Partial annulment of legality amparo due to changed factual circumstances in environmental assessmentAnulación parcial de amparo de legalidad por cambio de situación fáctica en evaluación ambiental

FILE: 10-001741-1027-CA FILE: 10-001741-1027-CA PROCESS: AMPARO DE LEGALIDAD PLAINTIFF: BERTHIER EBI DE COSTA RICA S.A.

DEFENDANT: THE STATE N° 03 -2011 -Bis CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, SECTION IV, ANNEX A, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at eight hours fifty minutes on the twenty-first of November, two thousand eleven.

The request for nullity of judgment N°03-2011 issued in this amparo de legalidad, filed by Mr. Juan Vicente Durán Viquez, acting as representative of the company Berthier Ebi de Costa Rica S.A., is resolved; and

Considering:

I.- The operative part of the judgment whose nullity is requested ordered the following: "The action is granted. A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, from the date this judgment becomes final, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and to duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849. (...)". (folios 334 to 338).

II.- The request filed argues that the factual situation considered by the Court had changed by the time the judgment was issued, being very different from the factual situation that emerged from the state of the file at the time the amparo de legalidad was filed. It refers to the fact that the stages of the procedure are not in the state that the Court understood, having been misled by not knowing of new resolutions issued by the Administration before judgment 03-2011. In that regard, it requests that the judgment be revoked, since if it were executed in the terms indicated therein, it would place the company in a more burdensome state than it is in today, according to the current state of the procedure (folios 382 to 394).

III.- Regarding the nature of the so-called amparos de legalidad, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated the following: "According to the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber, varying its own jurisprudence regarding its jurisdictional sphere, certain types of matters (for example, the resolution of administrative claims within the deadlines established by law, including the appeals phase), should not be covered by the ordinary constitutional amparo, but rather, since they are matters of strict legality, they must be heard in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction following the principles of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional." Based on the foregoing, the First Chamber named this action an "amparo de legalidad", establishing, by way of interpretation, that since it is not strictly a process among those contemplated in the contentious-administrative procedural rules, what is resolved by the Court in an amparo de legalidad lacks the cassation appeal (see resolution N°879-A-S1-2009 of 8:50 a.m. on August 27, 2009). Given that these processes are of jurisprudential creation, are nourished by the principles of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, and are not reviewable by the Cassation Chamber (they are single instance), this Court considers that the question of the request for the nullity of a judgment of an amparo de legalidad must apply the same parameters that the Constitutional Chamber has established on this matter, that is, that in the absence of an appeal, judgments remain subject to the Constitution and the law and, therefore, to the principles of Constitutional Law, within which is included the principle according to which rulings issued by a court in a single instance may be annulled by it "when it is a matter of correcting evident errors in order not to cause any harm to the parties involved." (res. 2011-9290, of 3:40 p.m. on July 19, 2011).

IV.- By reason of the foregoing, and with the aim of resolving in justice, in view of the request filed by the company Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A., prior to hearing it, the Court granted a hearing and asked the plaintiff to provide the latest resolutions issued in the procedure, and at the same time, asked the state representation to indicate whether or not the public hearing was held in this environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) process (folio 395).

