made (see folios 24 through 27 of the administrative file); 5) By resolution issued by the directing body of the administrative procedure at nine fifteen on June four, two thousand nine, it was resolved to submit to the knowledge of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition the refusal to deliver information issued by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, so that it may consider whether it constitutes a violation of article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its amendments (see folios 28 and 29 of the administrative file); 6) In Ordinary Session No. 17-2009 held at five thirty p.m. on June sixteen, two thousand nine, article ten, the Commission for the Promotion of Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding (procedimiento administrativo sumario) for the alleged violation of article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC Regulations to the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and sections 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration, this agreement proceeded to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and pursuant to section 324 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three business days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds on which it bases its claims (see folios 30 through 32 of the administrative file); 7) By a writing received at the Technical Support Unit of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica made a statement regarding the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that the refusal of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or a lack of desire to cooperate, but rather that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code, as well as the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the Bank can only reveal information of the type requested under two circumstances: 1. By express authorization of the client and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority (see folios 55 through 60 of the administrative file); 8) In Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at five thirty p.m. on September twenty-nine, two thousand nine, article six, the Commission for the Promotion of Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following operative part was dictated: "The summary administrative proceeding conducted against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, legal entity identification number CED12252, for violation of article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, is granted, and therefore: a) Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is imposed, in the first term, the sanction of paying the sum of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty exact colones (¢9,811,650), which corresponds to fifty (50) minimum monthly salaries, based on what was established by the Executive Branch through Decree N° 35370-MTSS, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 136 of July 15, 2009, which established the minimum monthly salary for the second semester of 2009 in the sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty-three exact colones (¢Placa27753). (...) b) Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is ordered, based on article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, 89 of its Regulations, and articles 225, 264, 297, and 300 of the General Law of Public Administration, to provide the missing information initially requested through official letter UTA-CPC-0294-08 and subsequently by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of this Commission, at 11:30 a.m. on April 24, 2009. It is warned that in case of non-compliance, the provisions of section 68 of Law No. 7472 will be applied." (see folios 63 through 70 of the administrative file); 9) That Banco Nacional de Costa Rica filed a motion for reversal (recurso de reposición) before the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, against the agreement indicated in the previous proven fact (see folios 73 through 80 of the administrative file); 10) By vote number 03-2010, issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition at nineteen fifty-five on January twelve, two thousand ten, the motion for reversal filed by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica against the agreement contained in article six of the minutes of ordinary session number 30-2009, held at five thirty p.m. on September twenty-nine, two thousand nine, was denied, thereby confirming the fine imposed and the requirement to supply the information requested by said commission (see folios 84 through 94 of the administrative file).

II- ON THE OBJECT OF THIS CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is requesting in this proceeding that the absolute nullity of agreement six of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, be declared. Through these, a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661) was imposed on said banking entity for violation of article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and furthermore, the order was given to provide the requested information consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity or legal identification card number, address, and telephone number. The arguments of the plaintiff Bank are summarized as follows: 1. The challenged resolutions are null because they contravene the provisions of article 24 of the Political Constitution, 615 of the Commercial Code, and the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, because the information requested by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition regarding the names, addresses, identification numbers, and telephone numbers of its clients is confidential information protected by banking secrecy. Therefore, the defendant banking entity did not hand over the requested information to the Commission for the Promotion of Competition because it is protected by banking secrecy, meaning the economic sanction imposed is null, as is the order to hand over that information to said commission; 2. On the other hand, the plaintiff bank argues that in the administrative procedure that culminated with the sanction imposed and the order to hand over the information requested by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, a defect occurred that produces its nullity, since the provisions of article 27 bis b) of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense were not followed, as said norm establishes that upon the opening of a sanctioning proceeding by the Commission for acts contrary to that Law, in which any supervised entity of the Financial System has participated, and Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is a State commercial bank supervised by SUGEF, the criterion of the respective superintendency will be requested. Precisely, the plaintiff bank alleges that even though the consultation is not binding, it is mandatory, and that in the present case, SUGEF was never consulted at any time, so the challenged resolutions suffer from absolute nullity in an evident and manifest manner. For its part, the State representation argues in its defense, in essence, the following: 1. The Commission for the Promotion of Competition requested from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity or legal identification card number, address, or telephone number, by virtue of an investigation initiated against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica based on three complaints filed against said bank before the Superintendency of Pensions and forwarded to the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, considering that Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has incurred in the relative monopolistic practice defined in article 12, subsection c) of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. The State argues that the defendant bank could be engaging in a monopolistic practice consisting of allegedly forcing its clients to purchase insurance from its own marketing company as a condition for loan approval. The State representation indicates that the information requested by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, is indispensable for the investigation, because the Commission for the Promotion of Competition needs to contact the referred clients in order to determine whether Banco Nacional de Costa Rica indeed granted them the loan conditional on their affiliation with the pension fund operator BN Vital. Likewise, the State attorney alleges that the only thing the Commission for the Promotion of Competition requested from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the client list indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity or legal identification card number, and address or telephone number, and that no information whatsoever about the credit operation was requested; 2. The State representative argues that the information requested by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition is not covered by banking secrecy, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, which distinguishes banking secrecy from the fundamental right to privacy (derecho fundamental a la intimidad); 3. The State attorney affirms that the Commission for the Promotion of Competition has powers granted by law, in this case article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, to request the necessary information to carry out its supervisory functions, powers that have been confirmed by constitutional jurisprudence; 4. Finally, the State argues that the procedure regulated in article 27 bis of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense has not been violated, because in this case it is not the scenario regulated by said norm, since it is not a procedure for determining anticompetitive conduct, but rather a summary proceeding initiated due to the refusal to provide information in an investigation, which are therefore different scenarios, and consequently, the cited norm has not been violated.

III- ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BANKING SECRECY, AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION: In this matter, it is necessary to provide an adequate explanation and delimitation of what is understood by the Fundamental Right to Privacy, enshrined in article 24 of our Political Constitution, banking secrecy regulated in section 615 of the Commercial Code, and the supervisory and investigative functions or powers of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, granted by article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, for the purpose of seeing the scope and limits of each of these institutes, and thus applying them to the specific case. a) On the Fundamental Right to Privacy. Scope and Limits: The Fundamental Right to Privacy is enshrined in article 24 of the Political Constitution, which provides:

ARTICLE 24.- The right to privacy, freedom, and secrecy of communications is guaranteed.

The private documents and written, oral, or any other type of communications of the inhabitants of the Republic are inviolable. However, a law, the approval and amendment of which will require the votes of two-thirds of the Deputies of the Legislative Assembly, shall establish in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the seizure, search, or examination of private documents, when it is absolutely essential to clarify matters submitted to their cognizance.

Likewise, the law shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the intervention of any type of communication and shall indicate the crimes in the investigation of which the use of this exceptional power may be authorized and for how long. It shall also indicate the responsibilities and sanctions that officials who illegally apply this exception will incur. Judicial resolutions covered by this rule must be reasoned and may be executed immediately. Their application and control shall be a non-delegable responsibility of the judicial authority.

The law shall establish the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Comptroller General of the Republic may review accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to supervise the correct use of public funds.

A special law, approved by two-thirds of the total number of Deputies, shall determine which other Public Administration bodies may review the documents that such law indicates in relation to the fulfillment of their regulatory and supervisory powers to achieve public purposes. Likewise, it shall indicate in which cases such review is appropriate.

Correspondence that has been stolen, as well as information obtained as a result of the illegal intervention of any communication, shall have no legal effect.

Precisely, this Section of this Tribunal addressed the topic of the right to privacy regarding its scope and limits in a judgment from last year, where the following was stated, in pertinent part:

Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to privacy, which is a protected sphere for the private life of individuals. Privacy is comprised of those phenomena, behaviors, data, and situations of a person that are normally kept from the knowledge of strangers. This sphere of privacy is justified because, in a democratic system, every person has the right to maintain confidentiality about certain activities, data, documents, or opinions of theirs, since it is impossible or very difficult to coexist and fully develop the goals a person sets for themselves without enjoying a framework of privacy, protected from interference by the State or other persons (see article 11.2.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights or Pact of San José). One of the manifestations of this fundamental right, expressly contemplated in the text of article 24 of the Constitution, is the inviolability of private data and documents. This guarantee protects the confidentiality of private documents and information, which constitutes a guarantee that private individuals do not have access to them and, at the same time, implies a prohibition for both public and private law subjects to provide them to third parties. In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that: "...Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees to all persons an intangible sphere of privacy from other subjects of law, such that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, because they are contained in its files, records, and physical or automated case files, cannot be accessed by any person as this would imply an unconstitutional intrusion or external interference. Obviously, the above is even more applicable when the administered party itself has made confidential information known to a public administration, because it was required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit..." (judgment number 2005-02703 of ten hours seventeen minutes on March ten, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, judgment number 2003-00136 of fifteen hours twenty-two minutes on January fifteen, two thousand three). While it is true that the Constituent guaranteed to every person a private sphere, a private domain, to protect their privacy, it is also true that the constitutional text itself establishes that this fundamental right is not absolute, but rather, in seeking to protect other safeguarded legal interests (see article 28, first and second paragraphs of the Political Constitution), it is possible to impose limitations on it in specific and qualified cases, so that the Public Administration may exercise the regulatory and supervisory powers to achieve public purposes granted to it by a legal norm (article 24, paragraph 6 of the Political Constitution), or so that third parties, in the exercise of the fundamental right to information on matters of public interest (see article 30 of the Political Constitution), may have access to that private sphere, in those cases where such data or documents have relevance for achieving the satisfaction and effective protection of the public interest. It should be noted that it is not, therefore, a matter of nullifying certain rights for the protection of others, since there is no hierarchy as such among fundamental rights, but rather, of achieving adequate coordination among the diverse interests present in a society, in order to seek a necessary middle ground in each case between private interest and public interest (see judgment number 1999-07265 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at twelve hours thirty-nine minutes on September seventeen, nineteen ninety-nine). Based on the constitutional foundation set forth above, the legislator is empowered not only to create bodies or entities that will exercise regulatory and supervisory powers to achieve public purposes - such as, for example: the effective protection of those who participate in the market as investors, or as consumers of goods and services - but also to impose on individuals, in specific and qualified cases where other protected legal interests are at stake that transcend that private sphere given the impact they have on third parties, the duty to provide information or present documents that are related to the activity they carry out, in order to verify that its exercise is not contrary to the public interest intended to be regulated and protected (see in a similar sense, judgment number 1996-04463 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at nine hours forty-five minutes on August thirty, nineteen ninety-six). (Judgment number 838-2009; Contentious Administrative Tribunal. Sixth Section, at eight hours thirty minutes on May six, two thousand nine).

Precisely, from the citation of constitutional numeral 24 and the explanation of the right to privacy given by this same Section of this Tribunal, the following relevant considerations can be extracted: 1. The right to privacy protects the confidential information of individuals or citizens in general; 2. Although the confidential information of those administered is protected by this fundamental right, it can be perfectly accessed in pursuit of safeguarding other protected legal interests, as would be the case at hand to prevent monopolistic practices and protect consumer rights; 3. The fifth paragraph of Article 24 of the Political Constitution established the possibility for the legislator to grant Public Administrations powers of regulation and oversight to achieve public purposes. In other words, the right to privacy is not absolute; it permits exceptions, such as the one presented in this case, and which will be analyzed in detail later, in the sense that based on the powers granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, the Comisión para Promover la Competencia is perfectly empowered, from a constitutional and legal perspective, to request the information it requires in order to safeguard the public interests of consumers. Therefore, it may even require information directly protected by the fundamental right to privacy, since in certain circumstances that fundamental right must yield to the fundamental right of consumer protection, both rights of constitutional origin; b) Bank secrecy, scope and limits: Bank secrecy has been derived from the provisions of Article 615 of the Commercial Code, which states:

ARTÍCULO 615.- Bank checking accounts are inviolable and Banks may only supply information about them upon request or with the written authorization of the owner, or by order of competent judicial authority. Excepted is the intervention that the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras makes in fulfillment of its functions determined by law.

The review of checking accounts by tax authorities is prohibited.

Precisely, in the same judgment cited above, this Section of this Tribunal addressed the issue of bank secrecy, stating the following:

(..) bank secrecy provided for in Article 615 of the Commercial Code constitutes a legal manifestation of the protected legal interest safeguarded through the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution (fundamental right to privacy). In this sense, bank secrecy is “...the duty imposed on any financial intermediation entity not to reveal the information and data it possesses about its clients from any banking operation or banking contract it has entered into with them, especially in the case of checking accounts, since numeral 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that situation...” (see judgment number 2005-02703 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at ten hours and seventeen minutes on March tenth, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, judgments number 2004-14210 at fifteen hours and four minutes on December fourteenth, two thousand four, and 2003-00136 at fifteen hours and twenty-two minutes on January fifteenth, two thousand three). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this rule also admits exceptions, for while it is true that bank secrecy constitutes a mechanism to protect individuals against the improper use that may be made of their financial operations, to the detriment of their privacy, it is also true that in those situations where there is a possibility that a natural or legal person may have incurred serious breaches of the obligations imposed by the Legal System in the exercise of their activity in the financial or securities market, which also have the virtue of transcending the private sphere and may affect third parties, the bodies that, according to law, are competent to exercise the powers of regulation and oversight of said activities, may have effective access to that data –as established by Article 615 of the Commercial Code itself–, and exchange it among themselves –in the event that the legal norm so authorizes–, as a way of achieving not only the timely and strict fulfillment of said prudential supervision powers assigned to them (...)" From the cited norm and from what has already been analyzed by this same Section of this Tribunal, the following precisions regarding bank secrecy can be made: 1. Bank secrecy is a legal derivation of the fundamental right to privacy. This means that bank secrecy does not have constitutional but rather legal rank; 2. Bank secrecy solely covers information concerning banking operations, banking contracts, in general the activities that clients have with banks in their financial activities; 3. Just as is the case with the fundamental right to privacy, bank secrecy has its exceptions, which are the same as those explained for the right to privacy. That is, for Public Administrations that are constitutionally or legally granted powers of supervision and oversight for the purpose of safeguarding or protecting public interests, confidential information can be perfectly accessed by those Public Administrations that have such powers, provided it is done following the normatively regulated procedures and guaranteeing citizens that their information will not be disclosed or used for purposes other than protecting superior public interests; c) Functions or powers of oversight and investigation of the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, to protect commercial activities from monopolistic practices and protect consumer rights: Precisely, the Comisión para Promover la Competencia is one of those administrative bodies that constitutionally and legally possesses powers or faculties of oversight, supervision, and protection against monopolistic activities and for the fundamental rights of the consumer. In this sense, Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides the following:

ARTÍCULO 46.- Monopolies of a private nature, and any act, even if originating in a law, that threatens or restricts the freedom of commerce, agriculture, and industry, are prohibited.

It is of public interest the action of the State aimed at preventing any monopolizing practice or tendency.

Companies constituted as de facto monopolies must be subjected to special legislation.

To establish new monopolies in favor of the State or the Municipalities, the approval of two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly shall be required.

Consumers and users have the right to the protection of their health, environment, safety, and economic interests; to receive adequate and truthful information; to freedom of choice, and to equitable treatment. The State shall support the organizations that they form for the defense of their rights. The law shall regulate these matters.

Please note that the cited constitutional article is clear in qualifying as of public interest, even with constitutional rank, the obligation of the State to protect the free market by preventing monopolistic activities, and on the other hand, to protect the fundamental rights of the consumer. Precisely, as indicated in the text of the cited constitutional norm, the special law shall regulate these matters, and this is what the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor effectively does, by granting the Comisión para Promover la Competencia the following powers:

ARTÍCULO 21.- Creation of the Commission to Promote Competition.

The Commission to Promote Competition is created as an organ of maximum deconcentration; it shall be attached to the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce. It shall be responsible for hearing, ex officio or by complaint, and sanctioning, when appropriate, all practices that constitute impediments or difficulties for free competition and unnecessarily hinder the fluidity of the market.

The administrative instance before this Commission is mandatory and must be exhausted prior to resorting to the judicial route, except as established in Article 17 of this Law.

ARTÍCULO 27.- Powers of the Commission.

The Commission to Promote Competition has the following powers:

• a)To ensure that the entities and organs of the Public Administration comply with the obligation to streamline the procedures and formalities that must be maintained; in addition, to eliminate those that are unnecessary, as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of this Law. In case of non-compliance, it is responsible for recommending to the head of the entity to impose the corresponding administrative sanctions on officials who commit serious faults in the exercise of their functions.
• b)To recommend, to the Public Administration, the regulation of prices and the establishment of non-tariff restrictions, when appropriate in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of this Law.
• c)To investigate the existence of monopolies, cartels, practices, or concentrations prohibited in this Law, for which purpose it may request from individuals and other economic agents the relevant information or documents and sanction when appropriate.
• d)To sanction acts of supply restriction stipulated in Article 33 of this Law when they reflexively harm free competition in the market.
• e)To establish coordination mechanisms to sanction and prevent monopolies, cartels, concentrations, and illicit practices.
• f)When it deems it pertinent, to issue an opinion, in matters of competition and free concurrence, regarding laws, regulations, agreements, circulars, and other administrative acts, without such criteria having any legal effect. The Commission cannot be compelled to issue an opinion.

This Commission is not responsible for hearing acts of unfair competition under the terms stipulated in Article 17 of this Law. These cases are the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent jurisdictional bodies.

These two norms are clear in indicating that the Comisión para Promover la Competencia possesses broad powers of supervision and oversight to develop in reality the constitutional postulate of protecting the free market and preventing monopolies and monopolistic practices. However, the indicated Commission not only has powers of supervision of commercial activities for the purpose of preventing monopolies or monopolistic practices that distort the fluidity of the commercial market, but these powers are also accompanied by the authority to sanction economic agents who engage in these illegal practices. In this sense, Article 28 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor regulates these sanctions, by providing the following:

ARTÍCULO 28.- Sanctions.

The Commission to Promote Competition may order, by means of a substantiated resolution and taking into consideration the ability to pay, against any economic agent that infringes the provisions contained in Chapter III of this Law, the following sanctions:

• a)The suspension, correction, or elimination of the practice or concentration in question.
• b)The deconcentration, partial or total, of whatever has been unduly concentrated, without prejudice to the payment of the applicable fine.
• c)The payment of a fine, up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having falsely declared or delivered false information to the Commission to Promote Competition, independently of other liabilities incurred.
• d)The payment of a fine, up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage for delaying the delivery of information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition.
• e)The payment of a fine, up to six hundred eighty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having incurred in an absolute monopolistic practice.
• f)The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having incurred in a relative monopolistic practice.
• g)The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having incurred in any concentration prohibited by this Law.
• h)The payment of a fine, up to seventy-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, against natural persons who participate directly in monopolistic practices or prohibited concentrations, representing legal persons or de facto entities or on behalf and by order of them.

In the case of the infractions mentioned in subsections e) to h) of this article that, in the judgment of the Commission to Promote Competition, are particularly serious, this Commission may impose as a sanction a fine equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the annual sales obtained by the offender during the previous fiscal year or a fine up to ten percent (10%) of the value of the offender's assets. Of these two fines, the higher one shall be imposed. To impose such sanctions, the principles of due process, informalism, material truth, ex officio action, impartiality, and publicity, which inform the administrative procedure stipulated in Book Two of the General Law of Public Administration, must be respected.

Should the offender refuse to pay the sum established by the Commission to Promote Competition, mentioned in subsections d) to h) of this article, the Commission shall certify the debt, which constitutes an executive title, so that, based on it, the execution process can be filed in the judicial courts, under the terms provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.

As can be deduced from reading this article, it is easy to appreciate that the Comisión para Promover la Competencia has sanctioning powers, which manifest in two types: First: Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when the Commission, after concluding an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, determines that monopolistic practices were committed or that the free market was illegally distorted, that is, the final and principal sanction; Second: Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when, during the investigation conducted within an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, they falsely declare or deliver false information, refuse to give information, or deliver it belatedly to the Commission. Precisely, the second type of sanctions are those of interest in this case, because they are the ones framed within the duty of economic agents to provide the information requested of them, in the case at hand, by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, in order to investigate possible monopolistic practices. An obligation to provide information that is expressly regulated in Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, which states in its relevant part:

ARTÍCULO 67.- Documents and information.

Merchants, at the request of the Commission to Promote Competition, the National Consumer Commission, and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, are obligated to:

• a)Deliver, under oath, the reports and documents deemed necessary to guarantee the exercise of their functions. The information provided is confidential and the official who violates the secrecy of confidential data commits a serious fault in the exercise of their functions. (...)

The refusal to deliver, the falsehood, or the inclusion of inaccurate or incomplete data in the required documents must be sanctioned as a serious fault by the respective commissions, as appropriate. (...)

The organs and entities of the Public Administration must supply the information requested of them by the Commission to Promote Competition and the National Consumer Commission for the exercise of their functions.

From what is stated in the cited norm, it is clear that the Comisión para Promover la Competencia has the power to request from any economic agent, including Public Administrations, the information it requires to investigate whether a certain subject has engaged in conduct sanctioned by the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Now then, these powers to request information held by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, which are also held by the Comisión Nacional del Consumidor and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce (all administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the constitutional mandate to protect the public interests of consumers and prevent monopolistic practices), do not infringe upon or violate the fundamental right of privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Magna Carta, much less the bank secrecy established in numeral 615 of the Commercial Code, since it has been duly determined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, which provided in what is of interest the following:

"Article 24. Considerations of this Chamber. The plaintiffs miss a taxative list of documents that can be reviewed. This Tribunal considers that, being an exception to the general principle of inviolability of documents, the fifth paragraph of Article 24 must be interpreted restrictively. However, not so restrictively as to annul in fact or in law the exception itself. In this case, the exception also has the particularity that it aims to fulfill another principle -as constitutional as that of the inviolability of private documents- contemplated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution. To analyze the point it is necessary to weigh one principle and the other; lest by unilaterally defending one of them, the other is rendered ineffective. Stated more concretely in relation to this case, interpreting the fifth paragraph of Article 26(sic) with its exceptions and guarantees in such a way that it annuls, legally or factually, the principle of Article 46 is unacceptable. The guarantees of that fifth paragraph cannot be interpreted with such rigor that Article 46 loses its effectiveness. Access to private documents is not arbitrary in the context of commercial relations, but rather is suitable for combating, as eventually in this case, monopolistic practices and protecting consumers in general. But it is not only suitable, but also necessary. This Tribunal considers that the State could not effectively defend consumers without having access to some private documents of the merchants involved. However, obviously it cannot access any document it pleases and here the restriction of Article 24 comes into play. Access is limited to the documents that the law indicates in relation to its competencies. Unlike the thesis of the plaintiffs, this Tribunal considers that it is not realistic to demand that said law dictate a taxative list. Given the complex and changing commercial reality, demanding such a list established by legal means in our system would make state powers practically nugatory. This Tribunal is inclined to think that the guarantee of the fifth paragraph of Article 24 is satisfied to the extent that the law defines the competencies of the administrative body in function of which it can review the documents. In this way, it may review only the documents required for its functions; it must in each case substantiate why such a document is necessary to fulfill its purposes..." From the cited constitutional jurisprudence, the following aspects are clear: 1. The Comisión para Promover la Competencia possesses a power of constitutional (Article 46 of the Political Constitution) and legal (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor) rank to investigate and determine if an economic agent is engaging in monopolistic practices or practices that distort the free market; 2. To determine that an economic agent is violating the provisions on monopolies, that is, to achieve its constitutionally and legally assigned public purposes, the Comisión para Promover la Competencia has the power to request, from either a common economic agent or any Public Administration, the information it needs to carry out its investigations; 3. In turn, constitutionally and legally, any economic agent or Public Administration has the duty to provide the information requested by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, provided this information is requested within the investigative functions conferred upon said Commission; 4. The information requested by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia to investigate illegal monopolistic activities does not violate the right to privacy, because the information required by said Commission is protected by the State's constitutional duty to prevent any monopolistic practice or tendency, which is developed in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and therefore Articles 24 and 46 of the Political Constitution complement each other by allowing private confidential information to be provided to the State, when the latter must fulfill superior public interests. In simple words, the private interest in private information ceases before the superior public interest. Likewise, the information requested by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia violates bank secrecy even less, since the latter does not even have constitutional rank, whereas the State's protection of those administered from illegal monopolistic practices has a superior constitutional rank, which stands above bank secrecy itself; 5. If an economic agent or public administration refuses to provide the information requested by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, it may be sanctioned, following the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and its respective regulation. Precisely, in this case, the information requested by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica does not violate the right to privacy or bank secrecy, as will be analyzed in the following considerando.

IV- ON THE LEGALITY OF AGREEMENT SIX OF ORDINARY SESSION NUMBER 30-2009, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, AND VOTE NUMBER 03-2010 OF JANUARY 12, 2010, BOTH ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM BANCO NACIONAL DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOR IS IT COVERED BY BANK SECRECY: Applying to the specific case what was explained in the previous considerando, this Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the challenged conduct consisting of agreement six of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, through which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650) was imposed on Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, are in accordance with the law, for the following reasons: 1) It is considered a proven fact that the Comisión para Promover la Competencia in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative procedure against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to obtain the material truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Note that the Comisión para Promover la Competencia agreed in the cited session to the opening of an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure for the alleged commission of monopolistic practices by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Now, within the investigative powers of the Comisión para Promover la Competencia, within a duly initiated ordinary sanctioning procedure, through official letter number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Comisión para Promover la Competencia stated textually to the Special Administrative Attorney-in-Fact of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica the following:

"In order to obtain essential information for the investigation and in accordance with Articles 27 subsection c) and 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and Article 264 of the General Law of Public Administration, you are requested to provide, within a period not exceeding ten business days from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of the members of the pension operator who have credit operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone number, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that in accordance with Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and 64 of its Regulation, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and according to Article 28 subsection c), a fine of up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed on the economic agent that has provided false information. Likewise, a sanction of up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed for delaying the delivery of information as stipulated in Article 28 subsection d) of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Furthermore, the party is warned that in the event of delay in delivering the requested information, a summary procedure will be initiated." Note that the information requested by the Directing Body of the Comisión para Promover la Competencia is required as part of an investigation, and furthermore, the cited official letter is clear in indicating the sanctions and the procedure to be followed in case of non-compliance. This fully complies with the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and the conduct is covered by the functions assigned to the indicated Commission. In addition, the requested information is pertinent to the ongoing investigation, which concerns an apparent practice by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica of conditioning the granting of loans to its clients on their membership in its pension operator. Now, part of the requested information was not delivered to the Comisión para Promover la Competencia by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Therefore, through a resolution of the Technical Support Unit to the Commission to Promote Competition, issued at eleven hours and thirty minutes on April twenty-fourth, two thousand nine, the following was stated textually, in the part relevant to the issuance of this judgment:

"In article four of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 17:30 hours on May 27, 2008, the Commission to Promote Competition opened an ordinary administrative procedure against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for a supposed violation of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Law No. 7472. Thus, based on the power conferred on this body by Article 67 of the cited law, that party was requested information deemed necessary to fulfill the objective of the procedure, to ascertain the material truth of the facts that will serve as grounds for the final act, that is, to determine if that banking entity incurred in any of the monopolistic practices provided for in Article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, BNCR sent the requested information, except for that corresponding to point number 13, which refers to information about its clients, considering that this information is protected by bank secrecy.

... IT IS RESOLVED: To warn the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica that within a period of no more than ten business days, starting from this notification, it must provide the following information: List of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number." From this official letter, it can be inferred that the Commission to Promote Competition (Comisión para Promover la Competencia) required the defendant bank, within an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding (procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador), to provide simple information such as a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, which this Court considers, based on all the arguments set forth in the preceding recital, to be information that the Commission to Promote Competition can perfectly request from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. In this sense, the requested information has two characteristics: First: It is included within the functions assigned to the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor) and the Political Constitution itself, because it is necessary and pertinent to investigate the apparent commission of monopolistic practices by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (articles 27 and 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense); Second: The information was requested once the Commission to Promote Competition had resolved to open an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding, through Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, therefore due process is being followed; Third: The required information does not violate the right to privacy, established in article 24 of the Political Constitution, since, as explained in detail in the preceding recital, the investigative powers granted to the Commission to Promote Competition have constitutional rank (article 46 of the Magna Carta), and do not conflict with the provisions of article 24 of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, there is harmony between these norms, because private fundamental rights yield to superior public interests, as occurs in cases like the present one, where personal privacy of individuals yields its protection so that the State can fulfill its duty to protect the public interests represented in preventing monopolistic practices and consumer rights; 2) Now then, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has been alleging the non-delivery of the information required by the Commission to Promote Competition, indicating that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, is confidential information, as it is protected by bank secrecy (secreto bancario), in accordance with the provisions of article 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code. Likewise, the plaintiff bank argues that its clients' bank accounts are inviolable, and information can only be given if there is written authorization from the account holder or a judicial order from a competent judicial authority (in that sense, see the official letter of May 4, 2009, which has been taken as a proven fact in the case file). The arguments of the plaintiff Bank are completely inadmissible for the following reasons: a. The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not covered by bank secrecy, because, as has been explained, the information request made by the aforementioned Commission does not even violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in article 24 of the Political Constitution. Bank secrecy is not an institute of constitutional rank, while the state powers to protect free competition and consumer rights have constitutional foundation, therefore there can be no violation of bank secrecy when the information requested is done with the purpose of protecting superior public interests protected by the Constitution, as well as when the information request is duly motivated and within the functions that the requesting body must perform; b. In addition to the aforementioned, there is a particularity in this case, which is that the requested information is simply a list of the clients of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. Note that the information requested by the Commission does not lie in the banking operations of the clients with the plaintiff bank, nor does it generally encompass information on banking transactions, therefore it is not subject in any way to bank secrecy. Moreover, it must be considered that in general the information requested by the Commission from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is not sensitive information; it is a simple list of clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, with their names, identification numbers, telephone numbers, and addresses, information which is also evident and can be easily accessed using other means. Consequently, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition does not violate the constitutional right to privacy, much less bank secrecy; 3) Precisely, due to the plaintiff bank's non-compliance, the directing body of the administrative proceeding, by resolution issued at nine hours and fifteen minutes on June fourth, two thousand nine, resolved to submit to the knowledge of the Commission to Promote Competition the refusal to deliver information issued by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order for it to consider whether it constitutes a violation of article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its amendments. Exactly, in Ordinary Session No. 17-2009 held at seventeen hours and thirty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, article ten, the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding (procedimiento administrativo sumario) for the alleged violation of article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with articles 33 in relation to 64 of the Executive Decree 25234-MEIC Regulation to the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor) and ordinals 320 to 326 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this agreement proceeded to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and according to numeral 324 and following of the General Public Administration Law, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three business days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds on which it supports its claims. Precisely, by a writ received at the Technical Support Unit (Unidad Técnica de Apoyo) of the Commission to Promote Competition, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica commented on the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that the refusal of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or unwillingness to cooperate, but that in accordance with the provisions of articles 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code, as well as the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the Bank can only reveal information of the type required under two circumstances; 1. By express authorization of the client and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority. From the stated facts, this Court reaches the following relevant aspects for this case: a. Due to the non-compliance of the plaintiff bank, it was ordered to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and in accordance with the provisions of articles 33 in relation to 64 of the Executive Decree 25234-MEIC Regulation to the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and ordinals 320 to 326 of the General Public Administration Law. Note that what was ordered in this case was to open a summary administrative proceeding, which is what is regulated as the procedure to follow in cases where an economic agent commits the infraction of refusing to deliver, falsifying, or including inaccurate or incomplete data in the documents required within an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding. That is, article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense establishes infractions that must be sanctioned following a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, regulated in articles 320 to 326 of the General Public Administration Law. This proceeding is different from the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding, which is regulated in article 27 bis of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, which must be followed to determine and sanction vertical or horizontal monopolistic practices in the markets supervised by the superintendencies. Precisely, in cases of the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding provided for in article 27 bis, the criterion of the respective superintendency is required prior to the application of the sanction. Meanwhile, in cases of sanctions imposed on economic agents for infringing the mandatory provision of information required, in this case, by the Commission to Promote Competition, the procedure to follow is the summary one, which does not require the prior criterion of any superintendency; b) Exactly in the present case, the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding that has been followed against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the one ordered by the Commission to Promote Competition in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, in which it was agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to obtain the real truth for the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. Precisely, this proceeding has not yet concluded, as it is in the investigation phase, and furthermore, before it concludes and an eventual sanction is imposed, the stipulations of article 27 bis of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense must be complied with, since it would be in that proceeding where the provisions of said norm would apply. Now, in this case, the challenged administrative actions are not the final acts of an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding, but of a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, so the requirement of having the criterion of the respective superintendency before imposing the sanction is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff bank's arguments that the challenged administrative actions suffer from a substantial defect that produces their absolute nullity, for not having previously consulted the respective superintendency on the imposed sanction, are not acceptable, since, as explained, they are different cases and proceedings; 4) Now then, in Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at seventeen hours and thirty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, article six, the Commission to Promote Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following operative part (Por Tanto) was dictated:

"It is declared that the summary administrative proceeding followed against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, legal identification number CED12252, for violation of article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, is well-placed, and therefore: a) The Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is imposed, in the first term, the sanction of paying the sum of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones exactly (¢9,811,650), which corresponds to fifty (50) minimum monthly wages, based on what was established by the Executive Branch through Decree No. 35370-MTSS, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 136 of July 15, 2009, which established the minimum monthly wage for the second semester of 2009 in the sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty-three colones exactly (¢196,233). (...) b) The Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is ordered, based on article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, 89 of its Regulation, and articles 225, 264, 297, and 300 of the General Public Administration Law, to provide the missing information initially requested through official letter UTA-CPC-0294-08 and subsequently by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of this Commission, at 11 hours and 30 minutes on April 24, 2009. It is warned that in case of non-compliance, the provisions of numeral 68 of Law No. 7472 will be applied." Precisely, this resolution was challenged by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, through a motion for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) filed before the Commission to Promote Competition, and by vote number 03-2010, issued by said Commission at nineteen hours and fifty-five minutes on January twelfth, two thousand ten, the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff bank was declared without merit. Exactly, these are the resolutions challenged in the case file, which this Court considers to be completely valid and fully compliant with the provisions of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. In this sense, it must be taken into account that the cited resolutions are the final acts of a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, which, as has been explained, is not found to have defects from a procedural or substantive standpoint. Therefore, the lawsuit filed by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica against the State is declared without merit in all its aspects, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, by which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was imposed a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661), for violation of article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and furthermore, it was ordered to provide the required information consisting of the list of clients of the bank to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number.

V- REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE DECREED IN THIS PROCEEDING: In this matter, through a resolution issued by the Processing Judge (Juez Tramitador) at eight hours and thirty minutes on March second, two thousand ten, the following provisional precautionary measure (medida cautelar) was taken: "The immediate suspension of the effects of Vote No. 03-2010 at 19:55 hours on January 12, 2010, issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition." Likewise, through resolution number 1321-2010, the previously indicated precautionary measure was definitively confirmed. Precisely, due to the instrumentality and accessory nature of precautionary measures to the main proceeding, and given that the present lawsuit is being declared without merit, it is ordered to revoke the indicated precautionary measure, starting from the notification of this judgment to all parties.

VI- REGARDING THE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA Y PASIVA), LACK OF CURRENT INTEREST (FALTA DE INTERÉS ACTUAL), AND LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO), RAISED BY THE STATE REPRESENTATION: This Court resolves the defenses raised by the State in the following manner: a) Lack of standing: The defense of lack of active standing is rejected, as the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has standing to challenge in this venue the sanctions imposed by the Commission to Promote Competition. Likewise, the defense of lack of passive standing is rejected, because the State represents the Commission to Promote Competition, and the challenged actions were issued by the said Commission; b) Lack of current interest: This defense must be rejected, as the sanctions and duties imposed on the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, through the challenged administrative actions, have not yet been executed, therefore said banking entity has a current interest in challenging those actions in this venue; c) Lack of Right: The defense of lack of right is declared well-placed, because the challenged actions comply with the legal system, without there being violations of the right to privacy, bank secrecy, and the summary sanctioning administrative proceeding of article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. Therefore, the plaintiff bank does not have the right to challenge administrative actions that are valid and in accordance with the legal system.

VII- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF PERSONAL AND PROCEDURAL COSTS IN THIS MATTER: In accordance with the provisions of article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), and as this jurisdictional body does not see valid reasons for exoneration from costs, the plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until their effective payment. Items that will be liquidated in the judgment execution phase.

THEREFORE (POR TANTO) The defenses of lack of active and passive standing and lack of current interest are rejected. The defense of lack of right is declared well-placed. The lawsuit filed by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica against the State is declared without merit in all its aspects, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, by which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was imposed a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661), for violation of article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and furthermore, it was ordered to provide the required information consisting of the list of clients of the bank to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. It is ordered to revoke the precautionary measure decreed in the case file, starting from the notification of this judgment to all parties. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until their effective payment. Items that will be liquidated in the judgment execution phase.

Otto González Vílchez Jorge Leiva Poveda Roberto Garita Navarro Case File (Expediente): 10-000668 -1027-CA Pure Law Proceeding (Proceso de Puro Derecho) Plaintiff (Actor): Banco Nacional de Costa Rica Defendant (Demandado): The State of January 12, 2010, both with regard to the supply of information protected by bank secrecy and the improperly imposed fine. Once the legally required hearing has been granted, the same suspension requested in the previous point shall be maintained as a precautionary measure. This claim shall be declared with merit, and consequently the absolute nullity of the penalty issued by COPROCOM within file No. 018-09 shall be declared. That is, of COPROCOM agreement No. 6 of ordinary session No. 30-2009 of September 29, 2009, notified to the Bank on October 26, 2009, which imposed on Banco Nacional de Costa Rica the fine of NINE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY EXACT COLONES (¢9,811,650), and of Voto No. 03-2010 of 7:55 p.m. on January 12, 2010, notified to Banco Nacional de Costa Rica on February 23, 2010, for contravening Article 24 of the Political Constitution and reiterated constitutional jurisprudence, as well as the order issued by COPROCOM for Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to deliver the information that is protected by bank secrecy. The defendant shall be ordered to pay the costs of both phases of this proceeding."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2</span><span style="color:#010101">- By order issued by the Processing Judge at eight thirty in the morning on March 2, 2010, the following provisional precautionary measure was taken: </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"The immediate suspension of the effects of Voto No. 03-2010 of 7:55 p.m. on January 12, 2010, issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition." </span><span style="color:#010101">Likewise, by means of order number 1321-2010, the precautionary measure indicated above was definitively confirmed.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">3-</span><span style="color:#010101"> The State representation answered the claim in a timely and proper manner, requesting that it be declared without merit, as well as raising the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, and lack of current interest. Likewise, it requested that the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs of both phases, as well as the payment of interest on the costs.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">4-</span><span style="color:#010101"> At the preliminary hearing held starting at two in the afternoon on June 15, 2010, the claims were not adjusted, remaining the same as those indicated in the claim filing. Likewise, at this same hearing, this proceeding was declared one of pure law, as there was no testimonial or expert evidence to admit, in accordance with Article 98, subsection 2) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, with both parties proceeding to give their conclusions orally.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">5-</span><span> The file for this matter was sent to the reporting judge on July 19, 2010 (see folio 181 verso of the judicial file). This resolution is issued within the fifteen-business-day period stipulated in Article 82, subsection 4), of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction, and was notified within the period regulated in Article 2 of the Judicial Notifications Law number 8687.</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span>Likewise, no errors or omissions are noted that would compel the annulment of the proceedings. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">This judgment is issued in writing by the reporting judge González Vílchez, with the affirmative vote of judges Leiva Poveda and Garita Navarro. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">CONSIDERANDO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">I- PROVEN FACTS: </span><span>Of relevance for the purposes of this proceeding, the following are deemed accredited: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1) </span><span>The Commission to Promote Competition, in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to ascertain the real truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (uncontroverted fact and see folios 17 through 19 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2)</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> By official letter number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition indicated to the Special Administrative Representative of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textually, the following: </span><span style="font-style:italic">"In order to obtain essential information for the investigation and in accordance with Articles 27 subsection c) and 67 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and Article 264 of the General Law of Public Administration, you are requested to provide, within a period not exceeding </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">ten business days </span><span style="font-style:italic">from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of the pension operator's affiliates who have credit operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone number, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that in accordance with Article 67 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and 64 of its Regulation, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and in accordance with Article 28 subsection c) a fine of up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed on the economic agent that has delivered false information. Similarly, a penalty of up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed for delaying the delivery of the information as stipulated in Article 28 subsection d) of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. Likewise, the party is warned that in the event of a delay in the delivery of the requested information, summary proceedings will be initiated." </span><span>(see folios 17 through 19 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3)</span><span> By resolution of the Technical Support Unit to the Commission to Promote Competition, issued at eleven thirty in the morning on April 24, 2009, the following was indicated textually, in what is relevant for the issuance of this judgment: </span><span style="font-style:italic">"In article four of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 5:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, the Commission to Promote Competition opened an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for an alleged violation of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Law No. 7472. Thus, based on the authority granted to this body by Article 67 of the cited law, that party was requested to provide information deemed necessary in order to fulfill the objective of the proceeding, to ascertain the real truth of the facts that will serve as the basis for the final act, that is, to determine whether that banking entity engaged in any of the monopolistic practices set forth in Article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, the BNCR sent the requested information, except for the information corresponding to point number 13, which refers to information about its clients, considering that this information is protected by bank secrecy. (...) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">IT IS RESOLVED:</span><span style="font-style:italic"> To warn Banco Nacional de Costa Rica that within a period not exceeding ten business days from this notification, it shall provide the following information: List of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number." </span><span>(see folios 20 and 21 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4)</span><span> By official letter of May 4, 2009, the Special Administrative Representative of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica indicated to the Technical Support Unit, Commission to Promote Competition, that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, is confidential information, as it is protected by bank secrecy, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code. Likewise, it was indicated in this official letter that its clients' bank accounts are inviolable, and information can only be given if there is written authorization from the account holder or a judicial order from a competent judicial authority. Therefore, the defendant bank indicated that it was legally prevented from complying with the warning issued (see folios 24 through 27 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">5) </span><span>By resolution issued by the directing body of the administrative proceeding at nine fifteen in the morning on June 4, 2009, it was resolved to submit to the knowledge of the Commission to Promote Competition the refusal to deliver information issued by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order for it to be considered whether this constitutes a violation of Article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its amendments (see folios 28 and 29 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">6)</span><span> In Ordinary Session No. 17-2009 held at five thirty in the afternoon on June 16, 2009, article tenth, the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC Regulation to the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and articles 320 through 326 of the General Law of Public Administration, this agreement proceeded to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and pursuant to article 324 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three business days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds on which it bases its claims (see folios 30 through 32 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">7)</span><span> By written submission received at the Technical Support Unit of the Commission to Promote Competition, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica responded to the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that Banco Nacional de Costa Rica's refusal to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or lack of desire to cooperate, but rather that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commercial Code, as well as reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, the Bank can only reveal information of the type requested under two scenarios: 1. By express authorization of the client, and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority (see folios 55 through 60 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">8)</span><span> In Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at five thirty in the afternoon on September 29, 2009, article sixth, the Commission to Promote Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following Por Tanto was stated:</span><span style="font-style:italic"> "The summary administrative proceeding brought against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, legal identification number CED12252, is declared with merit for violation of Article 67 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, and therefore: a) Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is imposed, in the first term, the penalty of paying the sum of </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty exact colones (¢9,811,650), </span><span style="font-style:italic">which corresponds to fifty (50) minimum monthly wages, based on what was established by the Executive Branch through Decree No. 35370-MTSS, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 136 of July 15, 2009, which established the minimum monthly wage for the second half of 2009 in the sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty-three exact colones (¢196,233). (...) b) Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is ordered, based on Article 67 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, 89 of its Regulation, and Articles 225, 264, 297, and 300 of the General Law of Public Administration, to provide the missing information initially requested through official letter UTA-CPC-0294-08 and subsequently by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of this Commission, at 11:30 a.m. on April 24, 2009. It is warned that in the event of non-compliance, the provisions of article 68 of Law No. 7472 will be applied." </span><span>(see folios 63 through 70 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">9)</span><span> That Banco Nacional de Costa Rica filed a motion for reconsideration before the Commission to Promote Competition against the agreement indicated in the preceding proven fact (see folios 73 through 80 of the administrative file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">10)</span><span> By voto number 03-2010, issued by the Commission to Promote Competition at seven fifty-five in the evening on January 12, 2010, the motion for reconsideration filed by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica against the agreement contained in article sixth of the minutes of ordinary session number 30-2009, held at five thirty in the afternoon on September 29, 2009, was declared without merit, thereby confirming the fine imposed and the requirement to supply the information requested by said commission (see folios 84 through 94 of the administrative file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> </span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">II- ON THE OBJECT OF THIS CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COGNIZANCE PROCEEDING: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica</span><span> is requesting in this proceeding that the absolute nullity be declared of agreement sixth of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and voto number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, through which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650) was imposed on said banking entity for violation of Article 67 of the Law for the </span><span style="color:#010101">Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense,</span><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="color:#010101"> and furthermore, an order was issued to provide the required information consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. The plaintiff Bank's allegations are summarized as follows: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">1.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The challenged resolutions are null because they contravene the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution, 615 of the Commercial Code, and reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, because the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition regarding the names, addresses, identification numbers, and telephone numbers of its clients is confidential information which is protected by bank secrecy. Therefore, the defendant banking entity did not deliver to the Commission to Promote Competition the requested information as it is protected by bank secrecy, making the imposed economic penalty null, as well as the order to deliver that information to said commission; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Furthermore, the plaintiff bank argues that in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the imposed penalty and the order to deliver the information required by the Commission to Promote Competition, a defect causing its nullity was incurred, since the provisions of Article 27 bis b) of the Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense were not followed, given that said rule establishes that upon the opening of a sanctioning proceeding by the Commission for acts contrary to said Law, in which any supervised entity of the Financial System has participated—and Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is a state commercial bank supervised by SUGEF—the opinion of the respective superintendency shall be requested. Precisely, the plaintiff bank argues that despite the consultation being non-binding, it is mandatory, and that in this case, SUGEF was not consulted at any time, so the challenged resolutions suffer from absolute nullity in an evident and manifest manner. For its part, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">the State representation </span><span>argues in its defense, in essence, the following: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1.</span><span> The Commission </span><span style="color:#010101">to Promote Competition requested from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, by virtue of an investigation initiated against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica based on three complaints filed against said bank before the Superintendence of Pensions and forwarded to the Commission to Promote Competition, considering that Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has engaged in the relative monopolistic practice defined in Article 12 subsection c) of the Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. The State argues that the defendant bank could be engaging in a monopolistic practice consisting of allegedly forcing its clients to purchase insurance from its marketer as a condition for loan approval. The State representation indicates that the information requested by the </span><span style="color:#010101">Commission to Promote Competition from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, is essential for the investigation, because the Commission to Promote Competition needs to contact said clients in order to determine whether Banco Nacional de Costa Rica effectively granted them the loan conditional upon their affiliation with the BN Vital pension operator. Likewise, the State's attorney argues that what the </span><span>Commission to Promote Competition requested from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was solely the list of clients indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, and address or telephone number, and that no information whatsoever about the credit operation was requested; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2.</span><span> The State representative argues that the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not covered by bank secrecy, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber, which distinguishes bank secrecy from the fundamental right to privacy (derecho fundamental a la intimidad); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3.</span><span> The State's attorney affirms that the Commission to Promote Competition has legally granted powers, in this case Article 67 of the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, to request the information necessary to carry out its oversight functions, powers that have been confirmed by constitutional jurisprudence; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4.</span><span> Lastly, the State argues that the procedure regulated in Article 27 bis of the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense has not been violated, because this case does not fall under the scenario regulated by that rule, since it is not a proceeding for determining anticompetitive conduct, but rather a summary proceeding processed due to the refusal to provide information in an investigation, meaning these are different scenarios and consequently the cited rule has not been violated.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">III- ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BANK SECRECY, AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION: </span><span>In this matter, it is necessary to provide an adequate explanation and delimitation of what is understood by the Fundamental Right to Privacy, enshrined in Article 24 of our Political Constitution, bank secrecy regulated in article 615 of the Commercial Code, and the oversight and investigative functions or powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, in order to ascertain the scope and limits of each of these institutions, and thus apply them to the specific case. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">a) On the Fundamental Right to Privacy. Scope and Limits:</span><span style="color:#010101"> The Fundamental Right to Privacy is enshrined in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, which provides:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 24.- The right to privacy (intimidad), to freedom, and to the secrecy of communications is guaranteed. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Private documents and written, oral, or any other type of communications of the inhabitants of the Republic are inviolable. However, a law, the approval and amendment of which shall require the votes of two-thirds of the Deputies of the Legislative Assembly, shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the seizure, search, or examination of private documents, when it is absolutely indispensable to clarify matters submitted to their cognizance. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Likewise, the law shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the intervention of any type of communication and shall indicate the crimes in the investigation of which the use of this exceptional power may be authorized and for how long. It shall also indicate the responsibilities and penalties incurred by officials who illegally apply this exception. Judicial resolutions protected under this rule must be reasoned and may be executed immediately. Their application and control shall be the non-delegable responsibility of the judicial authority. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The law shall establish the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic may review accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to supervise the correct use of public funds. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">A special law, approved by two-thirds of the total Deputies, shall determine which other Public Administration bodies may review the documents that said law indicates in relation to the fulfillment of their regulatory and supervisory competencies to achieve public purposes. It shall also indicate in which cases such review is appropriate. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Correspondence that has been stolen and information obtained as a result of the illegal intervention of any communication shall not produce legal effects. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">Precisely, this Section of this Court addressed the topic of the right to privacy (derecho a la intimidad) regarding its scope and limits, in a judgment from last year, in which the following was indicated in what is relevant:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">fundamental right to privacy (intimidad), </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">which is a protective sphere for the private life of individuals. Privacy (intimidad) is comprised of those phenomena, behaviors, data, and situations of a person that are normally shielded from the knowledge of strangers. Such a sphere of privacy is justified because in a democratic system every person has the right to maintain reserve over certain activities, data, documents, or opinions of theirs, since it is impossible or very difficult to coexist and fully develop the goals a person sets for themselves without enjoying a framework of privacy (intimidad), protected from interference by the State or other persons (see Article 11.2.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights or Pact of San José). One of the manifestations of this fundamental right, expressly contemplated in the text of Article 24 of the Constitution, is the inviolability of private data and documents. This guarantee protects the confidentiality of private documents</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">and information, which constitutes a guarantee that private individuals do not have access to them and simultaneously implies a prohibition for both public and private law subjects to supply it to third parties. In that sense, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that: “...Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees all persons an intangible sphere of privacy (intimidad) from the rest of the subjects of law, such that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, by appearing in its files, records, and physical or automated files, cannot be accessed by any person as this would imply an unconstitutional external intrusion or interference.