V.- Once the information presented by both the plaintiff company and the State was reviewed, and compared with the file, the following clarifications and considerations are made as they are deemed essential: a) The amparo de legalidad was submitted for judgment on September 2, 2010. b) On September 3 of the same year, that is, one day later, Mr. Juan Vicente Durán Víquez, representative of Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A., brought to the attention of this Court the last resolution that, up to the month of September 2010, had been issued in the procedure, which was N° R-V-398-2010-MINAET, of 1:00 p.m. on July 5, 2010, issued by the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications. In said resolution, the Minister, hearing on appeal, granted a motion for nullity (incidente de nulidad) that had been filed long ago by Mrs. Nombre110953 –an interested party in the environmental impact assessment procedure–, against one of the many SETENA resolutions that set a date for holding the public hearing, and the Minister expressly ordered as follows: “The ‘motion for nullity’ filed by Mrs. Nombre110953 against resolution 2309-2008-SETENA is partially granted, since, upon analysis, it was shown that she was not notified of said resolution and, on the merits thereof, the proceedings must be rolled back to the setting of the call for the hearing that was set therein ...” (folios 292 to 304). c) The Court, without knowing of the existence of subsequent proceedings or resolutions in the administrative venue, issued the judgment on January 10, 2011. On that occasion, the Court considered that Nombre110954 .'s right to obtain a final act within a reasonable time was indeed being seriously affected, and granted the amparo de legalidad action. However, in view of the fact that the Minister, in the last resolution known up to that moment (N° R-V-398-2010-SETENA), had ordered the rollback of the procedures to the setting of the call for the public hearing, this Chamber understood that said hearing had not been held and for that reason chose to grant fifteen business days for SETENA to proceed with the required call, ordering that it subsequently continue with the procedures until the issuance of the final act. Under the belief that this was the overview of what had occurred, the Court considered that this measure would protect the plaintiff's right to obtain prompt and complete administrative justice. d) Between the month of September 2010 and the month of January 2011, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications had indeed issued three new resolutions, namely: N° R-670-2010-MINAET, of 11:00 a.m. on October 27, 2010, N° R-671-2010-MINAET of 7:00 a.m. on October 28, 2010, and N° R-672-2010-MINAET, of 11:00 a.m. on October 28, 2010, from the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications. Of these, it is worth highlighting N° R-672-2010-MINAET (folio 417), in which the appeals filed by several interested parties against resolution N°1469-2009-SETENA, which set the date of the public hearing for August 1, 2009, were rejected. From the content of resolution R-672-2010-MINAET, it is inferred that the public hearing was indeed held on that date (August 1, 2009), which coincides with what was indicated by State Attorney Sandra Sánchez Hernández in the brief on folios 538 to 540 in response to the order issued, making it clear that the public hearing became final.

V I .- Well then, according to this chronological recount, and bearing in mind that the goal pursued by the amparo de legalidad is to protect the right of individuals to obtain a response or a final act within a legal and reasonable period, the Court concludes that the request is admissible, given that if what was ordered by judgment N° 03-2011 were to be upheld, this would imply taking the proceedings back to a stage that does not correspond to the current and real state of the procedure, generating unnecessary backtracking, which would place the plaintiff company in a much more unfavorable legal situation than it would have obtained had the amparo de legalidad not been filed. In that regard, since there is currently a final public hearing and a final feasibility act (acto final de viabilidad ambiental), it is appropriate to partially annul judgment N° 03-2011, of 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 2011, only insofar as it ordered the following: “A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, from the date this judgment becomes final, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and to duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Decreto Ejecutivo N°31849.” Instead, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the event that there are any, all appeals that are pending attention, within a period of fifteen business days counted from the date this resolution becomes final. The judgment otherwise remains unchanged.

VI I .- The motions filed by Messrs. Nombre77722 and Nombre110953 in this amparo de legalidad are not admissible, because this is not a plenary proceeding in which anything beyond the right of the person filing the action to obtain a response or a final act within a procedure, promptly and completely, is discussed. Therefore, it is absolutely improper to seek to become a passive coadjuvant in a sui generis proceeding that only reviews, at the legal level, the Administration's duty not to disrespect that fundamental right of individuals.

THEREFORE

The motions filed by Messrs. Nombre77722 and Nombre110953 are rejected. Judgment N° 03-2011, of 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 2011, is partially annulled, only insofar as it ordered the following: “A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, from the date this judgment becomes final, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and to duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Decreto Ejecutivo N°31849.” Instead, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the event that there are any, all appeals that are pending attention, within a period of fifteen business days counted from the date this resolution becomes final. The judgment otherwise remains unchanged.- Nombre13370 Grace Loaiza Sánchez Jonatán Canales Hernández e) In the proceeding, the final act has already been issued by resolution No. 2966-2009-SETENA, of 8:40 a.m. on December 16, 2009 (proven fact number 8 of judgment 03-2011).

V I .- Well, according to this chronological account, and bearing in mind that the purpose pursued by the amparo de legalidad is to protect the right of the administered to obtain a response or a final act within a legal and reasonable timeframe, the Court concludes that the request is admissible, considering that if what was ordered by judgment No. 03-2011 were to be maintained, this would entail carrying the proceedings back to a stage that does not correspond to the current and actual status of the procedure, generating an unnecessary setback, which would place the petitioning company in a much more unfavorable legal situation than the one it would have obtained had the amparo de legalidad not been filed. Therefore, since there is currently a firm public hearing and a final act of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), the appropriate course is to partially annul judgment No. 03-2011, of 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 2011, only insofar as it ordered the following: “A term of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), starting from the finality of this judgment, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and to duly notify the parties and the community thereof, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the timeframes established by Executive Decree No. 31849.” Instead, the Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the event that any exist, all pending appeals (recursos de apelación), within a term of fifteen business days counted from the finality of this resolution. The judgment remains unchanged in all other respects.