Obviously, the foregoing is more applicable when the individual has themselves disclosed confidential information to a public administration, as required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit...” (judgment number 2005-02703 of ten hours seventeen minutes of the tenth of March of two thousand five, and in a similar vein, judgment number 2003-00136 of fifteen hours twenty-two minutes of the fifteenth of January of two thousand three). While it is true that the Constituent Assembly guaranteed every person a private sphere, a private domain, to protect their privacy, it is also true that the constitutional text itself establishes that this fundamental right is not absolute, but rather, in order to protect other safeguarded legal interests (see Article 28, first and second paragraphs of the Political Constitution), it is possible to impose limitations on it in specific and qualified cases, so that the Public Administration may exercise the powers of regulation and oversight to achieve public purposes granted to it by a legal norm (Article 24, paragraph 6 of the Political Constitution), or so that third parties, in exercising the fundamental right to information on matters of public interest (see Article 30 of the Political Constitution), may gain access to that private sphere, in those instances where such data or documents are significant for achieving the satisfaction and effective protection of the public interest. It should be noted, then, that this is not about nullifying certain rights to protect others, since there is no proper hierarchy among fundamental rights, but rather about achieving adequate coordination among the diverse interests present in a society, in order to seek a necessary middle ground in each case between the particular interest and the public interest (see judgment number 1999-07265 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at twelve hours thirty-nine minutes of the seventeenth of September of nineteen ninety-nine). Based on the constitutional foundation set forth above, the legislator is empowered not only to create organs or entities that will exercise powers of regulation and oversight to achieve public purposes—such as, for example, the effective protection of those who participate in the market as investors or as consumers of goods and services—but also to impose upon persons, in specific and qualified cases where other safeguarded legal interests are at stake that transcend that private sphere given their impact on third parties, the duty to provide information or present documents related to the activity they perform, in order to supervise that its exercise does not prove contrary to the public interest that is intended to be regulated and protected (see in a similar vein, judgment number 1996-04463 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at nine hours forty-five minutes of the thirtieth of August of nineteen ninety-six). (Judgment number 838-2009; Administrative Litigation Tribunal, Sixth Section, at eight hours thirty minutes of the sixth of May of two thousand nine).

Precisely, from the citation of constitutional numeral 24 and the explanation of the right to privacy given by this same Section of this Tribunal, the following relevant considerations can be drawn: 1. The right to privacy protects the confidential information of individuals or citizens in general; 2. Although confidential information of individuals is protected by this fundamental right, it can be perfectly accessed to safeguard other protected legal interests, as would be the case here in preventing monopolistic practices and protecting consumer rights; 3. The fifth paragraph of Article 24 of the Political Constitution established the possibility for the legislator to grant Public Administrations powers of regulation and oversight to achieve public purposes; in other words, the right to privacy is not absolute; it permits exceptions, such as the one presented in this case, which will be analyzed in detail later, in the sense that, based on the powers granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, the Commission to Promote Competition is perfectly enabled, from a constitutional and legal perspective, to request the information it requires for the purpose of safeguarding the public interests of consumers. Therefore, it can even require information directly protected by the fundamental right to privacy, since in certain circumstances that fundamental right must yield to the fundamental right of consumer protection, both rights of constitutional origin; b) Bank secrecy, scope and limits: Bank secrecy has been derived from the provisions of Article 615 of the Code of Commerce, which states:

ARTICLE 615.- Bank checking accounts are inviolable and Banks may only supply information about them upon request or with written authorization from the owner, or by order of competent judicial authority. The exception is the intervention that the General Superintendency of Financial Entities makes in fulfillment of its duties as determined by law. The review of checking accounts by tax authorities is prohibited.

Precisely, in the same judgment cited above, this Section of this Tribunal addressed the topic of bank secrecy, stating the following:

(..) bank secrecy provided for in Article 615 of the Code of Commerce constitutes a legal manifestation of the legal interest safeguarded through the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution (fundamental right to privacy). In that sense, bank secrecy is "...the duty imposed on any financial intermediation entity not to reveal the information and data it possesses about its clients from any banking operation or banking contract it has entered into with them, above all, in the case of checking accounts, since numeral 615 of the Code of Commerce expressly enshrines it for that scenario..." (see judgment number 2005-02703 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at ten hours seventeen minutes of the tenth of March of two thousand five, and in a similar vein, judgments number 2004-14210 of fifteen hours four minutes of the fourteenth of December of two thousand four and 2003-00136 of fifteen hours twenty-two minutes of the fifteenth of January of two thousand three). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this rule also admits exceptions, for while it is true that bank secrecy constitutes a mechanism to protect persons against the improper use that may be made of their financial operations, to the detriment of their privacy, it is also true that in those situations where there exists the possibility that a natural or legal person may have incurred serious breaches of the obligations imposed by the Legal System in the exercise of their activity in the financial or securities market, which also have the capacity to transcend the private sphere and may affect third parties, the organs that according to the law are competent to exercise the powers of regulation and oversight of said activities may have effective access to that data—as established by Article 615 of the Code of Commerce itself—and exchange them amongst themselves—in the event that the legal norm so authorizes—as a way to achieve not only the timely and strict fulfillment of said powers of prudential supervision assigned to them (...)

From the cited norm and from what has already been analyzed by this same Section of this Tribunal, the following clarifications can be made regarding bank secrecy: 1. Bank secrecy is a legal derivation of the fundamental right to privacy. This means that bank secrecy does not have a constitutional but rather a legal rank; 2. Bank secrecy only covers information concerning banking operations, banking contracts, and in general the activities that clients have with banks in their financial activities; 3. Just as with the fundamental right to privacy, bank secrecy has its exceptions, which are the same as those explained for the right to privacy. That is, for Public Administrations that by constitutional or legal provision are granted powers of supervision and oversight for the purpose of safeguarding or protecting public interests, confidential information can be perfectly accessed by these Public Administrations that possess such powers, provided it is done following legally regulated procedures and guaranteeing citizens that their information will not be disclosed or used for purposes other than protecting superior public interests; c) Oversight and investigation functions or powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, to protect commercial activities and consumer rights from monopolistic practices: Precisely, the Commission to Promote Competition is one of those administrative organs that constitutionally and legally possesses powers or faculties of oversight, supervision, and protection against monopolistic activities and of the fundamental rights of the consumer. In this regard, Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides the following:

ARTICLE 46.- Private monopolies are prohibited, as is any act, even if originating in a law, that threatens or restricts the freedom of commerce, agriculture, and industry. The State's action aimed at preventing any monopolizing practice or tendency is of public interest. Businesses constituted as de facto monopolies must be subject to special legislation. To establish new monopolies in favor of the State or Municipalities, the approval of two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly is required. Consumers and users have the right to the protection of their health, environment, safety, and economic interests; to receive adequate and truthful information; to freedom of choice; and to equitable treatment. The State shall support the organizations they constitute for the defense of their rights. The law shall regulate these matters.

Note that the cited constitutional article is clear in qualifying as a matter of public interest, even with constitutional rank, the State's obligation to protect the free market by preventing monopolistic activities, and on the other hand, to protect the fundamental rights of the consumer. Precisely, as indicated by the text of the cited constitutional norm, the special law shall regulate these matters, and this is what the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer effectively does, by granting the Commission to Promote Competition the following powers:

ARTICLE 21.- Creation of the Commission to Promote Competition. The Commission to Promote Competition is hereby created, as an organ of maximum decentralization; it shall be attached to the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce. It shall be responsible for hearing, ex officio or by complaint, and sanctioning, where appropriate, all practices that constitute impediments or difficulties for free competition and unnecessarily hinder the fluidity of the market. The administrative instance before this Commission is mandatory and must be exhausted prior to resorting to the judicial route, except as established in Article 17 of this Law.

ARTICLE 27.- Powers of the Commission. The Commission to Promote Competition has the following powers: a) To ensure that the entities and organs of the Public Administration comply with the obligation to streamline procedures and formalities that must be maintained; in addition, to eliminate unnecessary ones, as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of this Law. In case of non-compliance, it is responsible for recommending to the head of the entity the imposition of corresponding administrative sanctions on officials who commit serious faults in the exercise of their duties. b) To recommend to the Public Administration the regulation of prices and the establishment of non-tariff restrictions, where appropriate in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of this Law. c) To investigate the existence of monopolies, cartels, practices, or concentrations prohibited in this Law, for which it may require from private parties and other economic agents the relevant information or documents, and sanction where appropriate. d) To sanction acts of restricting the supply stipulated in Article 33 of this Law, when they indirectly harm free competition in the market. e) To establish coordination mechanisms to sanction and prevent monopolies, cartels, concentrations, and illicit practices. f) When it deems pertinent, to issue an opinion, in matters of competition and free concurrence, regarding laws, regulations, agreements, circulars, and other administrative acts, without such opinions having any legal effect. The Commission cannot be obliged to issue an opinion. This Commission is not responsible for hearing acts of unfair competition in the terms stipulated in Article 17 of this Law. These cases are the exclusive purview of the competent jurisdictional bodies.

These two norms are clear in indicating that the Commission to Promote Competition possesses broad powers of supervision and oversight to develop in reality the constitutional postulate of protecting the free market and preventing monopolies and monopolistic practices. Now then, the indicated Commission not only has powers of supervision over commercial activities for the purpose of preventing monopolies or monopolistic practices that distort the fluidity of the commercial market, but those powers are also accompanied by the power to sanction economic agents who engage in these illegal practices. In that sense, these sanctions are regulated in Article 28 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, providing the following:

ARTICLE 28.- Sanctions. The Commission to Promote Competition may order, through a reasoned ruling and taking into consideration the ability to pay, the following sanctions against any economic agent who violates the provisions contained in Chapter III of this Law: a) The suspension, correction, or suppression of the practice or concentration in question. b) The total or partial deconcentration of what has been improperly concentrated, without prejudice to the payment of the corresponding fine. c) The payment of a fine, up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, for having declared falsely or having delivered false information to the Commission to Promote Competition, independently of other liabilities incurred. d) The payment of a fine, up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, for delaying the delivery of information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition. e) The payment of a fine, up to six hundred and eighty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, for having engaged in an absolute monopolistic practice. f) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred and ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, for having engaged in a relative monopolistic practice. g) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred and ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, for having engaged in a concentration prohibited under this Law. h) The payment of a fine, up to seventy-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly salary, to natural persons who participate directly in prohibited monopolistic practices or concentrations, representing legal persons or de facto entities or for their account and order. In the case of the infractions mentioned in subsections e) to h) of this article that, in the judgment of the Commission to Promote Competition, are particularly serious, this Commission may impose as a sanction a fine equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the annual sales obtained by the offender during the previous fiscal year or a fine up to ten percent (10%) of the value of the offender's assets. Of these two fines, the higher one shall be imposed. To impose such sanctions, the principles of due process, informality, material truth, ex officio action, impartiality, and publicity, which inform the administrative procedure stipulated in Book Two of the General Law of Public Administration, must be respected. If the offender refuses to pay the sum established by the Commission to Promote Competition, mentioned in subsections d) to h) of this article, the Commission shall certify the debt, which constitutes an enforceable title, so that, based on it, the enforcement proceeding may be brought in the judicial sphere, in the terms provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.

As can be seen from reading this article, it is easy to appreciate that the Commission to Promote Competition has sanctioning powers, which manifest in two types: First: Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when the Commission, after completing an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, determines that monopolistic practices were committed or that they illegally distorted the free market, that is, the final and main sanction; Second: Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when, during the investigation taking place within an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, they declare falsely or deliver false information, refuse to give information, or deliver it tardily to the Commission. Precisely, the second type of sanctions is what is of interest in this case, because they are framed within the duty of economic agents to provide the information requested, in the case at hand, by the Commission to Promote Competition, in order to investigate possible monopolistic practices. The obligation to provide information is expressly regulated in Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, which states in relevant part:

ARTICLE 67.- Documents and information. Merchants, at the request of the Commission to Promote Competition, the National Consumer Commission, and the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, are obligated to: a) Deliver, with the character of a sworn statement, the reports and documents deemed necessary to ensure the exercise of their functions. The information supplied is confidential and the official who violates the secrecy of confidential data incurs a serious fault in the exercise of their duties. (...) The refusal to deliver, the falsehood, or the inclusion of inaccurate or incomplete data in the required documents must be sanctioned as a serious fault by the respective commissions, as appropriate. (...) The organs and entities of the Public Administration must supply the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition and the National Consumer Commission for the exercise of their functions.

From what is stated in the cited norm, it is clear that the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request from any economic agent, including Public Administrations, the information it requires to investigate whether a specific subject has committed any conduct sanctioned by the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. Now then, these powers to request information that the Commission to Promote Competition possesses, which are also possessed by the National Consumer Commission and the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce (all administrative organs charged with enforcing the constitutional mandate to protect the public interests of consumers and to prevent monopolistic practices), do not infringe upon or violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Magna Carta, nor certainly bank secrecy established in numeral 615 of the Code of Commerce, since this has been duly determined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, which held in relevant part:

"Article 24. Considerations of this Chamber. The plaintiffs miss a exhaustive list of documents that can be reviewed.

This Court considers that, because it is an exception to the general principle of inviolability of documents, the fifth paragraph of Article 24 must be interpreted restrictively. However, not so restrictively as to nullify, in fact or in law, the exception itself. In this case, the exception also has the particularity that it aims to fulfill another principle—as constitutional as the inviolability of private documents—contemplated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution. To analyze the point, it is necessary to weigh one principle against the other; lest by unilaterally defending one, the other be rendered ineffective. Said more concretely in relation to this case, interpreting the fifth paragraph of Article 26 (sic) with its exceptions and guarantees in such a way that it nullifies, legally or factually, the principle of Article 46 is unacceptable. The guarantees of that fifth paragraph cannot be interpreted so rigorously that Article 46 loses its effectiveness. Access to private documents is not arbitrary in the context of commercial relationships; rather, it is appropriate for combating, as potentially in this case, monopolistic practices and generally protecting consumers. But it is not only appropriate, it is also necessary. This Court considers that the State could not effectively defend consumers without having access to some private documents of the merchants involved. Now, obviously it cannot access any document it pleases, and here the restriction of Article 24 comes into play. Access is limited to the documents specified by law in relation to its competencies. Unlike the petitioners’ thesis, this Court considers it unrealistic to require that such a law provide an exhaustive list. Given the varied and changing commercial reality, requiring in our context a list so established by legal means would render State powers practically nugatory. This Court is inclined to think that the guarantee of the fifth paragraph of Article 24 is satisfied to the extent that the law defines what the competencies of the administrative body are, on the basis of which it may review documents. In this way, it may review only the documents required by its functions; it must in each case justify why such a document is necessary to fulfill its purposes…” From the cited constitutional case law, the following aspects are clear: **1.** The Commission to Promote Competition has a power of constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Political Constitution) and legal rank (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor), to investigate and determine whether an economic agent is engaging in monopolistic practices or practices that distort the free market; **2.** In order to determine that an economic agent is violating monopoly provisions, that is, to successfully fulfill its public purposes assigned constitutionally and legally, the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request, whether from an ordinary economic agent or any Public Administration, the information it needs to carry out its investigations; **3.** In turn, constitutionally and legally, any economic agent or Public Administration has the duty to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, provided that this information is requested within the investigative functions conferred upon said Commission; **4.** The information that the Commission to Promote Competition requests to investigate illegal monopolistic activities does not violate the right to privacy, because the information requested by said Commission is protected by the constitutional duty of the State to prevent any monopolizing practice or tendency, which is developed in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, meaning that Articles 24 and 46 of the Political Constitution complement each other by allowing private confidential information to be provided to the State when the latter must fulfill superior public interests. In simple words, the private interest in private information ceases before the superior public interest. Likewise, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition even less violates bank secrecy, since this does not even have constitutional rank, whereas the State’s protection of the governed from illegal monopolistic practices has a superior constitutional rank, which is above bank secrecy itself; **5.** If an economic agent or public administration refuses to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, it may be sanctioned, following the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and its respective regulation. Precisely, in this case, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica does not violate the right to privacy or bank secrecy, as will be analyzed in the following recital.

**IV- ON THE LEGALITY OF THE SIXTH AGREEMENT OF ORDINARY SESSION NUMBER 30-2009, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, AND VOTE NUMBER 03-2010 OF JANUARY 12, 2010, BOTH ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM BANCO NACIONAL DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOR IS IT COVERED BY BANK SECRECY:** Applying the concepts explained in the previous recital to the specific case, this Court reaches the conclusion that the challenged conduct, consisting of the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, through which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was fined the sum of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650), for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, is in accordance with the law, for the following reasons: **1)** It is an established fact that the Commission to Promote Competition, in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in its fourth article, agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to ascertain the real truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Note that what the Commission to Promote Competition agreed upon in the cited session was the opening of an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding for alleged commission of monopolistic practices by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Now, within the investigative powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, within a duly initiated ordinary sanctioning proceeding, by means of official communication number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition indicated to the Special Administrative Representative of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textually, the following:

"With the purpose of obtaining essential information for the investigation and in accordance with Articles 27 subsection c) and 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and Article 264 of the General Law of Public Administration, you are requested to provide, within a period not exceeding **ten business days** from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of members of the pension operator, who have credit operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that in accordance with Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and 64 of its Regulation, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and in accordance with Article 28 subsection c), a fine of up to sixty-five times the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed on the economic agent that has delivered false information. Likewise, a sanction of up to fifty times the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed for delaying the delivery of information, as stipulated in Article 28 subsection d) of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Furthermore, the party is warned that any delay in delivering the requested information will lead to a summary proceeding." Note that the information requested by the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition is required as part of an investigation, and furthermore, the cited communication is clear in indicating the sanctions and the procedure to follow in case of non-compliance. This fully conforms to the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and the conduct is protected under the functions assigned to the indicated Commission. Moreover, the information requested is pertinent to the ongoing investigation, which concerns an apparent practice by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica of conditioning the granting of loans to its clients on their affiliation with its pension operator. Now, part of the requested information was not delivered to the Commission to Promote Competition by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Therefore, by resolution of the Technical Support Unit to the Commission to Promote Competition, issued at eleven hours thirty minutes on April twenty-fourth, two thousand nine, it textually stated, in what is relevant to the issuance of this judgment, the following:

"In the fourth article of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 17:30 hours on May 27, 2008, the Commission to Promote Competition opened an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for an alleged violation of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Law No. 7472. Thus, based on the power conferred upon this (sic) body by Article 67 of the cited law, information was requested from that party that was deemed necessary to fulfill the objective of the proceeding, to ascertain the real truth of the facts that will serve as the basis for the final act, that is, to determine if that banking entity engaged in any of the monopolistic practices provided for in Article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, the BNCR sent the requested information, except for that corresponding to point number 13, which refers to information about its clients, on the grounds that such information is protected by bank secrecy. (...) **IT IS RESOLVED:** To warn Banco Nacional de Costa Rica that within a period not exceeding ten business days from this notification, it must provide the following information: List of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone." From this communication, it can be deduced that the Commission to Promote Competition requested from the defendant bank, within an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding, simple information, such as providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone, which this Court considers, based on all the arguments set forth in the previous recital, is information that the Commission to Promote Competition can perfectly request from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. In this regard, the requested information has two characteristics: **First:** It falls within the functions assigned to the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and the Political Constitution itself, because it is necessary and pertinent to investigate the apparent engagement of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in monopolistic practices (Article 27 and 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor); **Second:** The information was requested once the Commission to Promote Competition had resolved to open an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding, through Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in the fourth article, therefore, due process is being followed; **Third:** The requested information does not violate the right to privacy, established in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, since, as explained in detail in the previous recital, the investigative powers granted to the Commission to Promote Competition have constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Magna Carta), and do not conflict with the provisions of constitutional Article 24. On the contrary, there is harmony between these norms, because fundamental private rights yield to superior public interests, as occurs in cases such as the present one, where the intimate information of persons yields its protection so that the State can fulfill its duty to protect the public interests represented in preventing monopolistic practices and consumer rights; **2)** Now, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has been arguing the non-delivery of the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, indicating that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone, is information of a confidential nature, as it is protected by bank secrecy, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution and Article 615 of the Code of Commerce. Likewise, the plaintiff bank argues that its clients' bank accounts are inviolable, and information can only be released if there is written authorization from the account holder or a judicial order from a competent judicial authority (in this regard, see the official communication of May 4, 2009, which has been taken as an established fact in the case file). The arguments made by the plaintiff Bank are entirely unfounded, for the following reasons: **a.** The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not protected by bank secrecy, because, as has been explained, the request for information made by the indicated Commission does not even violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Political Constitution. Bank secrecy is not an institution of constitutional rank, whereas the State powers to protect free competition and consumer rights have a constitutional basis, meaning there can be no violation of bank secrecy when the information requested is made for the purpose of protecting superior public interests that are constitutionally protected, and provided that the request for information is duly justified and within the functions that the requesting body must perform; **b.** In addition to the foregoing, there is a particularity in this case, which is that the information requested is simply a list of the clients of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone. Note that the information requested by the Commission does not pertain to the banking operations of the clients with the plaintiff bank, nor does it generally encompass information on banking transactions, and therefore it is not in any way subject to bank secrecy. Furthermore, it must be considered that, in general, the information that the Commission requested from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is not sensitive information; it is a simple list of clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, with their names, identifications, telephone numbers, and addresses, information that is also evidently accessible using other means. Consequently, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition does not violate the constitutional right to privacy, much less bank secrecy; **3)** Precisely due to the plaintiff bank’s non-compliance, the directing body of the administrative proceeding, by resolution issued at nine hours fifteen minutes on June fourth, two thousand nine, resolved to submit the refusal to deliver information issued by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to the knowledge of the Commission to Promote Competition, so that it may be considered whether it constitutes a violation of Article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its reforms. Specifically, in Ordinary Session No. 17-2009, held at seventeen hours thirty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, tenth article, the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC, Regulation to the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and sections 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration, this agreement proceeded to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and pursuant to section 324 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three business days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds supporting its claims. Specifically, through a written submission received by the Technical Support Unit of the Commission to Promote Competition, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica responded to the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that the refusal of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or an unwillingness to cooperate, but rather that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 24 of the Political Constitution and Article 615 of the Code of Commerce, as well as the reiterated case law of the Constitutional Chamber, the Bank can only reveal information of the type requested under two assumptions: 1. By express authorization of the client, and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority. From the exposed facts, this Court arrives at the following relevant aspects for this case: **a.** Due to the plaintiff bank’s non-compliance, it was ordered to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC, Regulation to the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and sections 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration. Note that what was ordered in this case was to open a summary administrative proceeding, which is the procedure regulated to be followed in cases where an economic agent commits the infraction of refusing to provide, falsifying, or including inaccurate or incomplete data in documents required within an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding. That is, Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor establishes infractions that must be sanctioned following a summary administrative sanctioning proceeding, regulated in Articles 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration. This proceeding is distinct from the ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding, which is regulated in Article 27 bis of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and which must be followed to determine and sanction vertical or horizontal monopolistic practices in markets supervised by the superintendencies. Specifically, in cases of the ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding provided for in Article 27 bis, the opinion of the respective superintendency is required prior to the application of the sanction. In contrast, in cases of sanctions imposed on economic agents for violating the mandatory provision of information required, in this case, by the Commission to Promote Competition, the procedure to follow is the summary one, which does not require the prior opinion of any superintendency; **b)** Specifically, in the present case, the ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding that has been pursued against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the one ordered by the Commission to Promote Competition in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in the fourth article, wherein it was agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to ascertain the real truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Specifically, this proceeding has not yet concluded, as it is in the investigation phase, and, moreover, before it ends and an eventual sanction is imposed, the stipulations of Article 27 bis of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor must be complied with, since it would be in that proceeding that the provisions of that norm must be applied. Now, in this case, the challenged administrative conduct is not the final acts of an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding, but of a summary administrative sanctioning proceeding, and therefore, the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the respective superintendency before imposing the sanction is not applicable in this case. Consequently, the plaintiff bank’s arguments to the effect that the challenged administrative conduct suffers from a substantial defect rendering it absolutely null, because the respective superintendency was not consulted prior to the imposed sanction, are not acceptable, since, as explained, they are different scenarios and procedures; **4)** Now, in Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at seventeen hours thirty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, sixth article, the Commission to Promote Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following Operative Part was issued:

"It is declared that the summary administrative proceeding pursued against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, legal identification number CED12252, for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, No. 7472, is granted, and therefore: a) In the first instance, the sanction of paying the sum of **nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones exactly (¢9,811,650)** is imposed on Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, which corresponds to fifty (50) minimum monthly wages, based on the provisions established by the Executive Branch through Decree N° 35370-MTSS, published in Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 136 of July 15, 2009, which set the minimum monthly wage for the second half of 2009 in the sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty-three colones exactly (¢196,233). (...) b) Based on Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, 89 of its Regulation, and Articles 225, 264, 297, and 300 of the General Law of Public Administration, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is ordered to provide the missing information initially requested through official communication UTA-CPC-0294-08 and subsequently by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of this Commission, at 11 hours 30 minutes on April 24, 2009. It is warned that in case of non-compliance, the provisions of section 68 of Law No. 7472 will be applied." Precisely, this resolution was challenged by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica through a reinstatement appeal filed before the Commission to Promote Competition, and by vote number 03-2010, issued by said Commission at nineteen hours fifty-five minutes on January twelfth, two thousand ten, the reinstatement appeal filed by the plaintiff bank was declared without merit. These are precisely the resolutions challenged in this case, and this Court finds them to be completely valid and in full compliance with the provisions of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. In this regard, it must be taken into account that the cited resolutions are the final acts of a summary administrative sanctioning proceeding, which, as has been explained, is not vitiated from a procedural or substantive standpoint.

Therefore, the lawsuit filed by the **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** against the **State** is dismissed in its entirety, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, by means of which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661) was imposed on the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and furthermore, the order was given to provide the required information consisting of the list of bank clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal ID number, address, and telephone number.

**V- ON THE REVOCATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE DECREED IN THIS PROCEEDING:** In this matter, by resolution issued by the Processing Judge at eight hours and thirty minutes on March second, two thousand ten, the following provisional precautionary measure was taken: *"The immediate suspension of the effects of Vote No. 03-2010 at 19:55 hours on January 12, 2010, issued by the Commission to Promote the Competition."*. Likewise, by resolution number 1321-2010, the aforementioned precautionary measure was definitively confirmed. Precisely, due to the instrumentality and accessory nature of precautionary measures to the main proceeding, and in view that this lawsuit is being dismissed, it is ordered that the indicated precautionary measure be revoked, effective from the notification of this judgment to all parties.

**VI- REGARDING THE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING TO SUE AND TO BE SUED, LACK OF CURRENT INTEREST, AND LACK OF RIGHT, FILED BY THE STATE REPRESENTATION:** This Court resolves the defenses filed by the State as follows: **a) Lack of standing to sue and to be sued:** The defense of lack of standing to sue is rejected, since the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has standing to challenge in this venue the sanctions imposed by the Commission to Promote Competition. Likewise, the defense of lack of standing to be sued is rejected, because the State holds the representation of the Commission to Promote Competition, and the challenged conducts were issued by the indicated Commission; **b) Lack of current interest:** This defense must be rejected, since the sanctions and duties imposed on the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica by the challenged administrative conducts have not yet been executed, so said banking entity has a current interest in challenging those conducts in this venue.; **c) Lack of Right:** The defense of lack of right is granted, because the challenged conducts comply with the legal system, without existing violations of the right to privacy, banking secrecy, and the summary sanctioning administrative procedure of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Therefore, the plaintiff bank has no right to challenge administrative conducts that are valid and in accordance with the legal system.

**VII- ON THE PAYMENT OF PERSONAL AND PROCEDURAL COSTS OF THIS MATTER:** In accordance with the provisions of Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and as this jurisdictional body finds no valid reasons for exemption from costs, the plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until their effective payment. Items that will be liquidated in the judgment execution stage.

**POR TANTO** The defenses of lack of standing to sue and to be sued, and of lack of current interest are rejected. The defense of lack of right is granted. The lawsuit filed by the **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** against the **State** is dismissed in its entirety, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, by means of which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661) was imposed on the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and furthermore, the order was given to provide the required information consisting of the list of bank clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal ID number, address, and telephone number. It is ordered that the precautionary measure decreed in the case record be revoked, effective from the notification of this judgment to all parties. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until their effective payment. Items that will be liquidated in the judgment execution stage.

Otto González Vílchez Jorge Leiva Poveda Roberto Garita Navarro **Expediente: 10-000668** **-1027-CA** **Proceso de Puro Derecho** **Actor: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** **Demandado: El Estado** **III- ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BANK SECRECY, AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION:** In this matter, it is necessary to provide an adequate explanation and delimitation of what is understood by the Fundamental Right to Privacy, enshrined in Article 24 of our Political Constitution, the bank secrecy regulated in numeral 615 of the Commercial Code, and the oversight and investigative functions or powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, for the purpose of examining the scope and limits of each of these institutions, and thus applying them to the specific case.

**a) On the Fundamental Right to Privacy. Scope and Limits:** The Fundamental Right to Privacy is enshrined in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, which provides:

*ARTICLE 24.- The right to privacy, freedom, and secrecy of communications is guaranteed.* *Private documents and written, oral, or any other type of communications of the inhabitants of the Republic are inviolable. However, a law, whose approval and reform shall require the votes of two-thirds of the Deputies of the Legislative Assembly, shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the seizure, search, or examination of private documents, when it is absolutely indispensable to clarify matters submitted to their cognizance.* *Likewise, the law shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the intervention of any type of communication and shall indicate the crimes in whose investigation the use of this exceptional power may be authorized and for how long. It shall also indicate the responsibilities and sanctions incurred by officials who illegally apply this exception. Judicial resolutions supported by this norm must be reasoned and may be executed immediately. Their application and control shall be the non-delegable responsibility of the judicial authority.* *A law shall determine the cases in which competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and of the Comptroller General of the Republic may review accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to oversee the correct use of public funds.* *A special law, approved by two-thirds of the total number of Deputies, shall determine which other bodies of the Public Administration may review the documents that such law indicates in relation to the fulfillment of their regulatory and supervisory powers to achieve public purposes. Likewise, it shall indicate in which cases such review is appropriate.* *Correspondence that has been stolen and information obtained as a result of the illegal intervention of any communication shall not produce legal effects.* Precisely, this Section of this Court addressed the issue of the right to privacy regarding its scope and limits, in a judgment from last year, in which the following was indicated, in pertinent part:

*Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the **fundamental right to privacy,** which is a protective jurisdiction over the private life of individuals. Privacy is comprised of those phenomena, behaviors, data, and situations of a person that are normally kept from the knowledge of strangers. This sphere of privacy is justified because in a democratic system every person has the right to maintain reserve over certain activities, data, documents, or opinions of their own, since it is impossible or very difficult to coexist and fully develop the goals a person sets for themselves, without enjoying a framework of privacy, protected from interference by the State or other persons (see Article 11.2.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights or Pact of San José). One of the manifestations of this fundamental right, expressly contemplated in the text of Article 24 of the Constitution, is the inviolability of private data and documents. This guarantee protects the confidentiality of private documents and information, which constitutes a guarantee so that private individuals do not have access to them and simultaneously implies a prohibition for both public and private legal subjects to supply them to third parties. In this sense, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that: “...Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees to all persons a sphere of intangible privacy vis-à-vis the rest of legal subjects, in such a way that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, because they appear in its physical or automated archives, registries, and files, cannot be accessed by any person because this would constitute an external and unconstitutional intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is of greater application when the individual himself has brought confidential information to the attention of a public administration, as required, with the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit...”* **(Judgment number 2005-02703 of ten hours and seventeen minutes on March tenth, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, Judgment number 2003-00136 of fifteen hours and twenty-two minutes on January fifteenth, two thousand three).** *While it is true that the Constituent Power guaranteed to every person a personal sphere, a private sphere, to protect their privacy, it is also true that **the constitutional text itself establishes that this fundamental right is not absolute,** but that in seeking to safeguard other protected legal interests (see Article 28, first and second paragraphs of the Political Constitution), it is possible to impose limitations on it in specific and qualified cases, so that the Public Administration may exercise the powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public purposes granted by a legal norm (Article 24, paragraph 6 of the Political Constitution), or so that third parties, in exercising the fundamental right to information on matters of public interest (see Article 30 of the Political Constitution), may have access to that private sphere, in those cases where such data or documents have significance for achieving the satisfaction and effective protection of the public interest. It should be noted that it is not a matter, then, of nullifying certain rights for the protection of others, since there is no proper hierarchy among fundamental rights, but rather, of achieving adequate coordination among the diverse interests present in a society, in order to seek a necessary middle ground in each case between private interest and public interest (see Judgment number 1999-07265 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at twelve hours and thirty-nine minutes on September seventeenth, nineteen ninety-nine). Based on the constitutional foundation set forth above, **the legislator is empowered not only to create bodies or entities that will exercise <u>powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public purposes</u>** – such as, for example: the effective protection of those who participate in the market as investors, or as consumers of goods and services – **but also, to impose on persons** in specific and qualified cases where other protected legal interests are at stake that transcend that private sphere given the impact they have on third parties, **<u>the duty to provide information or present documents that are related to the activity they carry out,</u> in order to supervise that its exercise is not contrary to the public interest that is intended to be regulated and protected** (see in a similar sense, Judgment number 1996-04463 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at nine hours and forty-five minutes on August thirtieth, nineteen ninety-six).* **(Judgment number 838-2009; Administrative Litigation Court. Sixth Section, at eight hours and thirty minutes on May sixth, two thousand nine).** Precisely, from the citation of constitutional numeral 24 and the explanation given to the right to privacy made by this same Section of this Court, the following relevant considerations can be extracted: **1.** The right to privacy protects the confidential information of persons or citizens in general; **2.** Although the confidential information of individuals is protected by this fundamental right, it can perfectly be accessed in pursuit of safeguarding other protected legal interests, as would be in the case at hand to prevent monopolistic practices and protect consumer rights; **3.** The fifth paragraph of Article 24 of the Political Constitution established the possibility for the legislator to grant Public Administrations powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public purposes, in other words, the right to privacy is not absolute; it allows exceptions, like the one presented in this case, and which will be analyzed in detail later, in the sense that based on the powers granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, the Commission for the Promotion of Competition is perfectly empowered, from the constitutional and legal perspective, to request the information it requires in order to safeguard the public interests of consumers, for which reason it can even request information directly protected by the fundamental right to privacy, since in certain circumstances that fundamental right must yield to the fundamental right of consumer protection, both rights of constitutional origin; **b)** **Bank Secrecy, scope and limits:** Bank secrecy has been derived from the provisions of Article 615 of the Commercial Code, which provides:

*ARTICLE 615.- Bank checking accounts are inviolable and Banks may only supply information about them at the request or with the written authorization of the owner, or by order of a competent judicial authority. Excepted is the intervention that the General Superintendency of Financial Entities makes in fulfillment of its functions as determined by law.* *The review of checking accounts by fiscal authorities is prohibited.* Precisely, in the same judgment cited above, this Section of this Court addressed the issue of bank secrecy, stating the following:

*(..) **<u>bank secrecy</u>** provided for in Article 615 of the Commercial Code, constitutes a legal manifestation of the legal interest protected through the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution (fundamental right to privacy). In this sense, bank secrecy is “...the duty imposed on every financial intermediation entity not to reveal information and data it possesses about its clients from any banking operation or banking contract it has entered into with them, especially in the case of checking accounts, since numeral 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that hypothesis...” (see Judgment number 2005-02703 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at ten hours and seventeen minutes on March tenth, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, Judgments number 2004-14210 of fifteen hours and four minutes on December fourteenth, two thousand four and 2003-00136 of fifteen hours and twenty-two minutes on January fifteenth, two thousand three)**.** *Notwithstanding the foregoing, **<u>this rule also admits exceptions,</u>** because while it is true that bank secrecy constitutes a mechanism to protect persons against the improper use that could be made of their financial operations, to the detriment of their privacy, it is also true that, in those situations where there exists the possibility that a natural or legal person may have incurred in serious breaches of the obligations imposed by the Legal System in the exercise of their activity in the financial or securities market, which also have the virtue of transcending the private sphere and may affect third parties, the bodies that according to the law are competent to exercise the powers of regulation and supervision of such activities, may have effective access to that data – as established by Article 615 of the Commercial Code itself – and exchange it among themselves – in the event that the legal norm so authorizes – as a way to achieve not only the timely and strict fulfillment of said prudential supervision powers assigned to them (...)"* From the cited norm and from what has already been analyzed by this same Section of this Court, the following precisions can be made regarding bank secrecy: **1.** Bank secrecy is a legal derivation of the fundamental right to privacy. This means that bank secrecy does not have a constitutional but rather a legal rank; **2.** Bank secrecy only covers information concerning banking operations, banking contracts, and, in general, the activities that clients carry out with banks in their financial activities; **3.** Just as with the fundamental right to privacy, bank secrecy has its exceptions, which are the same ones explained for the right to privacy. That is to say, for Public Administrations that, by constitutional or legal provision, are conferred powers of supervision and oversight for the purpose of safeguarding or protecting public interests, the confidential information can perfectly be accessed by these Public Administrations that have such powers, as long as it is done following the normatively regulated procedures and guaranteeing citizens that their information will not be disclosed or used for purposes other than protecting superior public interests; **c)** **Oversight and investigative functions or powers of the Commission for the Promotion of Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, to protect commercial activities and consumer rights from monopolistic practices:** Precisely, the Commission for the Promotion of Competition is one of those administrative bodies that constitutionally and legally has oversight, supervisory, and protective powers regarding monopolistic activities and the fundamental rights of the consumer. In this sense, Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides the following:

*ARTICLE 46.- Monopolies of a private nature are prohibited, and any act, even if originating in a law, that threatens or restricts the freedom of commerce, agriculture, and industry.* *The action of the State aimed at preventing any monopolizing practice or tendency is of public interest.* *Enterprises constituted as de facto monopolies must be subject to special legislation.* *The approval of two-thirds of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly shall be required to establish new monopolies in favor of the State or the Municipalities.* *Consumers and users have the right to the protection of their health, environment, security, and economic interests; to receive adequate and truthful information; to freedom of choice, and to equitable treatment. The State shall support the organizations they form for the defense of their rights. The law shall regulate these matters.* Note that the cited constitutional article is clear in qualifying as of public interest, even with constitutional rank, the obligation of the State to protect the free market by preventing monopolistic activities, and on the other hand, to protect the fundamental rights of the consumer. Precisely, as the text of the cited constitutional norm indicates, the special law shall regulate these matters, and this is exactly what the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer does, by granting the Commission for the Promotion of Competition the following powers:

*ARTICLE 21.- Creation of the Commission to promote competition.* *The Commission to promote competition is created, as a body of maximum deconcentration; it shall be attached to the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce. It shall be responsible for hearing, ex officio or by complaint, and sanctioning, when appropriate, all practices that constitute impediments or difficulties for free competition and unnecessarily hinder market fluidity.* *The administrative instance before this Commission is mandatory and must be exhausted prior to resorting to the judicial route, except as established in Article 17 of this Law.* *ARTICLE 27.- Powers of the Commission.* *The Commission to promote competition has the following powers:* *a) To ensure that the entities and bodies of the Public Administration comply with the obligation to rationalize procedures and formalities that must be maintained; in addition, to eliminate unnecessary ones, as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of this Law. In case of non-compliance, it is its responsibility to recommend to the superior official to impose the corresponding administrative sanctions on officials who commit serious faults in the exercise of their functions.* *b) To recommend, to the Public Administration, the regulation of prices and the establishment of non-tariff restrictions, when appropriate in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of this Law.* *c) To investigate the existence of monopolies, cartels, practices, or concentrations prohibited in this Law, for which purpose it may require from individuals and other economic agents the relevant information or documents and sanction when appropriate.* *d) To sanction acts of supply restriction stipulated in Article 33 of this Law, when they indirectly harm free competition in the market.* *e) To establish coordination mechanisms to sanction and prevent monopolies, cartels, concentrations, and illicit practices.* *f) When it deems it pertinent, to issue an opinion, in matters of competition and free concurrence, regarding laws, regulations, agreements, circulars, and other administrative acts, without such criteria having any legal effect. The Commission cannot be compelled to give an opinion.* *This Commission is not responsible for hearing acts of unfair competition in the terms stipulated in Article 17 of this Law. These cases are the exclusive cognizance of the competent jurisdictional bodies.* These two norms are clear in indicating that the Commission for the Promotion of Competition has broad supervisory and oversight powers to develop in reality the constitutional postulate of protecting the free market and preventing monopolies and monopolistic practices. Now then, the indicated Commission not only has powers to supervise commercial activities for the purpose of preventing monopolies or monopolistic practices that distort the fluidity of the commercial market, but these powers also come accompanied by the power to sanction economic agents who incur in these illegal practices.

In that regard, those sanctions are regulated in Article 28 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, as follows:

*ARTICLE 28.- Sanctions.* *The Commission to Promote Competition may order, by reasoned resolution and taking into consideration the ability to pay, any economic agent that infringes the provisions contained in Chapter III of this Law, the following sanctions:* *a) The suspension, correction, or suppression of the practice or concentration in question.* *b) The partial or total deconcentration of whatever has been unduly concentrated, without prejudice to the payment of the applicable fine.* *c) The payment of a fine, up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, for having falsely declared or delivered false information to the Commission to Promote Competition, independently of other liabilities incurred.* *d) The payment of a fine, up to fifty times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, for delaying the delivery of information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition.* *e) The payment of a fine, up to six hundred eighty times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, for having incurred in an absolute monopolistic practice.* *f) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, for having incurred in a relative monopolistic practice.* *g) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, for having incurred in a concentration prohibited by this Law.* *h) The payment of a fine, up to seventy-five times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage, to natural persons who directly participate in prohibited monopolistic practices or concentrations, on behalf of legal entities or de facto entities or on their account and order.* *In the case of the infractions mentioned in subparagraphs e) through h) of this article that, in the judgment of the Commission to Promote Competition, are particularly serious, this Commission may impose as a sanction a fine equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the annual sales obtained by the infringer during the previous fiscal year or a fine up to ten percent (10%) of the value of the infringer's assets. The higher of these two fines shall be imposed. To impose such sanctions, the principles of due process, informality, material truth, ex officio action, impartiality, and publicity must be respected, which inform the administrative procedure stipulated in Book Two of the General Law of Public Administration.* *If the infringer refuses to pay the sum established by the Commission to Promote Competition, mentioned in subparagraphs d) through h) of this article, the Commission shall certify the debt, which constitutes an enforceable title, so that, based on it, the enforcement process is filed in court, under the terms provided in the Civil Procedure Code.* As is clear from reading this article, it is easy to see that the Commission to Promote Competition has sanctioning powers, which manifest in two types: **First:** Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when the Commission, after an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure has concluded, determines that monopolistic practices were committed or that they illegally distorted the free market, i.e., the final and principal sanction; **Second:** Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when, during the investigation conducted within an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, the agent falsely declares or delivers false information, refuses to provide information, or delivers it late to the Commission. Precisely, the second sanctions are of interest in this case, because they are framed within the duty of economic agents to provide the information requested of them, in the case at hand, by the Commission to Promote Competition, in order to investigate possible monopolistic practices. The obligation to provide information is expressly regulated in Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, which states, relevantly:

*ARTICLE 67.- Documents and information.* *Merchants, at the request of the Commission to Promote Competition, the National Consumer Commission, and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, are obligated to:* *a) Deliver, under oath, the reports and documents deemed necessary to guarantee the exercise of their functions. The information provided is confidential, and the official who violates the secrecy of confidential data commits serious misconduct in the exercise of their functions. (...)* *The refusal to deliver, the falsehood, or the inclusion of inaccurate or incomplete data in the required documents must be sanctioned as serious misconduct by the respective commissions, as appropriate. (...)* *The bodies and entities of the Public Administration must provide the information requested of them by the Commission to Promote Competition and the National Consumer Commission, for the exercise of their functions.* From what is stated in the cited norm, it is clear that the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request from any economic agent, including Public Administrations, the information it requires to investigate whether a specific subject has committed conduct sanctioned by the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. However, these powers to request information held by the Commission to Promote Competition—which are also held by the National Consumer Commission and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce (all administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the constitutional mandate to protect the public interests of consumers and prevent monopolistic practices)—do not infringe upon or violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Magna Carta, much less bank secrecy established in numeral 615 of the Commercial Code, as it has been duly determined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, which held, relevantly, the following:

*"Article 24. Considerations of this Chamber. The plaintiffs miss having a taxative list of documents that can be reviewed. This Court considers that, as it is an exception to the general principle of inviolability of documents, the fifth paragraph of Article 24 must be interpreted restrictively. However, not so restrictively that it annuls, de facto or de jure, the exception itself. In this case, the exception also has the particularity that it aims to comply with another principle—as constitutional as the inviolability of private documents—contemplated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution. To analyze the point, it is necessary to weigh one principle against the other; lest by unilaterally defending one of them, the other is rendered ineffective. Said more concretely in relation to this case, interpreting the fifth paragraph of Article 26 (sic) with its exceptions and guarantees in such a way that it annuls, juridically or factually, the principle of Article 46 is unacceptable. The guarantees of that fifth paragraph cannot be interpreted so rigorously that Article 46 loses its effectiveness. Access to private documents is not arbitrary in the context of commercial relations; rather, it is appropriate to combat, as eventually in this case, monopolistic practices and protect consumers in general. But it is not only appropriate, it is also necessary. This Court considers that the State could not effectively defend consumers without having access to some private documents of the involved merchants. Now, obviously, it cannot access any document it pleases, and here the restriction of Article 24 comes into play. Access is limited to the documents that the law indicates in relation to its competencies. Unlike the plaintiffs’ thesis, this Court considers it unrealistic to demand that the law dictate a taxative list. Given the motley and changing commercial reality, demanding such a list established by law in our context would render state powers practically nugatory. This Court is inclined to think that the guarantee of the fifth paragraph of Article 24 is satisfied to the extent that the law defines the competencies of the administrative body based on which it can review documents. In this manner, it may only review the documents that its functions require; it must in each case justify why such a document is necessary to fulfill its purposes…”* From the cited constitutional jurisprudence, the following aspects are clear: **1.** The Commission to Promote Competition has a power of constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Political Constitution) and legal rank (Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer) to investigate and determine if an economic agent is engaging in monopolistic practices or practices that distort the free market; **2.** To determine that an economic agent is violating monopoly provisions, that is, to fulfill its constitutionally and legally assigned public purposes, the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request from any common economic agent or any Public Administration the information it needs to carry out its investigations; **3.** In turn, constitutionally and legally, any economic agent or Public Administration has the duty to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, provided that this information is requested within the investigative functions conferred on said Commission; **4.** The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition to investigate illegal monopolistic activities does not violate the right to privacy, because the information required by said Commission is protected by the constitutional duty of the State to prevent all monopolizing practices or tendencies, which is developed in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, such that Articles 24 and 46 of the Political Constitution complement each other by allowing private confidential information to be provided to the State when the latter must fulfill superior public interests. In simple terms, the private interest in private information ceases before the superior public interest. Likewise, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition even less violates bank secrecy, since the latter does not even have constitutional rank, whereas the State's protection of citizens from illegal monopolistic practices has a superior constitutional rank, which stands above bank secrecy itself; **5.** If an economic agent or public administration refuses to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, it may be sanctioned, following the procedure established in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer and its respective regulation. Precisely, in this case, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica does not violate the right to privacy or bank secrecy, as will be analyzed in the following recital.

**IV- ON THE LEGALITY OF THE SIXTH AGREEMENT OF ORDINARY SESSION NUMBER 30-2009, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, AND VOTE NUMBER 03-2010 OF JANUARY 12, 2010, BOTH ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM BANCO NACIONAL DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOR IS IT COVERED BY BANK SECRECY:** Applying to the specific case what was explained in the previous recital, this Court reaches the conclusion that the challenged conduct, consisting of the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, through which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650) was imposed on Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for violation of Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, is in accordance with law, for the following reasons: **1)** It is held as a proven fact that the Commission to Promote Competition, in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in the fourth article, agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to obtain the material truth regarding the presumed commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. Note that the Commission to Promote Competition, what it agreed to in the cited session was the opening of an ordinary administrative sanctioning proceeding for the presumed commission of monopolistic practices by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Now, within the investigative powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, within a duly initiated ordinary sanctioning proceeding, by means of official letter number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition told the Special Administrative Attorney-in-Fact of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textually, the following:

*"In order to obtain essential information for the investigation and in accordance with Articles 27 subsection c) and 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer and Article 264 of the General Law of Public Administration, you are requested to provide, within a period of no more than ten business days from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of the pension fund operator's affiliates who have lending operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone number, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that, in accordance with Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer and Article 64 of its Regulation, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and in accordance with Article 28 subsection c), a fine of up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage may be imposed on the economic agent that has delivered false information. Likewise, a sanction of up to fifty times the amount of the lowest monthly minimum wage may be imposed for delaying the delivery of the information, as stipulated in Article 28 subsection d) of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. Furthermore, the party is warned that, upon the delay in delivering the requested information, summary proceedings will be initiated."* Note that the information requested by the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition is required as part of an investigation, and moreover, the cited official letter is clear in indicating the sanctions and the procedure to follow in case of non-compliance. This is fully in accordance with the procedure established in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, and the conduct is protected by the functions assigned to the indicated Commission. Furthermore, the information required is pertinent to the ongoing investigation, which concerns an apparent practice by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica of conditioning the granting of loans to its clients on their affiliation with its pension fund operator. Now, part of the requested information was not delivered to the Commission to Promote Competition by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Therefore, by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of the Commission to Promote Competition, issued at eleven thirty hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand nine, it was stated textually, relevantly for the issuance of this judgment, the following:

*"In the fourth article of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 17:30 on May 27, 2008, the Commission to Promote Competition opened an ordinary administrative proceeding against Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for an alleged violation of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, Law No. 7472.* Thus, based on the authority granted to this body by Article 67 of the cited law, that party was requested to provide information deemed necessary to fulfill the objective of the procedure, to ascertain the real truth of the facts that will serve as grounds for the final act, that is, to determine whether that banking entity engaged in any of the monopolistic practices provided for in Article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, the BNCR sent the requested information, except for that corresponding to item number 13, which refers to information about its clients, as it deemed that information to be protected by bank secrecy. (...) IT IS RESOLVED: To order the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to provide the following information within a period not exceeding ten business days from this notification: A list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number." From this official communication, it can be inferred that the Commission to Promote Competition, within an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, required the defendant bank to provide simple information such as furnishing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. This Court considers that, based on all the arguments set forth in the preceding recital, this is information that the Commission to Promote Competition can perfectly request from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. In this regard, the requested information has two characteristics: First: It falls within the functions assigned to the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense and the Political Constitution itself, because it is necessary and pertinent to investigate the apparent commission of monopolistic practices by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (Articles 27 and 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense); Second: The information was requested once the Commission to Promote Competition had resolved to open an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, through Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, and therefore due process is being followed; Third: The required information does not violate the right to privacy, established in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, since, as explained in detail in the preceding recital, the investigative powers granted to the Commission to Promote Competition have constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Magna Carta), and do not conflict with the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, there is harmony between these norms, because private fundamental rights yield to superior public interests, as occurs in cases like the present one, where the private information of individuals yields its protection so that the State fulfills its duty to protect the public interests represented in preventing monopolistic practices and consumer rights; 2) Now, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has been arguing the non-delivery of the information required by the Commission to Promote Competition, indicating that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, is confidential information, as it is protected by bank secrecy, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution and Article 615 of the Commerce Code. Likewise, the plaintiff bank argues that its clients' bank accounts are inviolable, and information can only be given if there is written authorization from the account holder or a court order from a competent judicial authority (in this sense, see the official communication of May 4, 2009, which has been accepted as a proven fact in the case file). What the plaintiff Bank alleges is entirely inadmissible for the following reasons: a. The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not covered by bank secrecy, because, as has been explained, the information request made by the indicated Commission does not even violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Political Constitution. Bank secrecy is not an institution of constitutional rank, while the state powers to protect free competition and consumer rights have constitutional grounding, therefore, there can be no violation of bank secrecy when the information requested is made for the purpose of protecting superior public interests that are constitutionally protected, and provided that the information request is duly motivated and falls within the functions that the requesting body must perform; b. In addition to the foregoing, there is a particularity in this case, which is that the information requested is simply a list of the clients of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. Note that the information requested by the Commission does not lie in the banking operations of the clients with the plaintiff bank, nor does it generally cover information on banking transactions, and therefore it is in no way subject to bank secrecy. Furthermore, it must be considered that, in general, the information requested by the Commission from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is not sensitive information; it is a simple list of clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, with their names, identifications, telephone numbers, and addresses, information that is also evidently easy to access using other means. Consequently, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition does not violate the constitutional right to privacy, much less bank secrecy; 3) Precisely due to the plaintiff bank's non-compliance, the directing body of the administrative procedure, by resolution issued at nine hours and fifteen minutes on June fourth, two thousand nine, resolved to submit the refusal to deliver information issued by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to the Commission to Promote Competition for its consideration, to determine if it constitutes a violation of Article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its amendments. Precisely, in Ordinary Session No. 17-2009 held at seventeen hours and thirty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, article ten, the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC, Regulation to the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and sections 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration, it was proceeded in this agreement to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and pursuant to section 324 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three business days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds supporting its claims. Precisely, by written submission received by the Technical Support Unit of the Commission to Promote Competition, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica made a statement regarding the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that the refusal of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or unwillingness to cooperate, but rather that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Commerce Code, as well as the reiterated case law of the Constitutional Chamber, the Bank can only reveal information of the type requested under two assumptions: 1. By express authorization of the client and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority. From the facts presented, this Court arrives at the following aspects relevant to this case: a. Due to the plaintiff bank's non-compliance, it was ordered to substantiate a summary administrative proceeding, for the alleged violation of Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Executive Decree 25234-MEIC, Regulation to the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, and sections 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration. Note that what was ordered in this case was to open a summary administrative proceeding, which is what is regulated as the procedure to follow in cases where an economic agent commits the infraction of refusing delivery, falsifying, or including inaccurate or incomplete data in the documents required within an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure. That is, Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense establishes infractions that shall be sanctioned following a summary administrative sanctioning procedure, regulated in Articles 320 to 326 of the General Law of Public Administration. This procedure is distinct from the ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, which is regulated in Article 27 bis of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, which must be followed to determine and sanction vertical or horizontal monopolistic practices in the markets supervised by the superintendencies. Precisely, in cases of the ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure provided for in Article 27 bis, the opinion of the respective superintendency is required prior to the application of the sanction. For its part, in cases of sanctions imposed on economic agents for infringing the obligatory provision of information required, in this case, by the Commission to Promote Competition, the procedure to follow is the summary one, which does not require the prior opinion of any superintendency; b) Precisely in the present case, the ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure that has been followed against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the one ordered by the Commission to Promote Competition in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, in which it was agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to obtain the real truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. Precisely, this procedure has not yet concluded, as it is in the investigation phase, and furthermore, before it concludes and an eventual sanction is imposed, the stipulations of Article 27 bis of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense must be complied with, since it would be in that procedure that the provisions of said norm must be applied. Now, in this case, the contested administrative conducts are not the final acts of an ordinary administrative sanctioning procedure, but of a summary administrative sanctioning procedure; therefore, the requirement to have the opinion of the respective superintendency before imposing the sanction is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff bank's allegations that the contested administrative conducts suffer from a substantial defect that produces their absolute nullity, for not having consulted the respective superintendency prior to the imposed sanction, are not acceptable, since, as explained, these are different scenarios and procedures; 4) Now, in Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at seventeen hours and thirty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, article six, the Commission to Promote Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following operative part was dictated:

"It is declared that the summary administrative proceeding brought against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, legal identification number No. 4-000-001021, for violation of Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, has merit, and therefore: a) The Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is hereby sanctioned, in the first instance, with the penalty of paying the sum of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty exact colones (¢9,811,650), which corresponds to fifty (50) minimum monthly wages, based on what was established by the Executive Branch through Decree No. 35370-MTSS, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 136 of July 15, 2009, which set the minimum monthly wage for the second half of 2009 at the sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred thirty-three exact colones (¢196,233). (...) b) The Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is ordered, based on Article 67 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Article 89 of its Regulation, and Articles 225, 264, 297, and 300 of the General Law of Public Administration, to provide the missing information initially requested through official communication UTA-CPC-0294-08 and subsequently by resolution of the Technical Support Unit of this Commission, at 11 hours and 30 minutes on April 24, 2009. It is warned that in case of non-compliance, the provisions of section 68 of Law No. 7472 will be applied." Precisely, this resolution was contested by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, through an appeal for reconsideration filed before the Commission to Promote Competition, and by vote number 03-2010, issued by said Commission at nineteen hours and fifty-five minutes on January twelfth, two thousand ten, the appeal for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff bank was declared without merit. Precisely, these are the resolutions contested in the case file, which this Court finds are completely valid and fully comply with what is established in the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. In this sense, it must be taken into account that the cited resolutions are the final acts of a summary administrative sanctioning procedure, which, as has been explained, does not suffer from defects from a procedural or substantive standpoint.

Therefore, the claim filed by the <b>Banco Nacional de Costa Rica</b> against the <b>State</b> is dismissed in its entirety, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition (Comisión para Promover la Competencia), are declared valid and effective, by which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was fined nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650), for violation of Article 67 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor), and furthermore, it was ordered to provide the required information consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number.

The arguments of the plaintiff Bank are summarized as follows: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">1.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The challenged resolutions are null because they contravene the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution, Article 615 of the Commercial Code, and the reiterated case law of the Constitutional Chamber, because the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition regarding the names, addresses, identification numbers, and telephone numbers of its clients is confidential information protected by bank secrecy. Therefore, the defendant banking entity did not deliver to the Commission to Promote Competition the information requested as it is protected by bank secrecy, so the economic sanction imposed is null, as well as the order to deliver that information to said commission; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2.</span><span style="color:#010101"> On the other hand, the plaintiff bank argues that in the administrative procedure that culminated with the imposed sanction and the order to deliver the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, a defect was incurred that produces its nullity, since the provisions of Article 27 bis b) of the Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense were not followed, given that said norm establishes that upon the opening of a sanctioning procedure by the Commission for acts contrary to that Law, in which any supervised entity of the Financial System has participated, and the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is a state commercial bank supervised by SUGEF, the opinion of the respective superintendency shall be requested. Precisely, the plaintiff bank alleges that even though the consultation is not binding, it is mandatory, and that in the present case SUGEF was not consulted at any time, so the challenged resolutions suffer from absolute nullity in an evident and manifest manner. For its part, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">the State representation, </span><span>alleges in its defense, in essence, the following: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1.</span><span> The Commission </span><span style="color:#010101">to Promote Competition requested from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica the list of the bank's clients who were granted a loan during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal ID number, address or telephone, by virtue of an investigation initiated against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for three complaints filed against said bank before the Superintendency of Pensions and forwarded to the Commission to Promote Competition, considering that the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has incurred in the relative monopolistic practice defined in Article 12 subsection c) of the Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. The State argues that the defendant bank could be incurring in a monopolistic practice consisting of allegedly forcing its clients to purchase insurance with its marketer for the approval of a loan. The State representation indicates that the information requested by the </span><span style="color:#010101">Commission to Promote Competition from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, consisting of the list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, is indispensable for the investigation, because the Commission to Promote Competition needs to contact the referred clients in order to determine if the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica actually granted them the loan conditioned on their affiliation with the pension operator BN Vital. Likewise, the State attorney alleges that the only thing the </span><span>Commission to Promote Competition requested from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the list of clients indicating Name62 or corporate name, identity card or legal ID number, and address or telephone, given that no information regarding the credit operation was requested; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2.</span><span> The State representative argues that the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not covered by bank secrecy, in accordance with the case law of the Constitutional Chamber, which distinguishes bank secrecy from the fundamental right to privacy; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3.</span><span> The State attorney states that the Commission to Promote Competition has legally granted powers, in this case Article 67 of the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, to request the necessary information to carry out its oversight functions, powers that have been confirmed by constitutional case law; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4.</span><span> Finally, the State argues that the procedure regulated in Article 27 bis of the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law </span><span>for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense has not been violated, because in this case it is not the situation regulated in said norm, since it is not a procedure for the determination of anticompetitive conduct, but a summary procedure processed due to the refusal to provide information in an investigation, therefore they are different situations and consequently the cited norm has not been violated.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold">III- ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BANK SECRECY, AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION: </span><span>In this matter it is necessary to provide an adequate explanation and delimitation of what is understood by the Fundamental Right to Privacy, enshrined in Article 24 of our Political Constitution, the bank secrecy regulated in numeral 615 of the Commercial Code, and the oversight and investigation functions or powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the </span><span style="color:#010101">Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, with the purpose of seeing the scope and limits of each of these institutes, and thus applying them to the specific case. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">a) On the Fundamental Right to Privacy. Scope and Limits:</span><span style="color:#010101"> The Fundamental Right to Privacy is enshrined in Article 24 of the Political Constitution which provides:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 24.- The right to privacy, freedom, and secrecy of communications is guaranteed. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Private documents and written, oral, or any other type of communications of the inhabitants of the Republic are inviolable. However, a law, whose approval and reform shall require the votes of two-thirds of the Deputies of the Legislative Assembly, shall establish in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the seizure, registration, or examination of private documents, when it is absolutely indispensable to clarify matters submitted to their knowledge. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Likewise, the law shall determine in which cases the Courts of Justice may order the intervention of any type of communication and shall indicate the crimes in whose investigation the use of this exceptional power may be authorized and for how long. It shall also indicate the responsibilities and sanctions incurred by officials who illegally apply this exception. Judicial resolutions covered by this norm must be reasoned and may be executed immediately. Their application and control shall be the non-delegable responsibility of the judicial authority. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The law shall establish the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic may review the accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to oversee the correct use of public funds. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">A special law, approved by two-thirds of the total number of Deputies, shall determine which other bodies of the Public Administration may review the documents that said law indicates in relation to the fulfillment of their regulatory and supervisory competencies to achieve public ends. Likewise, it shall indicate in which cases said review is applicable. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Correspondence that is stolen, or information obtained as a result of the illegal intervention of any communication, shall not produce legal effects. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">Precisely, this Section of this Court addressed the issue of the right to privacy regarding its scope and limits, in a ruling from last year, in which the following was stated regarding the matter of interest:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">fundamental right to privacy, </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">which is a protective forum for the private life of individuals. Privacy is comprised of those phenomena, behaviors, data, and situations of a person that are normally withdrawn from the knowledge of strangers. This sphere of privacy is justified because in a democratic system every person has the right to maintain reserve over certain activities, data, documents, or opinions of theirs, given that it is impossible or very difficult to coexist and fully develop the goals a person sets for themselves without enjoying a framework of privacy, protected from interference by the State or other persons (see Article 11.2.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights or Pact of San José). One of the manifestations of this fundamental right, expressly contemplated in the text of Article 24 of the Constitution, is the inviolability of private data and documents. This guarantee protects the confidentiality of documents</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> and private information, which constitutes a guarantee so that private parties do not have access to them and at the same time implies a prohibition for both public and private legal subjects to supply it to third parties. In that sense, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that: “...Article 24 of the Political Constitution guarantees all persons a sphere of intangible privacy for the rest of the legal subjects, in such a way that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, as they appear in its files, records, and physical or automated dossiers, cannot be accessed by any person as this would imply an external and unconstitutional intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is of greater application when the administered party itself has placed confidential information in the knowledge of a public administration, as it was required, with the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit...” </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(ruling number 2005-02703 of ten hours seventeen minutes on March tenth, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, ruling number 2003-00136 of fifteen hours twenty-two minutes on January fifteenth, two thousand three). </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">While it is true that the Constitutional Assembly guaranteed every person a private sphere, a private area, to protect their privacy, it is also true that </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the constitutional text itself establishes that this fundamental right is not absolute,</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> but rather, in seeking to protect other safeguarded legal rights (see Article 28 first and second paragraphs of the Political Constitution), it is possible to impose limitations in specific and qualified cases, so that the Public Administration can exercise the powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public ends granted by a legal norm (Article 24 paragraph 6 of the Political Constitution), or so that third parties, in exercise of the fundamental right to information on matters of public interest (see Article 30 of the Political Constitution), may have access to that private sphere in those situations where such data or documents are significant for achieving the satisfaction</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> and effective protection of the public interest. It should be noted that it is not, therefore, a matter of nullifying certain rights for the protection of others, since there is no proper hierarchy among fundamental rights, but rather of achieving adequate coordination among the diverse interests present in a society, in order to seek</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> the necessary middle ground in each case between the private interest and the public interest (see ruling number 1999-07265 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at twelve hours and thirty-nine minutes on September seventeenth, nineteen hundred and ninety-nine). Based on the constitutional foundation set forth above, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the legislator is empowered not only to create bodies or entities that will exercise </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public ends</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">—such as, for example: the effective protection of those who participate in the market as investors, or as consumers of goods and services—, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">but also to impose on persons</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> in specific and qualified cases where other safeguarded legal rights are at stake that transcend that private sphere given their impact on third parties, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the duty to provide information or present documents related to the activity they carry out,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> in order to supervise that its exercise is not contrary to the public interest it is intended to regulate and protect</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> (see in a similar sense, ruling number 1996-04463 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at nine hours forty-five minutes on August thirtieth, nineteen hundred and ninety-six). </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">(Ruling number 838-2009; Contentious-Administrative Court. Sixth Section, at eight hours thirty minutes on May sixth, two thousand nine).</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><br /><span> </span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">Precisely, from the citation of constitutional numeral 24 and the explanation given to the right to privacy by this very same Section of this Court, the following relevant considerations can be drawn: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">1.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The right to privacy protects the confidential information of persons or citizens in general; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Although the confidential information of administered parties is protected by this fundamental right, it can be perfectly accessed in order to safeguard other protected legal rights, as in the case at hand to prevent monopolistic practices and protect consumer rights; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">3.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The fifth paragraph of Article 24 of the Political Constitution established the possibility for the legislator to grant Public Administrations powers of regulation and supervision to achieve public ends; in other words, the right to privacy is not absolute, it allows exceptions, such as the one presented in this case, and which will be analyzed in detail later, in the sense that, based on the powers granted </span><span>by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense,</span><span style="color:#010101"> the Commission to Promote Competition is perfectly empowered, from the constitutional and legal perspective, to request the information it requires for the purpose of safeguarding the public interests of consumers, so it may even require information directly protected by the fundamental right to privacy, given that in certain circumstances that fundamental right must yield to the fundamental right of consumer protection, both rights of constitutional origin; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">b)</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">Bank secrecy, scope and limits:</span><span style="color:#010101"> Bank secrecy has been derived from the provisions of Article 615 of the Commercial Code, which states:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 615.- Bank current accounts are inviolable and Banks may only supply information about them upon request or with written authorization from the owner, or by order of a competent judicial authority. The intervention made by the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF) in fulfillment of its functions determined by law is excepted. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The review of current accounts by tax authorities is prohibited.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">Precisely, in the same ruling cited above, this Section of this Court addressed the issue of bank secrecy, stating the following:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">(..) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">bank secrecy</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">provided for in Article 615 of the Commercial Code constitutes a legal manifestation of the safeguarded legal right protected through the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution (fundamental right to privacy). In that sense, bank secrecy is “...the duty imposed on every financial intermediation entity not to reveal the information and data it possesses about its clients from any banking operation or banking contract it has entered into with them, especially in the case of current accounts, since numeral 615 of the Commercial Code expressly enshrines it for that hypothesis...”</span><span style="font-family:'Arial Narrow'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">(see ruling number 2005-02703 issued by</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at ten hours seventeen minutes on March tenth, two thousand five, and in a similar sense, rulings number 2004-14210 of fifteen hours four minutes on December fourteenth, two thousand four and 2003-00136 of fifteen hours twenty-two minutes on January fifteenth, two thousand three)</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Notwithstanding the foregoing, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">this rule also admits exceptions,</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> for while it is true that bank secrecy constitutes a mechanism to protect persons against the improper use that may be made of their financial operations, to the detriment of their privacy, it is also true that in those situations where there exists the possibility that a natural or legal person may have incurred in serious breaches of the obligations imposed by the Legal System in the exercise of their activity in the financial or securities market, which also have the virtue of transcending the private sphere and may affect third parties, the bodies that according to the law are competent to exercise the powers of regulation and supervision of such activities may have effective access to that data —as established by Article 615 of the Commercial Code itself—, and exchange it among themselves —in the event that the legal norm so authorizes—, as a way of achieving not only the timely and strict fulfillment of said prudential supervisory powers assigned to them (...)"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">From the cited norm and from what has already been analyzed by this same Section of this Court, the following precisions can be made regarding bank secrecy: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">1.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Bank secrecy is a legal derivation of the fundamental right to privacy. This means that bank secrecy does not have constitutional but rather legal status; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Bank secrecy solely covers information concerning banking operations, banking contracts, in general, the activities that clients have with banks in their financial activities; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">3.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Just as happens with the fundamental right to privacy, bank secrecy has its exceptions, which are the same ones explained for the right to privacy. That is, Public Administrations that by constitutional or legal provision are conferred supervisory and oversight powers for the purpose of safeguarding or protecting public interests, the confidential information can be perfectly accessed by these Public Administrations that possess such faculties, provided it is done following the normatively regulated procedures and guaranteeing to the citizens that their information will not be disclosed or used for purposes other than protecting superior public interests; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">c)</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">F</span><span style="font-weight:bold">unctions or powers of oversight and investigation of the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by Article 46 of the Magna Carta and developed in the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">to protect commercial activities and consumer rights from monopolistic practices:</span><span> Precisely, the Commission to Promote Competition is one of those administrative bodies that constitutionally and legally possesses oversight, supervisory, and protective powers and faculties against monopolistic activities and the fundamental rights of consumers. In this sense, Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides the following:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 46.- Private monopolies are prohibited, as is any act, even if originating in a law, that threatens or restricts the freedom of commerce, agriculture, and industry.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">State action aimed at preventing any monopolizing practice or tendency is of public interest. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Companies constituted as de facto monopolies must be subject to special legislation. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The establishment of new monopolies in favor of the State or the Municipalities shall require the approval of two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly. </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Consumers and users have the right to the protection of their health, environment, safety, and economic interests; to receive adequate and truthful information; to freedom of choice, and to equitable treatment. The State shall support the organizations they constitute for the defense of their rights. The law shall regulate these matters. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">It should be noted that the cited constitutional article is clear in qualifying as of public interest, even with a constitutional rank, the State's obligation to protect the free market by preventing monopolistic activities, and on the other hand, to protect the fundamental rights of the consumer. Precisely, as indicated by the text of the cited constitutional norm, the special law shall regulate those matters, and that is what the </span><span>Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense effectively does, by granting the Commission to Promote Competition the following faculties:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 21.- Creation of the Commission to Promote Competition.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The Commission to Promote Competition is created as a body of maximum deconcentration; it shall be attached to the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce. It shall be responsible for hearing, ex officio or upon complaint, and sanctioning, when appropriate, all practices that constitute impediments or difficulties to free competition and unnecessarily hinder the fluidity of the market.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The administrative proceeding before this Commission is obligatory and must be exhausted prior to resorting to the judicial route, except as established in Article 17 of this Law.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span> </span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 27.- Powers of the Commission.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The Commission to Promote Competition has the following powers:</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">a) To ensure that the entities and bodies of the Public Administration comply with the obligation to rationalize the procedures and formalities that must be maintained, and also to eliminate those that are unnecessary, as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of this Law.</span></p> In case of non-compliance, it is responsible for recommending to the head of the institution that the corresponding administrative sanctions be imposed on officials who commit serious faults in the exercise of their duties.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">b) Recommend, to the Public Administration, the regulation of prices and the establishment of non-tariff restrictions, when appropriate in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of this Law.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">c) Investigate the existence of monopolies, cartels, practices, or concentrations prohibited in this Law, for which it may require from individuals and other economic agents the relevant information or documents and sanction when appropriate.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">d) Sanction acts of supply restriction stipulated in Article 33 of this Law, when they indirectly harm free competition in the market.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">e) Establish coordination mechanisms to sanction and prevent monopolies, cartels, concentrations, and illicit practices.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">f) When it deems pertinent, issue an opinion, on matters of competition and free concurrence, regarding laws, regulations, agreements, circulars, and other administrative acts, without such criteria having any legal effect. The Commission cannot be forced to give an opinion.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">This Commission is not responsible for hearing acts of unfair competition under the terms stipulated in Article 17 of this Law. These cases are the exclusive purview of the competent jurisdictional bodies.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">These two provisions are clear in indicating that the Commission to Promote Competition has broad supervisory and oversight powers to develop, in reality, the constitutional postulate of protecting the free market and preventing monopolies and monopolistic practices. However, the indicated Commission not only has the power to supervise commercial activities to prevent monopolies or monopolistic practices that distort the fluidity of the commercial market, but these powers are also accompanied by the power to sanction economic agents that engage in such illegal practices. In that sense, those sanctions are regulated in Article 28 of the </span><span>Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , by providing the following:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 28.- Sanctions.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The Commission to Promote Competition may order, by means of a reasoned resolution and taking into consideration the ability to pay, against any economic agent that infringes the provisions contained in Chapter III of this Law, the following sanctions:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">a) The suspension, correction, or suppression of the practice or concentration in question.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">b) The partial or total deconcentration of whatever has been unduly concentrated, without prejudice to the payment of the applicable fine.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">c) The payment of a fine, up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having declared falsely or having delivered false information to the Commission to Promote Competition, regardless of other liabilities incurred.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">d) The payment of a fine, up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for delaying the delivery of information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">e) The payment of a fine, up to six hundred eighty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having engaged in an absolute monopolistic practice.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">f) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having engaged in a relative monopolistic practice.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">g) The payment of a fine, up to four hundred ten times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, for having engaged in a concentration prohibited by this Law.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">h) The payment of a fine, up to seventy-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage, to natural persons who directly participate in monopolistic practices or prohibited concentrations, in representation of legal entities or de facto entities or on their account and order.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">In the case of the infractions mentioned in subparagraphs e) through h) of this article that, in the judgment of the Commission to Promote Competition, are particularly serious, this Commission may impose as a sanction a fine equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the annual sales obtained by the offender during the previous fiscal year, or one up to ten percent (10%) of the value of the offender's assets. The higher of those two fines shall be imposed. To impose such sanctions, the principles of due process, informality, material truth, ex officio action, impartiality, and publicity must be respected, which inform the administrative procedure stipulated in Book Two of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">If the offender refuses to pay the sum established by the Commission to Promote Competition, mentioned in subparagraphs d) through h) of this article, the Commission shall certify the debt, which constitutes an executory title, so that, based on it, the enforcement process may be brought in court, under the terms provided in the Código Procesal Civil.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">As is evident from reading this article, it is easy to appreciate that the Commission to Promote Competition has sanctioning powers, which manifest in two types: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">First: </span><span style="color:#010101">Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when the Commission, after concluding an ordinary sanctioning administrative procedure, determines that monopolistic practices were committed or that the free market was illegally distorted, that is, the final and principal sanction;</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> Second: </span><span style="color:#010101">Sanctions imposed on an economic agent when, during the investigation conducted within an ordinary sanctioning administrative procedure, the agent declares falsely or delivers false information, refuses to provide information, or delivers it late to the Commission. Precisely, the second type of sanctions are those of interest in this case, because they are those framed within the duty of economic agents to provide the information requested of them, in the case at hand, by the Commission to Promote Competition, in order to investigate possible monopolistic practices. The obligation to provide information is expressly regulated in Article 67 of the </span><span>Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , which states in relevant part:</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">ARTICLE 67.- Documents and information.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Merchants, at the request of the Commission to Promote Competition, the Comisión Nacional del Consumidor, and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, are obligated to:</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">a) Deliver, under oath, the reports and documents deemed necessary to guarantee the exercise of their functions. The information provided is confidential, and the official who violates the secrecy of confidential data commits a serious fault in the exercise of their duties. (...)</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The refusal to deliver, the falsehood, or the inclusion of inaccurate or incomplete data in the required documents must be sanctioned as a serious fault by the respective commissions, as appropriate. (...)</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The bodies and entities of the Public Administration must provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition and the Comisión Nacional del Consumidor for the exercise of their functions.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">From what is stated in the cited provision, it is clear that the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request from any economic agent, including Public Administrations, the information it requires to investigate whether a certain subject has committed conduct sanctioned by the </span><span>Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor . However, these powers to request information held by the Commission to Promote Competition, which are also held by </span><span style="color:#010101">the Comisión Nacional del Consumidor and the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce (all administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the constitutional mandate to protect the public interests of consumers and prevent monopolistic practices), do not infringe upon or violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Magna Carta, much less bank secrecy established in numeral 615 of the Código de Comercio, as this has been duly determined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, which ruled in relevant part as follows:</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">"Article 24. Considerations of this Chamber. </span><span style="font-style:italic">The plaintiffs miss a taxative list of documents that can be reviewed. This Tribunal considers that, as it is an exception to the general principle of inviolability of documents, the fifth paragraph of Article 24 must be interpreted restrictively. However, not so restrictively that it annuls, in fact or in law, the exception itself. In this case, the exception also has the particularity that it aims to comply with another principle—as constitutional as the inviolability of private documents—contemplated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution. To analyze the point, it is necessary to weigh one principle against the other; lest, by unilaterally defending one of them, the other be rendered ineffective. Said more concretely in relation to this case, interpreting the fifth paragraph of Article 26(sic) with its exceptions and guarantees in such a way that it annuls, legally or factually, the principle of Article 46 is unacceptable. The guarantees of that fifth paragraph cannot be interpreted with such rigor that Article 46 loses its efficacy. Access to private documents is not whimsical in the context of commercial relations, but rather is appropriate to combat, as eventually in this case, monopolistic practices and protect consumers in general. But it is not only appropriate, but also necessary. This Tribunal considers that the State could not effectively defend consumers without having access to some private documents of the merchants involved. However, it obviously cannot access any document it pleases, and here the restriction of Article 24 comes into play. The access is limited to the documents that the law specifies in relation to its powers. Unlike the plaintiffs' thesis, this Tribunal considers that it is not realistic to demand that said law dictate a taxative list. Given the variegated and changing commercial reality, demanding such a list established by law in our environment would make State powers practically nugatory. This Tribunal is inclined to think that the guarantee of the fifth paragraph of Article 24 is satisfied to the extent that the law defines the powers of the administrative body based on which it can review the documents. In this way, it may review only the documents required for its functions; it must, in each case, justify why such a document is necessary to fulfill its purposes…”</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">From the cited constitutional jurisprudence, the following aspects are clear: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">1.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The Commission to Promote Competition has a power of constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Political Constitution) and legal rank (</span><span> Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor ), </span><span style="color:#010101">to investigate and determine whether an economic agent is engaging in monopolistic practices or practices that distort the free market; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2.</span><span style="color:#010101"> To determine that an economic agent is violating the provisions on monopolies, that is, to achieve its public purposes assigned constitutionally and legally, the Commission to Promote Competition has the power to request, whether from a common economic agent or a Public Administration, the information it needs to carry out its investigations; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">3.</span><span style="color:#010101"> In turn, constitutionally and legally, any economic agent or Public Administration has the duty to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, provided that this information is requested within the investigative functions conferred on said Commission; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">4.</span><span style="color:#010101"> The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition to investigate illegal monopolistic activities does not violate the right to privacy, because the information required by said Commission is protected by the State's constitutional duty to</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101">prevent any monopolizing practice or tendency, which is developed in the </span><span>Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , so Articles 24 and 46 of the Political Constitution complement each other by allowing private confidential information to be provided to the State when the latter must fulfill superior public interests. In simple terms, the private interest in private information ceases before the superior public interest. Likewise, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is even less a violation of bank secrecy, since the latter does not even have constitutional rank, while the State's protection of citizens from illegal monopolistic practices has a higher constitutional rank, which is above bank secrecy itself; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">5.</span><span> If an economic agent or public administration refuses to provide the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, it may be sanctioned, following the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and its respective regulation. Precisely, in this case, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica does not violate the right to privacy or bank secrecy, as will be analyzed in the following recital.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">IV-</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">ON THE LEGALITY OF </span><span style="font-weight:bold">OF THE SIXTH AGREEMENT OF ORDINARY SESSION NUMBER 30-2009, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, AND VOTE NUMBER 03-2010 OF JANUARY 12, 2010, BOTH ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO PROMOTE COMPETITION. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM THE BANCO NACIONAL DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOR IS IT COVERED BY BANK SECRECY: </span><span>Applying to the specific case what was explained in the preceding recital, this Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the challenged conducts consisting of the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and vote number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, through which a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢9,811,650) was imposed on the</span><span> </span><span> Banco Nacional de Costa Rica for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , are in accordance with law, for the following reasons: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> It is established as a proven fact that the Commission to Promote Competition, in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in the fourth article, agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative procedure against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in order to obtain the material truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Note that what the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to in the cited session was the opening of an ordinary sanctioning administrative procedure for the alleged commission of monopolistic practices by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Now, within the investigative powers of the Commission to Promote Competition, within a duly initiated ordinary sanctioning procedure, by means of official letter number UTA-CPC-0294-08 of August 14, 2008, the President of the Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition indicated to the Special Administrative Attorney-in-Fact of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textually, the following: </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic">"In order to obtain essential information for the investigation and in accordance with Articles 27 subparagraph c) and 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and Article 264 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, you are requested to provide, within a period not exceeding </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">ten business days </span><span style="font-style:italic">from this notification, the following information: (...) 13. Provide the list of the members of the pension operator who have credit operations with the bank, indicating address and telephone number, for the years 2007 and 2008 to date. (...) The company is warned that in accordance with Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and 64 of its Regulation, the information and documents provided must be delivered under oath, and according to Article 28 subparagraph c), a fine of up to sixty-five times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed on the economic agent who has delivered false information. Likewise, a sanction of up to fifty times the amount of the lowest minimum monthly wage may be imposed for delaying the delivery of information, as stipulated in Article 28 subparagraph d) of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Furthermore, the party is warned that in the event of a delay in the delivery of the requested information, summary proceedings will be initiated."</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">Note that the information requested by the </span><span>Directing Body of the Commission to Promote Competition is required as part of an investigation, and furthermore, the cited official letter is clear in indicating the sanctions and the procedure to follow in case of non-compliance. This fully conforms to the procedure established in the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , and the conduct is protected by the functions assigned to the indicated Commission. Moreover, the information requested is pertinent to the ongoing investigation, which concerns an apparent practice by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica of conditioning the granting of loans to its clients on their joining its pension operator. Now, part of the requested information was not delivered to the Commission to Promote Competition by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Therefore, by resolution of the Technical Support Unit for the Commission to Promote Competition, issued at eleven hours thirty minutes on April twenty-four, two thousand nine, the following was stated textually in relevant part for the issuance of this judgment: </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-style:italic">"In the fourth article of ordinary session No. 17-2008 held at 5:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, the Commission to Promote Competition opened an ordinary administrative procedure against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) for an alleged violation of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Law No. 7472. Thus, based on the power conferred on this (sic) body by Article 67 of the cited law, information was requested from that party that was deemed necessary to fulfill the objective of the procedure, to ascertain the material truth of the facts that will serve as the basis for the final act, that is, to determine whether that banking entity engaged in any of the monopolistic practices provided for in Article 12 of Law No. 7472. Subsequently, on September 5, 2008, the BNCR sent the requested information, except for that corresponding to point number 13, which refers to information about its clients, on the grounds that such information is protected by bank secrecy. (...) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">IT IS RESOLVED:</span><span style="font-style:italic"> To warn the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica that within a period not exceeding ten business days from this notification, it must provide the following information: List of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number." </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101">From this official letter, it can be inferred that the Commission to Promote Competition required the defendant bank, within an ordinary sanctioning administrative procedure, simple information such as providing a l</span><span>ist of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number, which this Tribunal considers, based on all the arguments set forth in the preceding recital, is information that the Commission to Promote Competition can perfectly request from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. In this sense, the requested information has two characteristics: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">First:</span><span> It is included within the functions assigned to the Commission to Promote Competition, granted by the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and the Political Constitution itself, because it is necessary and pertinent to investigate the apparent commission of monopolistic practices by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (Articles 27 and 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor ); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Second:</span><span> The information was requested once the Commission to Promote Competition had resolved to open an ordinary sanctioning administrative procedure, through Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in the fourth article, therefore due process is being followed; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Third:</span><span> The requested information does not violate the right to privacy established in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, since, as explained in detail in the preceding recital, the investigative powers granted to the Commission to Promote Competition have constitutional rank (Article 46 of the Magna Carta) and do not conflict with the provisions of constitutional Article 24. Quite the contrary, there is harmony between these provisions, because private fundamental rights yield to superior public interests, as occurs in cases like the present one, where the private information of persons yields its protection so that the State fulfills its duty to protect the public interests represented in preventing monopolistic practices and consumer rights; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2)</span><span> Now, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has been alleging the non-delivery of the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition, indicating that providing a list of the bank's clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name62 or company name, identity card or legal identification card, address, and telephone number, is confidential information, since it is protected by bank secrecy, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Political Constitution and 615 of the Código de Comercio. Likewise, the plaintiff bank argues that the bank accounts of its clients are inviolable, and information can only be given if there is written authorization from the account holder or a court order from a competent judicial authority (in this regard, see official letter of May 4, 2009, which has been established as a proven fact in the case file). What is alleged by the plaintiff Bank is totally improper for the following reasons: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">a. </span><span>The information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition is not covered by bank secrecy, because, as has been explained, the request for information made by the indicated Commission does not even violate the fundamental right to privacy regulated in Article 24 of the Political Constitution.