VII .- The filings submitted by Mr. Nombre77722 and Mr. Nombre110953 in this amparo de legalidad are not admissible, for the reason that this is not a plenary proceeding in which anything beyond the right of the petitioner to obtain a prompt and effective response or a final act within a procedure is discussed. Thus, it is absolutely improper to attempt to become a passive coadjuvant in a sui generis proceeding that solely reviews, at the legal level, the Administration's duty not to disrespect that fundamental right of individuals.

POR TANTO

The filings submitted by Mr. Nombre77722 and Mr. Nombre110953 are rejected. Judgment No. 03-2011, of 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 2011, is partially annulled, only insofar as it ordered the following: “A term of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), starting from the finality of this judgment, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and to duly notify the parties and the community thereof, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the timeframes established by Executive Decree No. 31849.” Instead, the Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the event that any exist, all pending appeals (recursos de apelación), within a term of fifteen business days counted from the finality of this resolution. The judgment remains unchanged in all other respects.- Nombre13370 Grace Loaiza Sánchez Jonatán Canales Hernández 2011-9290, of 15:40 hours of 19 of 19 of July of 2011)." **Considering:** **I.-** The operative part of the judgment whose annulment is requested ordered the following: *"The action is granted. A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), from the finality of this judgment, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Executive Decree No. 31849. (...)".* (folios 334 to 338).

**II.-** The request filed argues that the factual situation that was considered by the Court had changed by the time the judgment was issued, being very different from the factual situation evident from the state of the case file at the time of filing the amparo de legalidad. It alludes that the stages of the procedure are not in the state the Court understood them to be, having been induced into error by not knowing of new resolutions issued by the Administration before judgment 03-2011. In this regard, it requests that the judgment be revoked, since if executed under the terms indicated therein, it would place it in a more burdensome state than it is in today, according to the current state of the procedure (folios 382 to 394).

**III.-** Regarding the nature of the so-called amparos de legalidad, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has stated the following: *"As ordered by the Constitutional Chamber, varying its own jurisprudence regarding its jurisdictional sphere, certain types of matters (for example, the resolution of administrative claims within the deadlines established by law, including the appeal phase) should not be covered by the common constitutional amparo, but rather, because they are matters of strict legality, they must be heard in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction following the principles of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction."* Based on the foregoing, the First Chamber named this action an "amparo de legalidad", establishing, by way of interpretation that, as it is not strictly one of the processes contemplated in the contentious-administrative procedural regulations, what is decided by the Court in an amparo de legalidad lacks the cassation appeal (see resolution No. 879-A-S1-2009 of 8:50 hours of August 27, 2009). Given that these processes are jurisprudentially created, they are nourished by the principles of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and are not reviewable by the Cassation Chamber (they are of single instance), this Court considers that the question of the request for annulment of a judgment in an amparo de legalidad must apply the same parameters that the Constitutional Chamber has established on this matter, that is, that in the absence of an appeal, judgments remain subject to the Constitution and the law and, therefore, to the principles of Constitutional Law, within which is included the principle according to which, rulings issued by a court in a single instance may be annulled by it *"when it is a matter of correcting obvious errors in order not to cause any harm to the parties involved."* (res. 2011-9290, of 15:40 hours of 19 of 19 of July of 2011).

**IV.-** By reason of the foregoing, and with the aim of resolving in justice, in view of the request filed by the company Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A., prior to hearing it, the Court granted a hearing and asked the plaintiff to provide the latest resolutions issued in the procedure, and at the same time, asked the State representation to indicate whether or not the public hearing was held in this environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) process (folio 395).