Bank secrecy is not an institution of constitutional rank, whereas the state powers to protect free competition and consumer rights have constitutional grounding; therefore, there can be no violation of bank secrecy when the information requested is sought for the purpose of safeguarding superior public interests that are constitutionally protected, and provided that the request for information is duly motivated and falls within the functions that the requesting body must carry out; **b.** In addition to the foregoing, there is a particularity in this case, which is that the information requested is simply a list of the clients of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. Note that the information requested by the Commission does not lie in the banking operations of the clients with the plaintiff bank, nor does it generally encompass information on banking transactions, and therefore it is in no way subject to bank secrecy. Furthermore, it must be considered that, in general, the information requested from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica by the Commission is not sensitive information; it is a simple list of clients who were granted a loan during the year 2008, with their names, identification numbers, telephone numbers, and addresses, information that is also evidently easily accessible using other means. Consequently, the information requested by the Commission to Promote Competition does not violate the constitutional right to privacy, much less bank secrecy; **3)** Precisely due to the plaintiff bank's non-compliance, the directing body of the administrative proceeding, by resolution issued at nine hours fifteen minutes on June fourth, two thousand nine, resolved to submit the refusal to deliver information issued by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica to the knowledge of the Commission to Promote Competition, for the purpose of considering whether it constitutes a violation of Article 67 of Law No. 7472 and its amendments. Specifically, in Ordinary Session No. 17-2009 held at seventeen hours thirty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand nine, article ten, the Commission to Promote Competition agreed to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding (procedimiento administrativo sumario) for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472. Likewise, in accordance with Articles 33 in relation to 64 of Decreto Ejecutivo 25234-MEIC Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and articles 320 to 326 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, this agreement proceeded to initiate a summary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and pursuant to article 324 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was granted a maximum period of three working days to formulate its conclusions on the alleged facts, the evidence produced, and the legal grounds supporting its claims. Precisely, through a document received by the Technical Support Unit of the Commission to Promote Competition, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica responded regarding the decision of said Commission to order the opening of a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of Law number 7472, arguing that the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica's refusal to supply the information requested by the Commission was not an act of arbitrariness or unwillingness to cooperate, but rather that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 24 of the Constitución Política and 615 of the Código de Comercio, as well as the reiterated jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional, the Bank may only reveal information of the type required under two scenarios: 1. By express authorization of the client, and 2. By order of a competent judicial authority. From the facts set forth, this Tribunal reaches the following aspects relevant to this case: **a.** Due to the plaintiff bank's non-compliance, it was ordered to initiate a summary administrative proceeding for the alleged violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 33 in relation to 64 of the Decreto Ejecutivo 25234-MEIC Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor and articles 320 to 326 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Note that what was ordered in this case was to open a summary administrative proceeding, which is what is regulated as the proceeding to follow in cases where an economic agent commits the infraction of refusing to deliver, falsifying, or including inaccurate or incomplete data in the documents required within an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding. That is, Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor establishes infractions that must be sanctioned following a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, regulated in articles 320 to 326 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. This proceeding is distinct from the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding, which is regulated in Article 27 bis of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, which must be followed to determine and sanction vertical or horizontal monopolistic practices in markets supervised by the superintendencies. Precisely, in cases of the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding provided for in Article 27 bis, the opinion of the respective superintendency is required prior to the application of the sanction. For its part, in cases of sanctions imposed on economic agents for infringing the mandatory provision of information required, in this case, by the Commission to Promote Competition, the procedure to follow is the summary proceeding, which does not require the prior opinion of any superintendency; **b)** Precisely in the present case, the ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding that has been pursued against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was the one ordered by the Commission to Promote Competition in Ordinary Session number 17-2008, held on May 27, 2008, in article four, in which it was agreed to order the opening of an ordinary administrative proceeding against the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, for the purpose of obtaining the material truth regarding the alleged commission of monopolistic practices, in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Precisely, this proceeding has not yet concluded, as it is in the investigation phase, and furthermore, before it concludes and an eventual sanction is imposed, compliance must be made with the stipulations of Article 27 bis of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, since it would be in that proceeding that the provisions of said rule must be applied. Now, in this case, the challenged administrative actions are not the final acts of an ordinary sanctioning administrative proceeding, but of a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, and therefore the requirement of having the opinion of the respective superintendency before imposing the sanction is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the arguments of the plaintiff bank to the effect that the challenged administrative actions suffer from a substantial defect that produces their absolute nullity, due to the failure to consult the respective superintendency prior to the sanction imposed, are not receivable, since, as explained, they are different scenarios and proceedings; **4)** Now, in Ordinary Session number 30-2009 held at seventeen hours thirty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, article six, the Commission to Promote Competition issued an administrative resolution, in which the following Por Tanto was issued:

"Se declara con lugar el procedimiento administrativo sumario seguido contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, cédula de persona jurídica Nº CED12252, por violación al artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Nº 7472 y por tanto: a) Se le impone al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en primer término, la sanción de pagar la suma de **nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones exactos (¢9.811.650),** que corresponde a cincuenta (50) salarios mínimos mensuales, con base en lo establecido por el Poder Ejecutivo mediante Decreto N´º 35370-MTSS, publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta Nº 136 del 15 de julio del 2009, que estableció el salario mínimo mensual para el segundo semestre del 2009m en la suma de ciento noventa y seis mil doscientos treinta y tres colones exactos (¢196.233). (...) b) Se le ordena al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con base en el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, 89 de su Reglamento y los artículos 225, 264, 297 y 300 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que aporte la información faltante y solicitada inicialmente mediante oficio UTA-CPC-0294-08 y posteriormente por resolución de la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo de esta Comisión, de las 11 horas con 30 minutos del 24 de abril del 2009. Se le previene que en caso de incumplimiento se aplicará lo dispuesto en el numeral 68 de la Ley Nº 7472." Precisely, this resolution was challenged by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica through a motion for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) filed before the Commission to Promote Competition, and by voto number 03-2010, issued by said Commission at nineteen hours fifty-five minutes on January twelfth, two thousand ten, the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff bank was declared without merit. Precisely, these are the resolutions challenged in the case file, which this Tribunal finds to be completely valid and fully compliant with the provisions of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. In this regard, it must be taken into account that the cited resolutions are the final acts of a summary sanctioning administrative proceeding, which, as has been explained, is not affected by procedural or substantive defects. Therefore, the lawsuit filed by the **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** against the **Estado** is declared without merit in all its aspects, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and voto number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, through which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was imposed a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661) for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and additionally, the order was given to provide the required information consisting of the bank's list of clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number.

**V- CONCERNING THE REVOCATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE ORDERED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS:** In this matter, through a resolution issued by the Processing Judge at eight hours thirty minutes on March second, two thousand ten, the following provisional precautionary measure (medida cautelar) was taken: _"The immediate suspension of the effects of Voto No. 03-2010 of 19:55 hours on January 12, 2010, issued by the Commission for the Promotion of Competition."_. Likewise, through resolution number 1321-2010, the aforementioned precautionary measure was definitively confirmed. Precisely, due to the instrumentality and accessory nature of precautionary measures to the main proceeding, and in view that the present lawsuit is being declared without merit, the indicated precautionary measure is ordered revoked, effective upon notification of this judgment to all parties.

**VI- REGARDING THE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING TO SUE AND BE SUED, LACK OF CURRENT INTEREST, AND LACK OF RIGHT, FILED BY THE STATE REPRESENTATION:** This Tribunal resolves the defenses filed by the State as follows: **a) Lack of standing to sue and be sued (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva):** The defense of lack of standing to sue is rejected, since the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica has standing to challenge, in this venue, the sanctions imposed by the Commission to Promote Competition. Likewise, the defense of lack of standing to be sued is rejected, because the Estado holds the representation of the Commission to Promote Competition, and the challenged actions were issued by the indicated Commission; **b) Lack of current interest (falta de interés actual):** This defense must be rejected, since the sanctions and duties imposed on the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica by the challenged administrative actions have not yet been executed, and therefore said banking entity has a current interest in challenging those actions in this venue.; **c) Lack of Right (falta de derecho):** The defense of lack of right is granted, because the challenged actions comply with the legal system, with no violations of the right to privacy, bank secrecy, or the summary sanctioning administrative proceeding of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Therefore, the plaintiff bank does not have the right to challenge administrative actions that are valid and in accordance with the legal system.

**VII- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF PERSONAL AND PROCEDURAL COSTS IN THIS MATTER:** In accordance with the provisions of Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and as this jurisdictional body does not find valid reasons for exoneration from costs, the plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until its effective payment. Items that will be settled in the judgment execution phase.

**POR TANTO** The defenses of lack of standing to sue and be sued and lack of current interest are rejected. The defense of lack of right is granted. The lawsuit filed by the **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** against the **Estado** is declared without merit in all its aspects, and the sixth agreement of ordinary session number 30-2009, held on September 29, 2009, and voto number 03-2010 of January 12, 2010, both issued by the Commission to Promote Competition, are declared valid and effective, through which the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica was imposed a fine of nine million eight hundred eleven thousand six hundred fifty colones (¢CED111661) for violation of Article 67 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, and additionally, the order was given to provide the required information consisting of the bank's list of clients to whom a loan was granted during the year 2008, indicating Name or corporate name, identity card or legal identification number, address, and telephone number. The precautionary measure ordered in the case file is ordered revoked, effective upon notification of this judgment to all parties. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest that said sums generate, from the finality of this judgment until its effective payment. Items that will be settled in the judgment execution phase.

**Otto González Vílchez** **Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Roberto Garita Navarro** **Expediente: 10-000668****-1027-CA** **Proceso de Puro Derecho** **Actor: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica** **Demandado: El Estado**

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 _______________________________________________________________________ Proceso de Puro Derecho Actor: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica Demandado: El Estado Nº 2958 -2010 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN SEXTA CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, a las ocho horas del diez de agosto del dos mil diez.

Proceso contencioso administrativo declarado de puro derecho interpuesto por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, representado por su Gerente General a.i, Nombre66802 , mayor, casado una vez, Ingeniero Agrónomo, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED48939 y vecino de Alajuela contra E l Estado, representado por la Procuradora Adjunta , Georgina Inés Chaves Olarte, mayor, abogada, casada, portadora de la cédula de identidad número CED401 y vecina de Moravia.

RESULTANDO

1- El Banco actor interpone la demanda que ha dado origen al presente proceso, indicando las siguientes pretensiones textuales en su escrito de demanda: "Se ordene como medida cautelar provisionalísima, la suspensión de los efectos y ejecución del voto de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia (COPROCOM) No. 03-2010 de las 19:55 hrs. del 12 de enero del 2010, tanto en lo que se refiere al suministro de información protegida por el secreto bancario como en cuanto a la multa impuesta indebidamente. Una vez otorgada la audiencia de ley, se mantenga como medida cautelar la misma suspensión solicitada en el punto anterior. Se declare con lugar la presente demanda, y consecuentemente se declare la nulidad absoluta de la sanción dictada por COPROCOM dentro del expediente No. 018-09. Esto es, del acuerdo de COPROCOM No. 6º de la sesión ordinaria No. 30-2009 del 29 de setiembre del 2009, notificada al Banco el 26 de octubre del 2009, que impuso al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica la multa de NUEVE MILLONES OCHOCIENTOS ONCE MIL SEISCIENTOS SEISCIENTOS CINCUENTA COLONES EXACTOS (¢9.811.650), y del Voto No. 03-2010 de las 19:55 hrs. del 12 de enero del 2010, notificado al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica el 23 de febrero del 2010, por contravenir el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política y la jurisprudencia constitucional reiterada, así como la orden que gira COPROCOM para que el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica entregue la información que se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario. Se condene a la demandada al pago de ambas costas del presente proceso." 2- Por resolución dictada por el Juez Tramitador a las ocho horas con treinta minutos del dos de marzo del dos mil diez, se tomó la siguiente medida cautelar provisional: "La suspensión inmediata de los efectos del Voto No. 03-2010 de las 19:55 horas del 12 de Enero de 2010, emitido por la Comisión para la Promoción de la Competencia.". Asimismo, mediante resolución número 1321-2010, se confirmó de forma definitiva la medida cautelar indicada anteriormente.

3- La representación estatal contestó en tiempo y forma la demanda, solicitando que se declare sin lugar ésta, así como oponiendo la s excepciones de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de interés actual. Asimismo, solicitó que se condene a la parte actora al pago de ambas costas, así como a la cancelación de los intereses sobre las costas.

4- En la audiencia preliminar efectuada a partir de las catorce horas del quince de junio del dos mil diez , no se ajustaron las pretensiones, quedando éstas igual a las indicadas en el escrito de demanda. Asimismo, en esta misma audiencia, se declaró este proceso de puro derecho, al no existir prueba testimonial y pericial que evacuar, de conformidad con el artículo 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procediendo ambas partes a dar sus conclusiones de manera oral.

5- El expediente de este asunto fue remitido al juez ponente el 19 de julio del 2010 (ver folio 181 vuelto del expediente judicial). Esta resolución se dicta dentro del plazo de quince días hábiles, estipulado en el artículo 82, inciso 4), del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda, así como fue notificada dentro del plazo regulado en el artículo 2 de la Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales número 8687. Asimismo, no se notan errores u omisiones que obliguen a anular lo actuado. Se emite la presente sentencia de manera escrita, por el juez ponente González Vílchez, con el voto afirmativo de los jueces Leiva Poveda y Garita Navarro.

CONSIDERANDO

I- HECHOS PROBADOS: De relevancia para efectos del presente proceso, se tienen por acreditados los siguientes: 1) La Comisión para Promover la Competencia en la Sesión Ordinaria número 17-2008, celebrada el 27 de mayo del 2008, en el artículo cuarto acordó ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con el fin de obtener la verdad real por la presunta comisión de prácticas monopolísticas, de conformidad con los artículos 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor (hecho no controvertido y ver folios del 17 al 19 del expediente administrativo); 2) Por oficio número UTA-CPC-0294-08 del 14 de agosto del 2008, el Presidente del Órgano Director de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, le indicó al Apoderado Especial Administrativo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textualmente lo siguiente: "Con el fin de obtener información esencial para la investigación y de conformidad con los artículos 27 inciso c) y 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y el artículo 264 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se le solicita que aporte, en un plazo no mayor de diez días hábiles a partir de la presente notificación, la siguiente información: (...) 13. Aporte la lista de los afiliados de la operadora de pensiones, que tengan operaciones crediticias con el banco, indicando dirección y teléfono, para los años 2007 y el 2008 a la fecha.(...) Se le previene a la empresa que de conformidad con el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y 64 de su Reglamento, la información y los documentos aportados deberán ser entregados con carácter de declaración jurada, y de acuerdo con el artículo 28 inciso c) se le podrá imponer una multa de hasta sesenta y cinco veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual al agente económico que haya entregado información falsa. De igual forma, se podrá imponer una sanción de hasta cincuenta veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual por retrasar la entrega de la información según lo estupulado en el artículo 28 inciso d) de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Asimismo, se le previene a la parte que ante el retraso en la entrega de la información solicitada se procederá a instruir procedimiento sumario." (ver folios del 17 al 19 del expediente administrativo); 3) Por resolución de la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, dictada a las once horas treinta minutos del veinticuatro de abril del dos mil nueve, se indicó textualmente en lo relevante para el dictado de esta sentencia lo siguiente: "En el artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria Nº 17-2008 celebrada a las 17:30 horas del 27 de mayo de 2008, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, abrió un procedimiento administrativo ordinario contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) por una supuesta violación a los artículos 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Ley Nº 7472. Así con fundamento en la facultad conferida a esta (sic) órgano por el artículo 67 de la ley de cita, se procedió a solicitar a esa parte, información que se consideró necesaria con el fin de cumplir el objetivo del procedimiento, averiguar la verdad real de los hechos que van a servir de motivo para el acto final, es decir, para poder determinar si esa entidad bancaria incurrió en alguna de las prácticas monopolísticas previstas en el artículo 12 de la Ley Nº 7472. Posteriormente, el 5 de setiembre del 2008, el BNCR envió la información solicitada, excepto la que correspondía al punto número 13, que se refiere a información sobre sus clientes, por estimar que esa información se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario. (...) SE RESUELVE: Prevenir al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica que en un plazo no mayor de diez días hábiles, a partir de la presente notificación, aporte la siguiente información: Lista de los clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 ó razón social, cédula de identidad ó jurídica, dirección y teléfono." (ver folios 20 y 21 del expediente administrativo); 4) Por oficio del 4 de mayo del 2009, el Apoderado Especial Administrativo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, le indicó a la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo, Comisión para Promover la Competencia, que aportar una lista de los clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, el Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección y teléfono, es información de carácter confidencial, ya que se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política y 615 del Código de Comercio. Asimismo, se indicó en este oficio, que las cuentas bancarias de sus clientes son inviolables, y solo se pueda dar información si existe autorización escrita del titular de la cuenta o una orden judicial que provenga de autoridad judicial competente. Por ello el banco demandado indicó que se encontraba jurídicamente impedido para atender la prevención formulada (ver folios del 24 al 27 del expediente administrativo); 5) Por resolución dictada por el órgano director del procedimiento administrativo a las nueve horas con quince minutos del cuatro de junio del dos mil nueve, se resolvió someter a conocimiento de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia la negativa de entrega de información emitida por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con el fin de que se considere si configura una violación al artículo 67 de la Ley Nº 7472 y sus reformas (ver folios 28 y 29 del expediente administrativo); 6) En Sesión Ordinaria Nº 17-2009 celebrada a las diecisiete horas con treinta minutos del disciséis de junio del dos mil nueve, artículo décimo, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, acordó ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo sumario por la supuesta violación al artículo 67 de la Ley número 7472. Asimismo, de conformidad con los artículos 33 en relación con el 64 del Decreto Ejecutivo 25234-MEIC Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y ordinales 320 al 326 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se procedió en este acuerdo a sustanciar un procedimiento administrativo sumario al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, y conforme al numeral 324 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se le otorgó al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica un plazo máximo de tres días hábiles para que formulara sus conclusiones sobre los hechos alegados, la prueba producida y los fundamentos jurídicos en que apoya sus pretensiones (ver folios del 30 al 32 del expediente administrativo); 7) Por escrito recibido en la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica se pronunció respecto a la decisión de dicha Comisión de ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo sumario por la supuesta violación al artículo 67 de la Ley número 7472, aduciendo que la negativa del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica de suministrar la información solicitada por la Comisión, no era un acto de arbitrariedad o de no deseo de colaboración, sino que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 24 de la Constitución Política y 615 del Código de Comercio, así como en la reiterada jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, el Banco solo puede revelar información del tipo a la requerida, por dos supuestos; 1. Por autorización expresa del cliente y 2. Por orden de una autoridad judicial competente (ver folios del 55 al 60 del expediente administrativo); 8) En Sesión Ordinaria número 30-2009 celebrada a las diecisiete horas con treinta minutos del veintinueve de setiembre del dos mil nueve, artículo sexto, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, emitió resolución administrativa, en la cual se dictó el siguiente Por Tanto: "Se declara con lugar el procedimiento administrativo sumario seguido contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, cédula de persona jurídica Nº CED12252, por violación al artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Nº 7472 y por tanto: a) Se le impone al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en primer término, la sanción de pagar la suma de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones exactos (¢9.811.650), que corresponde a cincuenta (50) salarios mínimos mensuales, con base en lo establecido por el Poder Ejecutivo mediante Decreto N´º 35370-MTSS, publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta Nº 136 del 15 de julio del 2009, que estableció el salario mínimo mensual para el segundo semestre del 2009m en la suma de ciento noventa y seis mil doscientos treinta y tres colones exactos (¢Placa27753). (...) b) Se le ordena al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con base en el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, 89 de su Reglamento y los artículos 225, 264, 297 y 300 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que aporte la información faltante y solicitada inicialmente mediante oficio UTA-CPC-0294-08 y posteriormente por resolución de la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo de esta Comisión, de las 11 horas con 30 minutos del 24 de abril del 2009. Se le previene que en caso de incumplimiento se aplicará lo dispuesto en el numeral 68 de la Ley Nº 7472." (ver folios del 63 al 70 del expediente administrativo); 9) Que el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, interpuso recurso de reposición ante la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, contra el acuerdo indicado en el hecho probado anterior (ver folios del 73 al 80 del expediente administrativo); 10) Por voto número 03-2010, dictado por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia a las diecinueve horas con cincuenta y cinco minutos del doce de enero del dos mil diez, se declaró sin lugar el recurso de reposición interpuesto por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica contra el acuerdo contenido en el artículo sexto del acta de la sesión ordinaria número 30-2009, celebrada a las diecisiete horas con treinta minutos del veintinueve de setiembre del dos mil nueve, confirmandose con ello la multa impuesta y el requerimiento de suministrar la información solicitada por dicha comisión (ver folios del 84 al 94 del expediente administrativo).