**V.-** Once the information presented by both the plaintiff company and the State was reviewed, and compared with the case file, the following clarifications and considerations are made as they are deemed essential: a) The amparo de legalidad was passed for ruling on September 2, 2010. b) On September 3 of the same year, that is, one day later, Mr. Juan Vicente Durán Víquez, representative of Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A., informed this Court of the last resolution that, up to the month of September 2010, had been issued in the procedure, which was No. R-V-398-2010-MINAET, of 13:00 hours of July 5, 2010, issued by the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications. In said resolution, the Minister, hearing on appeal, granted an incident of nullity that had been filed a long time before by Mrs. Nombre110953 –interested party in the EIA procedure–, against one of the many SETENA resolutions that set a date for holding the public hearing, and the Minister expressly ordered as follows: *“The ‘incident of nullity’ filed by Mrs. Nombre110953 against resolution 2309-2008-SETENA is partially granted, since, upon analysis, it was shown that she was not notified of said resolution and, regarding the substance thereof, the proceedings must be rolled back to the setting of the call for the hearing that was established therein ...”* (folios 292 to 304). c) The Court, unaware of the existence of further proceedings or resolutions at the administrative level, issued the judgment on January 10, 2011. On that occasion, the Court considered that Nombre110954's right to obtain a final act within a reasonable period was indeed being seriously affected, and granted the amparo de legalidad action. However, in view of the fact that the Minister, in the last resolution known up to that moment (No. R-V-398-2010-SETENA), had ordered the rolling back of the procedures to the setting of the call for the public hearing, this Chamber understood that said hearing had not been held and for that reason chose to grant fifteen business days for SETENA to proceed with the required call, ordering that it then continue with the procedures until the issuance of the final act. Under the belief that this was the panorama of what had occurred, the Court considered that this measure would protect the plaintiff's right to obtain prompt and complete administrative justice. d) Between the month of September 2010 and the month of January 2011, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications had indeed issued three new resolutions, namely: No. R-670-2010-MINAET, of 11:00 hours of October 27, 2010, No. R-671-2010-MINAET of 7:00 hours of October 28, 2010, and No. R-672-2010-MINAET, of 11:00 hours of October 28, 2010, of the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications. Of these, it is worth highlighting No. R-672-2010-MINAET (folio 417), in which the appeals filed by several interested parties against resolution No. 1469-2009-SETENA, which set the date of the public hearing for August 1, 2009, were rejected. From the content of resolution R-672-2010-MINAET, it is inferred that the public hearing did indeed take place on that date (August 1, 2009), which coincides with what was indicated by Prosecutor Sandra Sánchez Hernández in the brief on folios 538 to 540 in response to the issued order, whereby it is clear that the public hearing became final. e) In the procedure, the final act was already issued by resolution No. 2966-2009-SETENA, of 8:40 hours of December 16, 2009 (proven fact number 8 of judgment 03-2011).

**VI.-** Well, according to this chronological account, and taking into account that the goal pursued by the amparo de legalidad is to protect the right of the administered parties to obtain a response or a final act within a legal and reasonable period, the Court concludes that the request is admissible, given that upholding what was ordered by judgment No. 03-2011 would imply bringing the proceedings to a stage that does not correspond to the current and real state of the procedure, generating an unnecessary setback, which would place the plaintiff company in a much more unfavorable legal situation than it would have obtained had the amparo de legalidad not been filed. In this regard, there currently being a firm public hearing and a final act of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), what proceeds is to partially annul judgment No. 03-2011, of 10:30 hours of January 10, 2011, only insofar as it ordered the following: *“A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, from the finality of this judgment, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Executive Decree No. 31849.”* In its place, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the eventuality that there are any, all appeals that are pending attention, within a period of fifteen business days counted from the finality of this resolution. As regards the rest, the judgment remains unchanged.

**VII.-** The motions presented by Mr. Nombre77722 and Mrs. Nombre110953 in this amparo de legalidad are not admissible, because this is not a plenary proceeding in which anything beyond the right of the acting party to obtain a response or a final act within a procedure, promptly and completely, is discussed. Therefore, it is absolutely inappropriate to attempt to become a passive coadjuvant in a sui generis process that only reviews, at the legal level, the Administration's duty not to disrespect that fundamental right of individuals.

**THEREFORE** The motions presented by Mr. Nombre77722 and Mrs. Nombre110953 are rejected. Judgment No. 03-2011, of 10:30 hours of January 10, 2011, is partially annulled, only insofar as it ordered the following: *“A period of fifteen business days is granted to the Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, from the finality of this judgment, to set the date and time for holding the public hearing and duly notify the parties and the community, and to carry out the necessary acts until the issuance of the final act within the deadlines established by Executive Decree No. 31849.”* In its place, the Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications is ordered to proceed to resolve, in the eventuality that there are any, all appeals that are pending attention, within a period of fifteen business days counted from the finality of this resolution.