II- SOBRE EL OBJETO DE ESTE PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO: El Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, viene solicitando en este proceso que se declare la nulidad absoluta del acuerdo sexto de la sesión ordinaria número 30-2009, celebrada el 29 de setiembre del 2009 y el voto número 03-2010 del 12 de enero del 2010, ambos dictados por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, mediante los cuales se le impuso a dicho ente bancario la multa de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones (¢CED111661), por violación del artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , y además, se le giró la orden de aportar la información requerida consistente en la lista de clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección y teléfono. Los alegatos del Banco actor, se resumen en los siguientes: 1. Las resoluciones impugnadas son nulas porque contravienen lo dispuesto en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política, 615 del Código de Comercio y la jurisprudencia reiterada de la Sala Constitucional, debido a que la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia sobre los nombres, direcciones, números de identificación y telefónicos de sus clientes es información confidencial la cual se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario. Por ello, el ente bancario demandado no entregó a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia la información requerida al estar protegida por el secreto bancario, por lo que la sanción económica impuesta es nula, así como la orden de entregar esa información a dicha comisión; 2. Por otro lado aduce el banco actor, que en el procedimiento administrativo que culminó con la sanción impuesta y la orden de entregar la información requerida por parte de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, se incurrió en un vicio que produce su nulidad, ya que no se siguió lo dispuesto en el artículo 27 bis b) de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , ya que dicha norma establece que ante la apertura de un procedimiento sancionador por parte de la Comisión por hechos contrarios a esa Ley, en los cuales haya participado alguna entidad supervisada del Sistema Financiero, y el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica es un banco comercial del Estado fiscalizado por la SUGEF, se solicitará criterio a la superintendencia respectiva. Precisamente, alega el banco accionante, que pese a que la consulta no es vinculante, si es obligatoria, y que en el presente caso no se le hizo la consulta a la SUGEF en ningún momento, por lo que las resoluciones impugnadas adolecen de nulidad absoluta en forma evidente y manifiesta. Por su parte, la representación estatal, alega en su defensa, en lo medular, lo siguiente: 1. La Comisión para Promover la Competencia, le solicitó al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, la lista de los clientes del banco a quienes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección o teléfono, en virtud de una investigación iniciada contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, por tres denuncias presentadas contra dicho banco ante la Superintendencia de Pensiones y remitidas a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, por considerar que el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, ha incurrido en la práctica monopolística relativa tipificada en el artículo 12 inciso c) de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor . Aduce el Estado, que el banco demandado podría estar incurriendo en una práctica monopolística consistente en supuestamente obligar a sus clientes a adquirir los seguros con su comercializadora para la aprobación de un crédito. Indica la representación estatal, que la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, consistente en la lista de clientes del banco a los cuales se les otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, resulta indispensable para la investigación, debido a que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia requiere contactar a los referidos clientes a fin de determinar si efectivamente el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica les otorgó el préstamo condicionado a su afiliación a la operadora de pensiones BN Vital. Asimismo, alega la abogada estatal, que lo único que solicitó la Comisión para Promover la Competencia al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, fue la lista de clientes indicando el Nombre62 o razón social, la cédula de identidad o jurídica y la dirección o teléfono, siendo que no se solicitó información alguna sobre la operación crediticia; 2. La representante estatal, argumenta que la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, no se encuentra cubierta por el secreto bancario, de conformidad con la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, que distingue el secreto bancario del derecho fundamental a la intimidad; 3. Afirma la abogada del Estado, que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, cuenta con potestades dadas legalmente, en este caso el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , para solicitar la información necesaria para poder realizar sus funciones de fiscalización, potestades que han sido confirmadas por la jurisprudencia constitucional; 4. Por último, el Estado aduce que no se ha violado el procedimiento regulado en el artículo 27 bis de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , debido a que en este caso no es el supuesto regulado en dicha norma, ya que no es un procedimiento para la determinación de conductas anticompetitivas, sino un procedimiento sumario tramitado por la negativa de aportar información en una investigación, por lo que son supuestos diferentes y como consecuencia la citada norma no ha sido violada.

III- SOBRE EL DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL A LA INTIMIDAD, EL SECRETO BANCARIO Y LAS FUNCIONES DE INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN PARA PROMOVER LA COMPETENCIA: En este asunto es necesario realizar una adecuada explicación y delimitación de lo que se entiende por el Derecho Fundamental a la Intimidad, consagrado en el artículo 24 de nuestra Constitución Política, el secreto bancario regulado en el numeral 615 del Código de Comercio, y las funciones o potestades de fiscalización e investigación de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, otorgadas por el artículo 46 de la Carta Magna y desarrolladas en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , con la finalidad de ver los alcances y límites de cada uno de estos institutos, y así aplicarlos al caso concreto. a) Sobre el Derecho Fundamental a la Intimidad. Alcances y Límites: El Derecho Fundamental a la Intimidad se encuentra consagrado en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política que dispone:

ARTÍCULO 24.- Se garantiza el derecho a la intimidad, a la libertad y al secreto de las comunicaciones.

Son inviolables los documentos privados y las comunicaciones escritas, orales o de cualquier otro tipo de los habitantes de la República. Sin embargo, la ley, cuya aprobación y reforma requerirá los votos de dos tercios de los Diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa, fijará en qué casos podrán los Tribunales de Justicia ordenar el secuestro, registro o examen de los documentos privados, cuando sea absolutamente indispensable para esclarecer asuntos sometidos a su conocimiento.

Igualmente, la ley determinará en cuáles casos podrán los Tribunales de Justicia ordenar que se intervenga cualquier tipo de comunicación e indicará los delitos en cuya investigación podrá autorizarse el uso de esta potestad excepcional y durante cuánto tiempo. Asimismo, señalará las responsabilidades y sanciones en que incurrirán los funcionarios que apliquen ilegalmente esta excepción. Las resoluciones judiciales amparadas a esta norma deberán ser razonadas y podrán ejecutarse de inmediato. Su aplicación y control serán responsabilidad indelegable de la autoridad judicial.

La ley fijará los casos en que los funcionarios competentes del Ministerio de Hacienda y de la Contraloría General de la República podrán revisar los libros de contabilidad y sus anexos para fines tributarios y para fiscalizar la correcta utilización de los fondos públicos.

Una ley especial, aprobada por dos tercios del total de los Diputados, determinará cuáles otros órganos de la Administración Pública podrán revisar los documentos que esa ley señale en relación con el cumplimiento de sus competencias de regulación y vigilancia para conseguir fines públicos. Asimismo, indicará en qué casos procede esa revisión.

No producirán efectos legales, la correspondencia que fuere sustraída ni la información obtenida como resultado de la intervención ilegal de cualquier comunicación.

Justamente, esta Sección de este Tribunal abordó el tema del derecho a la intimidad respecto a sus alcances y límites, en una sentencia del año pasado, en la que se indicó en lo que interesa lo siguiente:

El artículo 24 de la Constitución Política consagra el derecho fundamental a la intimidad, que se trata de un fuero de protección a la vida privada de las personas. La intimidad está comprendida por aquellos fenómenos, comportamientos, datos y situaciones de una persona que normalmente están sustraídos al conocimiento de extraños. Dicha esfera de intimidad se justifica porque en un sistema democrático toda persona tiene derecho a mantener reserva sobre ciertas actividades, datos, documentos u opiniones suyas, puesto que resulta imposible o muy difícil de convivir y desarrollar a plenitud los fines que una persona se propone, sin gozar de un marco de intimidad, protegido de injerencias del Estado o de otras personas (ver el artículo 11.2.3 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos o Pacto de San José). Una de las manifestaciones de este derecho fundamental, expresamente contempladas en el texto del artículo 24 constitucional, es la inviolabilidad de los datos y documentos privados. Esta garantía protege la confidencialidad de los documentos e informaciones privadas , lo cual, constituye una garantía para que los particulares no tengan acceso a ellos y a la vez implica una prohibición para que tanto los sujetos de derecho público como privado la suministren a terceros. En ese sentido, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha considerado que: “...El artículo 24 de la Constitución Política le garantiza a todas las personas una esfera de intimidad intangible para el resto de los sujetos de derecho, de tal forma que aquellos datos íntimos, sensibles o nominativos que un ente u órgano público ha recolectado, procesado y almacenado, por constar en sus archivos, registros y expedientes físicos o automatizados, no pueden ser accedidos por ninguna persona por suponer ello una intromisión o injerencia externa e inconstitucional. Obviamente, lo anterior resulta de mayor aplicación cuando el propio administrado ha puesto en conocimiento de una administración pública información confidencial, por ser requerida, con el propósito de obtener un resultado determinado o beneficio...” (sentencia número 2005-02703 de las diez horas diecisiete minutos del diez de marzo del dos mil cinco, y en sentido similar, la sentencia número 2003-00136 de las quince horas veintidós minutos del quince de enero del dos mil tres). Si bien es cierto, el Constituyente garantizó a toda persona un ámbito propio, una esfera privada, para proteger su intimidad, también lo es, que el propio texto constitucional establece que ese derecho fundamental no es absoluto, sino que en procura de resguardar otros bienes jurídicos tutelados (ver artículo 28 párrafos primero y segundo de la Constitución Política), es posible imponerle limitaciones en casos concretos y calificados, a efecto de que la Administración Pública ejerza las potestades de regulación y vigilancia para conseguir fines públicos que le otorgue una norma legal (artículo 24 párrafo 6º de la Constitución Política), o de que los terceros en ejercicio del derecho fundamental a la información sobre asuntos de interés público (ver artículo 30 de la Constitución Política), puedan tener acceso a ese ámbito privado, en aquellos supuestos en que esos datos o documentos tengan trascendencia para lograr la satisfacción y la tutela efectiva del interés público. Cabe destacar, que no se trata entonces de dejar sin efecto ciertos derechos para la protección de otros, pues entre los derechos fundamentales no existe una jerarquía propiamente dicha, sino más bien, de lograr la adecuada coordinación entre los diversos intereses presentes en una sociedad, a fin de procurar un punto medio necesario en cada caso entre el interés particular y el interés público (ver sentencia número 1999-07265 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las doce horas con treinta y nueve minutos del diecisiete de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve). Con base en el fundamento constitucional anteriormente expuesto, es que el legislador está facultado no sólo para crear órganos o entes que ejercerán potestades de regulación y vigilancia para conseguir fines públicos -como por ejemplo: la protección efectiva de quienes participan en el mercado como inversionistas, o como consumidores de bienes y servicios-, sino también, para imponer a las personas en casos concretos y calificados en que estén de por medio otros bienes jurídicos tutelados que trascienden esa esfera privada dada la incidencia que tienen sobre los terceros, el deber de proporcionar información o presentar documentos que estén relacionados con la actividad que realizan, a efecto de supervisar que su ejercicio no resulte contrario al interés público que se pretende regular y proteger (ver en sentido similar, la sentencia número 1996-04463 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las nueve horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del treinta de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y seis). (Sentencia número 838-2009; Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Sexta, a las ocho horas treinta minutos del seis de mayo de dos mil nueve).

Precisamente, de la cita del numeral 24 constitucional y de la explicación dada al derecho a la intimidad realizada por esta misma Sección de este Tribunal, se pueden extraer las siguientes consideraciones relevantes: 1. El derecho a la intimidad protege la información confidencial de las personas o ciudadanos en general; 2. Aunque la información confidencial de los administrados está protegida por este derecho fundamental, puede ser ésta perfectamente accesada en procura de resguardar otros bienes jurídicos tutelados, como sería en el caso que nos ocupa evitar las prácticas monopolísticas y los derechos del consumidor; 3. El párrafo quinto del artículo 24 de la Constitución Política, estableció la posibilidad que el legislador le otorgara a las Administraciones Públicas potestades de regulación y vigilancia para conseguir fines públicos, en otras palabras, el derecho a la intimidad no es absoluto, permite excepciones, como la que se presenta en este caso, y que será analizada con detalle más adelante, en el sentido que con base en las potestades otorgadas por el artículo 46 de la Carta Magna y desarrolladas en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia se encuentra perfectamente habilitada, desde la perspectiva constitucional y legal, a solicitar la información que requiera a efectos de salvaguardar los intereses públicos de los consumidores, por lo que incluso puede requerir información protegida directamente por el derecho fundamental a la intimidad, ya que en ciertas circunstancias ese derecho fundamental debe ceder frente al derecho fundamental de protección al consumidor, ambos derechos de origen constitucional; b) El secreto bancario, alcances y límites: El secreto bancario se ha extraído de lo establecido en el artículo 615 del Código de Comercio, que dispone:

ARTÍCULO 615.- Las cuentas corrientes bancarias son inviolables y los Bancos sólo podrán suministrar información sobre ellas a solicitud o con autorización escrita del dueño, o por orden de autoridad judicial competente. Se exceptúa la intervención que en cumplimiento de sus funciones determinadas por la ley haga la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras.

Queda prohibida la revisión de cuentas corrientes por las autoridades fiscales.

Precisamente, en la misma sentencia citada anteriormente, esta Sección de este Tribunal, abordó el tema del secreto bancario, manifestando lo siguiente:

(..) secreto bancario prevista en el artículo 615 del Código Comercio, constituye una manifestación legal del bien jurídico tutelado a través de lo dispuesto en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política (derecho fundamental a la intimidad). En ese sentido, el secreto bancario es “...el deber impuesto a toda entidad de intermediación financiera de no revelar la información y los datos que posea de sus clientes por cualquier operación bancaria o contrato bancario que haya celebrado con éstos, sobre todo, en tratándose de las cuentas corrientes, ya que, el numeral 615 del Código de Comercio lo consagra expresamente para esa hipótesis...” (ver sentencia número 2005-02703 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las diez horas diecisiete minutos del diez de marzo del dos mil cinco, y en sentido similar, las sentencias número 2004-14210 de las quince horas cuatro minutos del catorce de diciembre del dos mil cuatro y 2003-00136 de las quince horas veintidós minutos del quince de enero del dos mil tres). No obstante lo anterior, esta regla también admite excepciones, pues si bien es cierto, el secreto bancario constituye un mecanismo para proteger a las personas frente al uso indebido que se pueda hacer de sus operaciones financieras, en detrimento de su intimidad, también lo es, que en aquellas situaciones en que exista la posibilidad de que una persona física o jurídica haya podido incurrir en incumplimientos graves a las obligaciones que le impone el Ordenamiento Jurídico en el ejercicio de su actividad en el mercado financiero o de valores, que además, tengan la virtud de trascender el ámbito privado y puedan afectar a terceros, los órganos que conforme a la ley sean competentes para ejercer las potestades de regulación y vigilancia de dichas actividades, puedan tener acceso efectivo a esos datos –tal y como lo establece el propio artículo 615 del Código de Comercio-, e intercambiarlos entre sí –en el supuesto de que la norma legal así lo autorice-, como una forma de lograr no sólo el oportuno y estricto cumplimiento de dichas potestades de supervisión prudencial que les fueron asignadas (...)" De la norma citada y de lo ya analizado por esta misma Sección de este Tribunal, se pueden hacer con respecto al secreto bancario, las siguientes precisiones: 1. El secreto bancario es una derivación legal del derecho fundamental a la intimidad. Esto significa que el secreto bancario no tiene un rango constitucional sino legal; 2. El secreto bancario, únicamente abarca la información concerniente a las operaciones bancarias, contratos bancarios, en general a las actividades que los clientes tengan con los bancos en sus actividades financieras; 3. Al igual de lo que suscede con el derecho fundamental a la intimidad, el secreto bancario, tiene sus excepciones, que son las mismas que se explicaron del derecho a la intimidad. Es decir, las Administraciones Públicas que por disposición constitucional o legal se le confieran potestades de supervisión y fiscalización con la finalidad de resguardar o proteger intereses públicos, la información confidencial puede ser perfectamente accesada por estas Administraciones Públicas que cuenten con esas facultades, siempre y cuando se haga siguiendo los procedimientos regulados normativamente y garantizando a los ciudadanos que su información no será divulgada o utilizada con otros fines que no sean los de proteger los intereses públicos superiores; c) Funciones o potestades de fiscalización e investigación de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, otorgadas por el artículo 46 de la Carta Magna y desarrolladas en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , para proteger de prácticas monopolísticas las actividades comerciales y a los derechos de los consumidores: Justamente, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, es uno de esos órganos administrativos que constitucional y legalmente, cuenta con potestades o facultades de fiscalización, supervisión y de protección a las actividades monopolísticas y a los derechos fundamentales del consumidor. En este sentido, el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política dispone lo siguiente:

ARTÍCULO 46.- Son prohibidos los monopolios de carácter particular, y cualquier acto, aunque fuere originado en una ley, que amenace o restrinja la libertad de comercio, agricultura e industria.

Es de interés público la acción del Estado encaminada a impedir toda práctica o tendencia monopolizadora.

Las empresas constituidas en monopolios de hecho deben ser sometidas a una legislación especial.

Para establecer nuevos monopolios en favor del Estado o de las Municipalidades se requerirá la aprobación de dos tercios de la totalidad de los miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa.

Los consumidores y usuarios tienen derecho a la protección de su salud, ambiente, seguridad e intereses económicos; a recibir información adecuada y veraz; a la libertad de elección, y a un trato equitativo. El Estado apoyará los organismos que ellos constituyan para la defensa de sus derechos. La ley regulará esas materias.

Nótese, que el artículo constitucional citado es claro en calificar como de interés público, inclusive con un rango constitucional, la obligación del Estado de proteger el libre mercado evitando las actividades monopolisticas, y por otro lado, proteger los derechos fundamentales del consumidor. Precisamente, como lo indica el texto de la norma constitucional citada, la ley especial regulará esas materias, y es lo que efectivamente viene a hacer la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , al otorgarle al la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, las siguientes facultades:

ARTÍCULO 21.- Creación de la Comisión para promover la competencia.

Se crea la Comisión para promover la competencia, como órgano de máxima desconcentración; estará adscrita al Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio. Se encargará de conocer, de oficio o por denuncia, y sancionar, cuando proceda, todas las prácticas que constituyan impedimentos o dificultades para la libre competencia y entorpezcan innecesariamente la fluidez del mercado.

La instancia administrativa ante esta Comisión es obligatoria y de previo agotamiento para acudir a la vía judicial, salvo lo establecido en el artículo 17 de esta Ley.

ARTÍCULO 27.- Potestades de la Comisión.

La Comisión para promover la competencia tiene las siguientes potestades:

• a)Velar porque los entes y los órganos de la Administración Pública cumplan con la obligación de racionalizar los procedimientos y los trámites que deban mantenerse; además, eliminar los innecesarios, según se dispone en los artículos 3 y 4 de esta Ley. En caso de incumplimiento, le compete recomendar al jerarca imponer las sanciones administrativas correspondientes a los funcionarios que cometan faltas graves en el ejercicio de sus funciones.
• b)Recomendar, a la Administración Pública, la regulación de precios y el establecimiento de restricciones que no sean arancelarias, cuando proceda de conformidad con los artículos 5 y 6 de esta Ley.
• c)Investigar la existencia de monopolios, carteles, prácticas o concentraciones prohibidas en esta Ley, para lo cual puede requerir a los particulares y los demás agentes económicos, la información o los documentos relevantes y sancionar cuando proceda.
• d)Sancionar los actos de restricción de la oferta estipulada en el artículo 33 de esta Ley, cuando lesionen, en forma refleja, la libre competencia en el mercado.
• e)Establecer los mecanismos de coordinación para sancionar y prevenir monopolios, carteles, concentraciones y prácticas ilícitas.
• f)Cuando lo considere pertinente, emitir opinión, en materia de competencia y libre concurrencia, respecto de las leyes, los reglamentos, los acuerdos, las circulares y los demás actos administrativos, sin que tales criterios tengan ningún efecto jurídico. La Comisión no puede ser obligada a opinar.

A esta Comisión no le corresponde conocer de los actos de competencia desleal en los términos estipulados en el artículo 17 de esta Ley. Estos casos son del conocimiento exclusivo de los órganos jurisdiccionales competentes.

Estas dos normas son claras al indicar que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, cuenta con potestades de supervisión y fiscalización amplias, para desarrollar en la realidad el postulado constitucional de protección del libre mercado y de evitar monopolios y prácticas monopolisticas. Ahora bien, la indicada Comisión, no solo tiene facultades de supervisión de las actividades comerciales con la finalidad de evitar monopolios o prácticas monopolísticas que distorcionen la fluides del mercado comercial, sino que también esas potestades bienen acompañadas de la facultad de sancionar a los agentes económicos que incurran en esas prácticas ilegales. En ese sentido, se regula en el artículo 28 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , esas sanciones, al disponer lo siguiente:

ARTÍCULO 28.- Sanciones.

La Comisión para promover la competencia puede ordenar, mediante resolución fundada y tomando en consideración la capacidad de pago, a cualquier agente económico que infrinja las disposiciones contenidas en el capítulo III de esta Ley, las siguientes sanciones:

• a)La suspensión, la corrección o la supresión de la práctica o concentración de que se trate.
• b)La desconcentración, parcial o total, de cuanto se haya concentrado indebidamente, sin perjuicio del pago de la multa que proceda.
• c)El pago de una multa, hasta por sesenta y cinco veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual, por haber declarado falsamente o haberle entregado información falsa a la Comisión para promover la competencia, con independencia de otras responsabilidades en que incurra.
• d)El pago de una multa, hasta por cincuenta veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual por retrasar la entrega de la información solicitada por la Comisión para promover la competencia.
• e)El pago de una multa, hasta por seiscientas ochenta veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual, por haber incurrido en una práctica monopolística absoluta.
• f)El pago de una multa, hasta por cuatrocientas diez veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual, por haber incurrido en alguna práctica monopolística relativa.
• g)El pago de una multa, hasta por cuatrocientas diez veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual, por haber incurrido en alguna concentración de las prohibidas en esta Ley.
• h)El pago de una multa, hasta por setenta y cinco veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual, a las personas físicas que participen directamente en las prácticas monopolísticas o concentraciones prohibidas, en representación de personas jurídicas o entidades de hecho o por cuenta y orden de ellas.

En el caso de las infracciones mencionadas en los incisos del e) al h) de este artículo que, a juicio de la Comisión para promover la competencia, revistan gravedad particular, esta Comisión puede imponer como sanción una multa equivalente al diez por ciento (10%) de las ventas anuales obtenidas por el infractor durante el ejercicio fiscal anterior o una hasta por el diez por ciento (10%) del valor de los activos del infractor. De esas dos multas se impondrá la que resulte más alta. Para imponer tales sanciones deben respetarse los principios del debido proceso, el informalismo, la verdad real, el impulso de oficio, la imparcialidad y la publicidad, los cuales informan el procedimiento administrativo estipulado en el Libro Segundo de la Ley General de la Administración Pública.

Si el infractor se niega a pagar la suma establecida por la Comisión para promover la competencia, mencionado en los incisos d) a h) de este artículo, la Comisión certificará el adeudo, que constituye título ejecutivo, a fin de que, con base en él, se plantee el proceso de ejecución en vía judicial, en los términos que se dispone en el Código Procesal Civil.

Como se desprende de la lectura de este artículo, es fácil apreciar, que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, tiene potestades sancionatorias, que se manifiestan en dos tipos: Primera: Sanciones que se imponen a un agente económico cuando la Comisión, después de finalizado un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionatorio, determina que se cometieron prácticas monopolísticas o que distorcionaron de forma ilegal el libre mercado, es decir, la sanción final y principal; Segunda: Sanciones que se imponen a un agente económico, cuando durante la investigación que se da dentro de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionatorio, éste, declare falsamente o entregue información falsa, se niegue a dar información o la entregue de forma tardía a la Comisión. Precisamente, las segundas sanciones son las que interesan en este caso, debido a que son las que se encuentran enmarcadas en el deber de los agentes económicos de brindar la información que le solicite, en el caso que nos ocupa, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, para poder investigar las posibles prácticas monopolísticas. Obligación de dar información que viene expresamente regulada en el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , que indica en lo relevante:

ARTÍCULO 67.- Documentos e información.

Los comerciantes, a requerimiento de la Comisión para promover la competencia, de la Comisión nacional del consumidor y del Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, están obligados a:

• a)Entregar, con carácter de declaración jurada, los informes y los documentos que se consideren necesarios para garantizar el ejercicio de sus funciones. La información suministrada es confidencial y el funcionario que viole el secreto de los datos confidenciales incurre en falta grave en el ejercicio de sus funciones. (...)

La negativa de entrega, la falsedad o la inclusión de datos inexactos o incompletos, en los documentos requeridos, debe ser sancionada como falta grave por las respectivas comisiones, según proceda. (...)

Los órganos y los entes de la Administración Pública deben suministrar la información que les solicite la Comisión para promover la competencia y la Comisión nacional del consumidor, para el ejercicio de sus funciones.

De lo dicho en la citada norma, es claro que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, tiene la facultad de solicitar a cualquier agente económico, incluso a las Administraciones Públicas, la información que requiera para investigar si determinado sujeto ha cometido alguna conducta sancionada por la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor . Ahora bien, estas potestades de solicitar información que tiene la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, incluso que también la tienen la Comisión Nacional del Consumidor y del Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio (todos órganos administrativos encargados de hacer cumplir el mandato constitucional de proteger los intereses públicos de los consumidores y de evitar las prácticas monopolísticas), no rozan o vienen a violar el derecho fundamental de la intimidad regulado en el artículo 24 de la Carta Magna, ni mucho menos el secreto bancario establecido en el numeral 615 del Código de Comercio, ya que así ha sido, debidamente determinado por la misma Sala Constitucional, que dispuso en lo que interesa lo siguiente:

"Artículo 24. Consideraciones de esta Sala. Las accionantes echan de menos una lista taxativa de documentos que se pueden revisar. Considera este Tribunal que, por tratarse de una excepción al principio general de inviolabilidad de los documentos, el párrafo quinto del artículo 24 debe interpretarse restrictivamente. Sin embargo, no tan restrictivamente que anule de hecho o de derecho la excepción misma. En este caso, la excepción tiene además la particularidad de que apunta a cumplir con otro principio -tan constitucional como el de la inviolabilidad de los documentos privados- contemplado en el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política. Para analizar el punto es necesario sopesar uno y otro principio; no vaya a ser que por defender unilateralmente uno de ellos el otro quede sin eficacia. Dicho más concretamente en relación con este caso, interpretar el párrafo quinto del artículo 26(sic) con sus excepciones y garantías de tal manera que anule, jurídica o fácticamente, el principio del artículo 46 es inaceptable. Las garantías de ese párrafo quinto no pueden ser interpretadas con tanto rigor que el artículo 46 pierda su eficacia. El acceso a documentos privados no es antojadizo en el contexto de las relaciones comerciales, sino que resulta adecuado para combatir, como eventualmente en este caso, prácticas monopolísticas y proteger en general a los consumidores. Pero no solo es adecuado, sino también necesario. Este Tribunal considera que el Estado no podría defender eficazmente a los consumidores sin tener acceso a algunos documentos privados de los comerciantes involucrados. Ahora bien, obviamente no puede acceder a todo documento que se le antoje y aquí entra en juego la restricción del artículo 24. El acceso está limitado a los documentos que la ley señale en relación con sus competencias. A diferencia de la tesis de las accionantes, considera este Tribunal que no es realista exigir que esa ley dicte una lista taxativa. Dada la abigarrada y cambiante realidad mercantil, exigir en nuestro medio una lista así establecida por vía legal haría prácticamente nugatorias las potestades estatales. Este Tribunal se inclina a pensar que la garantía del párrafo quinto del artículo 24 se satisface en la medida que la ley defina cuáles son las competencias del órgano administrativo en función de las cuáles puede revisar los documentos. De esa manera, podrá revisar únicamente los documentos que requieran sus funciones; deberá en cada caso fundamentar por qué es necesario tal documento para cumplir con sus fines…” De la jurisprudencia constitucional citada, quedan claros los siguientes aspectos: 1. La Comisión para Promover la Competencia, tiene una potestad de rango constitucional (artículo 46 de la Constitución Política) y legal ( Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor ), de investigar y determinar si un agente económico viene incurriendo en prácticas monopolísticas o que distorcionen el libre mercado; 2. Para determinar que un agente económico viene violando las disposiciones sobre monopolios, es decir, para lograr cumplir con sus fines públicos asignados constitucional y legalmente, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, tiene la facultad de solicitar, sea a un agente económico común o alguna Administración Pública, la información que necesite para llevar acabo sus investigaciones; 3. A su vez, constitucional y legalmente, cualquier agente económico o Administración Pública, tiene el deber de brindar la información que le requiera la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, siempre y cuando esta información se solicite dentro de las funciones de investigación conferidas a dicha Comisión; 4. La información que solicite la Comisión para Promover la Competencia para investigar las actividades monopolísticas ilegales, no viola el derecho a la intimidad, debido a que la información que requiera dicha Comisión, viene amparada por el deber constitucional del Estado de impedir toda práctica o tendencia monopolizadora, que se desarrolla en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , por lo que los artículos 24 y 46 de la Constitución Política se complementan al permitir que la información confidencial privada sea proporcionada al Estado, cuando este último tiene que cumplir intereses públicos superiores. En palabras sencillas, el interés privado a la información privada cesa ante el interés público superior. Asimismo, la información que solicite la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, mucho menos viola el secreto bancario, ya que éste ni siquiera tiene rango constitucional, mientras que la protección del Estado a los administrados de prácticas monopolísticas ilegales tiene un rango constitucional superior, que se encuentra por encima del mismo secreto bancario; 5. Si un agente económico o administración pública se niega a brindar la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, puede ser sancionado, siguiendo el procedimiento establecido en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y su respectivo reglamento. Justamente, en este caso, la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, no viola el derecho a la intimidad ni el secreto bancario, tal y como se analizará en el siguiente considerando.

IV- SOBRE LA LEGALIDAD DE DEL ACUERDO SEXTO DE LA SESIÓN ORDINARIA NÚMERO 30-2009, CELEBRADA EL 29 DE SETIEMBRE DEL 2009 Y EL VOTO NÚMERO 03-2010 DEL 12 DE ENERO DEL 2010, AMBOS DICTADOS POR LA COMISIÓN PARA PROMOVER LA COMPETENCIA. LA INFORMACIÓN REQUERIDA AL BANCO NACIONAL NO VIOLA EL DERECHO A LA INTIMIDAD NI ESTÁ COMPRENDIDA POR EL SECRETO BANCARIO: Aplicando al caso concreto lo explicado en el considerando anterior, este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que las conductas impugnadas consistentes en el acuerdo sexto de la sesión ordinaria número 30-2009, celebrada el 29 de setiembre del 2009 y el voto número 03-2010 del 12 de enero del 2010, ambos dictados por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, mediante los cuales se le impuso al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica la multa de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones (¢9.811.650), por violación del artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , se encuetran ajustados a derecho, por las siguientes razones: 1) Se tiene como un hecho probado, que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia en la Sesión Ordinaria número 17-2008, celebrada el 27 de mayo del 2008, en el artículo cuarto acordó ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con el fin de obtener la verdad real por la presunta comisión de prácticas monopolísticas, de conformidad con los artículos 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Nótese, que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, lo que acordó en la sesión citada, fue la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionatorio por presunta comisión de prácticas monopolísticas por parte del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Ahora bien, dentro de las potestades de investigación de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, dentro de un procedimiento ordinario sancionatorio, debidamente iniciado, por medio del oficio número UTA-CPC-0294-08 del 14 de agosto del 2008, el Presidente del Órgano Director de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, le indicó al Apoderado Especial Administrativo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, textualmente lo siguiente:

"Con el fin de obtener información esencial para la investigación y de conformidad con los artículos 27 inciso c) y 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y el artículo 264 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se le solicita que aporte, en un plazo no mayor de diez días hábiles a partir de la presente notificación, la siguiente información: (...) 13. Aporte la lista de los afiliados de la operadora de pensiones, que tengan operaciones crediticias con el banco, indicando dirección y teléfono, para los años 2007 y el 2008 a la fecha.(...) Se le previene a la empresa que de conformidad con el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y 64 de su Reglamento, la información y los documentos aportados deberán ser entregados con carácter de declaración jurada, y de acuerdo con el artículo 28 inciso c) se le podrá imponer una multa de hasta sesenta y cinco veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual al agente económico que haya entregado información falsa. De igual forma, se podrá imponer una sanción de hasta cincuenta veces el monto del menor salario mínimo mensual por retrasar la entrega de la información según lo estupulado en el artículo 28 inciso d) de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Asimismo, se le previene a la parte que ante el retraso en la entrega de la información solicitada se procederá a instruir procedimiento sumario." Nótese, que la información solicitada por el Órgano Director de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, se requiere como parte de una investigación, y además, el citado oficio es claro al indicar las sanciones y el procedimiento a seguir en caso de incumplimiento. Esto se ajusta totalmente al procedimiento establecido en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , y la conducta se encuentra amparada a las funciones asignadas a la indicada Comisión. Además, la información requerida es atinente a la investigación que se sigue, que es por una aparente práctica del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica de condicionar el otorgamiento de préstamos a sus clientes a que éstos se afilien a su operadora de pensiones. Ahora bien, parte de la información solicitada no fue entregada a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia por parte del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Por ello, mediante resolución de la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, dictada a las once horas treinta minutos del veinticuatro de abril del dos mil nueve, se indicó textualmente en lo relevante para el dictado de esta sentencia, lo siguiente:

"En el artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria Nº 17-2008 celebrada a las 17:30 horas del 27 de mayo de 2008, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, abrió un procedimiento administrativo ordinario contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (BNCR) por una supuesta violación a los artículos 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Ley Nº 7472. Así con fundamento en la facultad conferida a esta (sic) órgano por el artículo 67 de la ley de cita, se procedió a solicitar a esa parte, información que se consideró necesaria con el fin de cumplir el objetivo del procedimiento, averiguar la verdad real de los hechos que van a servir de motivo para el acto final, es decir, para poder determinar si esa entidad bancaria incurrió en alguna de las prácticas monopolísticas previstas en el artículo 12 de la Ley Nº 7472. Posteriormente, el 5 de setiembre del 2008, el BNCR envió la información solicitada, excepto la que correspondía al punto número 13, que se refiere a información sobre sus clientes, por estimar que esa información se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario. (...) SE RESUELVE: Prevenir al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica que en un plazo no mayor de diez días hábiles, a partir de la presente notificación, aporte la siguiente información: Lista de los clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 ó razón social, cédula de identidad ó jurídica, dirección y teléfono." De este oficio se puede desprender que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, le requirió al banco demandado, dentro de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador, una información sencilla como lo es el aportar una lista de los clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 ó razón social, cédula de identidad ó jurídica, dirección y teléfono, la cual este Tribunal considera que con base a todos los argumentos expuestos en el anterior considerando, es información que puede perfectamente pedir la Comisión para Promover la Competencia al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. En este sentido, la información solicitada tiene dos caracteristicas: Primera: Está comprendida dentro de las funciones asignadas a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, otorgadas por la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y la misma Constitución Política, debido a que es necesaria y pertinente para investigar la aparente comisión del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en prácticas monopolísticas (artículo 27 y 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor ); Segunda: Se solicitó la información, una vez que la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, había resuelto la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador, por medio de la Sesión Ordinaria número 17-2008, celebrada el 27 de mayo del 2008, en el artículo cuarto, por lo que se viene siguiendo el debido proceso; Tercera: La información requerida, no viola el derecho a la intimidad, establecido en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política, ya que como se explicó con detalle en el anterior considerando, las potestades de investigación otorgadas a la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, tienen rango constitucional (artículo 46 de la Carta Magna), y no riñe con lo dispuesto en el artículo 24 constitucional. Todo lo contrario, existe una armonía entre esas normas, debido a que los derechos fundamentales privados, ceden a los intereses públicos superiores, como sucede en casos como el presente, donde la información intima de las personas cede su protección a efectos de que el Estado cumpla su deber en proteger los intereseS públicos representados en evitar las prácticas monopolísticas y los derechos del consumidor; 2) Ahora bien, el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, ha venido alegando la no entrega de la información requerida por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, indicando que aportar una lista de los clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, el Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección y teléfono, es información de carácter confidencial, ya que se encuentra protegida por el secreto bancario, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política y 615 del Código de Comercio. Asimismo, aduce el banco actor que las cuentas bancarias de sus clientes son inviolables, y solo se pueda dar información si existe autorización escrita del titular de la cuenta o una orden judicial que provenga de autoridad judicial competente (en ese sentido ver el oficio del 4 de mayo del 2009 que se ha tenido como hecho probado en autos). Lo alegado por el Banco demandante, es totalmente improcedente por las siguientes razones: a. La información que solicita la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, no está amparada por el secreto bancario, debido a que, como se ha venido explicando, el requerimiento de información realizado por la indicada Comisión, ni siquiera llega a violar el derecho fundamental a la intimidad regulado en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política. El secreto bancario no es un instituto de rango constitucional, mientras que las potestades estatales de proteger la libre competencia y los derechos del consumidor, tiene asidero constitucional, por lo que no puede existir violación del secreto bancario cuando la información solicitada se hace con la finalidad de tutelar intereses públicos superiores y protegidos constitucionalmente, así como que el requerimiento de información se encuentre debidamente motivado y dentro de las funciones que debe desarrollar el órgano que la solicita; b. Además de lo dicho anteriormente, existe una particularidad en este caso, la cual consiste que la información solicitada es sencillamente una lista de los clientes del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 ó razón social, cédula de identidad ó jurídica, dirección y teléfono. Nótese que la información solicitada por la Comisión, no radica en las operaciones bancarias de los clientes con el banco actor, ni en general abarca información de transacciones bancarias, por lo que no está sometida de ninguna forma al secreto bancario. Además, debe considerarse que en general la información que le solicitó la Comisión al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, no es información sensible, es una simple lista de clientes a los cuales se les otorgó un préstamo durante el año 2008, con sus nombres, identificaciones, telefonos y direcciones, información que también es evidente, puede ser accesada fácilmente utilizando otros medios. En consecuencia, la información solicitada por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia no viola el derecho constitucional a la intimidad, ni mucho menos el secreto bancario; 3) Precisamente, por el incumplimiento del banco actor, el órgano director del procedimiento administrativo, por resolución dictada a las nueve horas con quince minutos del cuatro de junio del dos mil nueve, resolvió someter a conocimiento de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia la negativa de entrega de información emitida por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con el fin de que se considere si configura una violación al artículo 67 de la Ley Nº 7472 y sus reformas. Justamente, en Sesión Ordinaria Nº 17-2009 celebrada a las diecisiete horas con treinta minutos del disciséis de junio del dos mil nueve, artículo décimo, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, acordó ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo sumario por la supuesta violación al artículo 67 de la Ley número 7472. Asimismo, de conformidad con los artículos 33 en relación con el 64 del Decreto Ejecutivo 25234-MEIC Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y ordinales 320 al 326 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se procedió en este acuerdo a sustanciar un procedimiento administrativo sumario al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, y conforme al numeral 324 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se le otorgó al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica un plazo máximo de tres días hábiles para que formulara sus conclusiones sobre los hechos alegados, la prueba producida y los fundamentos jurídicos en que apoya sus pretensiones. Precisamente, por escrito recibido en la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo de la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica se pronunció respecto a la decisión de dicha Comisión de ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo sumario por la supuesta violación al artículo 67 de la Ley número 7472, aduciendo que la negativa del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica de suministrar la información solicitada por la Comisión, no era un acto de arbitrariedad o de no deseo de colaboración, sino que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 24 de la Constitución Política y 615 del Código de Comercio, así como en la reiterada jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, el Banco solo puede revelar información del tipo a la requerida, por dos supuestos; 1. Por autorización expresa del cliente y 2. Por orden de una autoridad judicial competente. De los hechos expuestos, este Tribunal llega a los siguientes aspectos relevantes para este caso: a. Por el incumplimiento del banco actor, se ordenó sustanciar un procedimiento administrativo sumario, por la supuesta violación al artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 33 en relación con el 64 del Decreto Ejecutivo 25234-MEIC Reglamento a la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor y ordinales 320 al 326 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Nótese, que lo que se ordenó en este caso, fue abrir un procedimiento administrativo sumario, que es lo que viene regulado como el procedimiento a seguir en los casos de que un agente económico cometa la infracción de negarse a la entrega, la falsedad o la inclusión de datos inexactos o incompletos, en los documentos requeridos dentro de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionatorio. Es decir, el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, establece infracciones que deberán sancionarse siguiendo un procedimiento administrativo sumario sancionador, regulado en los artículos del 320 al 326 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Este procedimiento es distinto al procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador, que viene regulado en el artículo 27 bis de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, el cual se debe seguir para determinar y sancionar prácticas monopolísticas verticales u horizontales en los mercados supervisados por las superintendencias. Justamente, en los casos del procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador dispuesto en el artículo 27 bis, se requiere el criterio de la superintendencia respectiva, previo a la aplicación de la sanción. Por su parte, en los casos de sanciones impuestas a los agentes económicos por infringir la aportación obligatoria de la información que requiera, en este caso, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, el procedimiento a seguir es el sumario, el cual no requiere el criterio previo de alguna superintendencia; b) Justamente en el presente caso, el procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionatorio que se le ha venido siguiendo al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, fue el ordenado por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia en la Sesión Ordinaria número 17-2008, celebrada el 27 de mayo del 2008, en el artículo cuarto, en la cual se acordó ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con el fin de obtener la verdad real por la presunta comisión de prácticas monopolísticas, de conformidad con los artículos 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Precisamente, este procedimiento aún no ha concluido, ya que se encuentra en fase de investigación, y además, antes de que finalize y se imponga una eventual sanción, se deberá cumplir con lo estipulado en el artículo 27 bis de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, ya que sería en ese procedimiento en el cual deba aplicarse lo dispuesto en dicha norma. Ahora, en este caso las conductas administrativas impugnadas, no son los actos finales de un procedimiento administrativo ordinario sancionador, sino de un procedimiento administrativo sumario sancionador, por lo que el requisito de contar con el criterio de la superintendencia respectiva antes de imponer la sanción, no es de aplicación en este caso. Por lo tanto, los alegatos del banco actor en el sentido de que las conductas administrativas impugnadas adolecen de un vicio sustancial que produce su nulidad absoluta, por no haberse consultado previamente a la sanción impuesta a la superintendencia respectiva, no son de recibo, ya que, como se explicó, son supuestos y procedimientos distintos; 4) Ahora bien, en Sesión Ordinaria número 30-2009 celebrada a las diecisiete horas con treinta minutos del veintinueve de setiembre del dos mil nueve, artículo sexto, la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, emitió resolución administrativa, en la cual se dictó el siguiente Por Tanto:

"Se declara con lugar el procedimiento administrativo sumario seguido contra el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, cédula de persona jurídica Nº CED12252, por violación al artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Nº 7472 y por tanto: a) Se le impone al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en primer término, la sanción de pagar la suma de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones exactos (¢9.811.650), que corresponde a cincuenta (50) salarios mínimos mensuales, con base en lo establecido por el Poder Ejecutivo mediante Decreto N´º 35370-MTSS, publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta Nº 136 del 15 de julio del 2009, que estableció el salario mínimo mensual para el segundo semestre del 2009m en la suma de ciento noventa y seis mil doscientos treinta y tres colones exactos (¢196.233). (...) b) Se le ordena al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, con base en el artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, 89 de su Reglamento y los artículos 225, 264, 297 y 300 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que aporte la información faltante y solicitada inicialmente mediante oficio UTA-CPC-0294-08 y posteriormente por resolución de la Unidad Técnica de Apoyo de esta Comisión, de las 11 horas con 30 minutos del 24 de abril del 2009. Se le previene que en caso de incumplimiento se aplicará lo dispuesto en el numeral 68 de la Ley Nº 7472." Precisamente, esta resolución fue impugnada por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, por medio del recurso de reposición presentado ante la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, y por voto número 03-2010, dictado por dicha Comisión a las diecinueve horas con cincuenta y cinco minutos del doce de enero del dos mil diez, se declaró sin lugar el recurso de reposición interpuesto por el banco actor. Justamente, estas son las resoluciones impugnadas en autos, de las cuales aprecia este Tribunal, que son completamente válidas y cumplen a cabalidad con lo establecido en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. En este sentido, debe tomarse en cuenta que las resoluciones citadas son los actos finales de un procedimiento administrativo sumario sancionador, el cual, como se ha explicado, no se encuetra con vicios desde el punto de vista procesal y de fondo. Por ello, se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda presentada por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica contra el Estado, y se declaran validos y eficaces el acuerdo sexto de la sesión ordinaria número 30-2009, celebrada el 29 de setiembre del 2009 y el voto número 03-2010 del 12 de enero del 2010, ambos dictados por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, mediante los cuales se le impuso al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica la multa de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones (¢CED111661), por violación del artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , y además, se le giró la orden de aportar la información requerida consistente en la lista de clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección y teléfono.

V- SOBRE LA REVOCATORIA DE LA MEDIDA CAUTELAR DECRETADA EN EL PRESENTE PROCESO: En este asunto mediante resolución dictada por el Juez Tramitador a las ocho horas con treinta minutos del dos de marzo del dos mil diez, se tomó la siguiente medida cautelar provisional: "La suspensión inmediata de los efectos del Voto No. 03-2010 de las 19:55 horas del 12 de Enero de 2010, emitido por la Comisión para la Promoción de la Competencia.". Asimismo, mediante resolución número 1321-2010, se confirmó de forma definitiva la medida cautelar indicada anteriormente. Precisamente, debido a la instrumentabilidad y accesoriedad de las medidas cautelares al proceso principal, y en vista que la presente demanda se viene declarando sin lugar, se ordena revocar la medida cautelar indicada, a partir de la notificación a todas las partes de esta sentencia.

VI- RESPECTO A LAS EXCEPCIONES DE FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA Y PASIVA, FALTA DE INTERÉS ACTUAL Y FALTA DE DERECHO, INTERPUESTAS POR LA REPRESENTACIÓN ESTATAL: Este Tribunal resuleve las excepciones interpuestas por el Estado de la siguiente manera: a) Falta de legitimación activa y pasiva: Se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación activa, ya que el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, tiene legitimación de venir a impugnar en esta sede, las sanciones impuestas por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia. Asimismo, se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación pasiva, debido a que el Estado ostenta la representación de la Comisión para Promover la competencia, y las conductas impugnadas fueron emitidas por la indicada Comisión; b) Falta de interés actual: Esta excepción debe ser rechazada, ya que las sanciones y deberes impuestos al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, por las conductas administrativas impugnadas, no se han ejecutado aún, por lo que dicha entidad bancaria tiene un interes actual de impugnar esas conductas en esta sede.; c) Falta de Derecho: Se declara con lugar la excepción de falta de derecho, debido a que las conductas impugnadas cumplen con el ordenamiento jurídico, sin existir violaciones al derecho a la intimidad, el secreto bancario y el procedimiento administrativo sumario sancionador del artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor . Por ello, el banco actor no tiene derecho a impugnar conductas administrativas que son validas y acordes con el ordenamiento jurídico.

VII- SOBRE EL PAGO DE LAS COSTAS PERSONALES Y PROCESALES DE ESTE ASUNTO: De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, y al no apreciar este órgano jurisdiccional razones válidas para la exoneración en costas, se condena a la parte actora al pago de las costas procesales y personales de este proceso , así como a los intereses que dichas sumas generen, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia hasta su efectivo pago. Partidas que se liquidarán en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia.

POR TANTO

Se rechazan las excepciones de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y de interés actual. Se declara con lugar la excepción de falta de derecho. Se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda presentada por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica contra el Estado, y se declaran válidos y eficaces el acuerdo sexto de la sesión ordinaria número 30-2009, celebrada el 29 de setiembre del 2009 y el voto número 03-2010 del 12 de enero del 2010, ambos dictados por la Comisión para Promover la Competencia, mediante los cuales se le impuso al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica la multa de nueve millones ochocientos once mil seiscientos cincuenta colones (¢CED111661), por violación del artículo 67 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor , y además, se le giró la orden de aportar la información requerida consistente en la lista de clientes del banco a quiénes se otorgó un crédito durante el año 2008, indicando, Nombre62 o razón social, cédula de identidad o jurídica, dirección y teléfono. Se ordena revocar la medida cautelar decretada en autos, a partir de la notificación a todas las partes de esta sentencia. Se condena a la parte actora al pago de las costas procesales y personales de este proceso, así como a los intereses que dichas sumas generen, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia hasta su efectivo pago. Partidas que se liquidarán en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia.

Otto González Vílchez Jorge Leiva Poveda Roberto Garita Navarro Proceso de Puro Derecho Actor: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica Demandado: El Estado