In all other respects, the judgment remains unchanged.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">Nombre13370</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">Grace Loaiza Sánchez</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> Jonatán Canales Hernández</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>"

PROCESO: AMPARO DE LEGALIDAD ACTOR: BERTHIER EBI DE COSTA RICA S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO N° 03 -2011 -Bis TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN IV, ANEXO A, II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las ocho horas cincuenta minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil once.

Se resuelve solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia N°03-2011 dictada en este amparo de legalidad, presentada por el señor Juan Vicente Durán Viquez, quién actúa como representante de la empresa Berthier Ebi de Costa Rica S.A., y;

Considerando:

I.- La parte dispositiva de la sentencia cuya nulidad se solicita ordenó lo siguiente: "Se declara con lugar la acción. Se otorga un plazo de quince días hábiles al Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia, para que fije la fecha y hora para la realización de la audiencia pública y la comunique en forma debida a las partes y a la comunidad, y cumpla con los actos necesarios hasta el dictado del acto final en los plazos que establece el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849. (...)". (folios 334 a 338).

II.- La solicitud formulada plantea que la situación fáctica que fue considerada por el Tribunal, había variado para el momento en que se dictó la sentencia, siendo muy distinta a la situación fáctica que se desprendía del estado del expediente al momento de interponer el amparo de legalidad. Alude a que las etapas del procedimiento no se encuentran en el estado en que el Tribunal lo entendió, inducido a error por no tener conocimiento de nuevas resoluciones dictadas por la Administración antes de la sentencia 03-2011. En ese sentido, solicita que la sentencia sea revocada, por cuanto de ser ejecutada en los términos que allí se indicaron, se le colocaría en un estado más gravoso que en el que se encuentra hoy, de acuerdo con el estado actual del procedimiento (folios 382 a 394).

III.- En relación con la naturaleza de los denominados amparos de legalidad, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha indicado lo siguiente: "Según dispuso la Sala Constitucional, variando su propia jurisprudencia en lo atinente a su esfera competencial, cierto tipo de asuntos (ejemplo la resolución de reclamos administrativos dentro de los plazos establecidos por ley, incluyendo la fase recursiva), no deben ser cubiertos por el amparo constitucional común, sino que, por tratarse de aspectos de estricta legalidad, deben ser conocidos en la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa siguiendo los principios de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional." A partir de lo anterior, la Sala Primera denominó a esta acción como "amparo de legalidad", estableciendo, por la vía de la interpretación que, no siendo en estricto un proceso de los contemplados en la normativa procesal contenciosa, lo resuelto por el Tribunal en un amparo de legalidad carece del recurso de casación (ver resolución N°879-A-S1-2009 de las 8:50 horas del 27 de agosto del 2009). Siendo que estos procesos son de creación jurisprudencial, se nutren de los principios de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional y no son revisables por la Sala de Casación (son de única instancia), considera este Tribunal que la cuestión de la solicitud de la nulidad de una sentencia de un amparo de legalidad, debe aplicar los mismos parámetros que sobre ese particular ha establecido la Sala Constitucional, esto es, que en ausencia de recurso, las sentencias siguen estando sometidas a la Constitución y a la ley y, por ende, a los principios del Derecho Constitucional, dentro de los cuales se incluye el principio, según el cual, los fallos que dicta un tribunal en única instancia, pueden ser anulados por éste "cuando se trata de corregir errores evidentes a fin de no deparar perjuicio alguno para las partes involucradas". (res. 2011-9290, de las 15:40 horas del 19 del 19 de julio del 2011).

IV.- En razón de lo anterior, y con el ánimo de resolver en justicia, ante la solicitud planteada por la empresa Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A., previamente a conocer la misma, el Tribunal otorgó audiencia y le solicitó a la accionante que aportara las últimas resoluciones emitidas en el procedimiento, y al mismo tiempo, le solicitó a la representación estatal que procediera a indicar si se realizó o no la audiencia pública en este proceso de evaluación ambiental (folio 395).

V.- Una vez revisada la información que fue presentada tanto por la sociedad accionante como por el Estado, y confrontada ésta con el expediente, se procede a hacer las siguientes aclaraciones y consideraciones por estimarse indispensable: a) El amparo de legalidad fue pasado para fallo en fecha 2 de setiembre del 2010. b) El 3 de setiembre del mismo año, sea un día después, el señor Juan Vicente Durán Víquez, representante de Ebi Berthier de Costa Rica S.A. puso en conocimiento de este Despacho la última resolución que, hasta el mes de setiembre del 2010, se había emitido en el procedimiento, que era la N° R-V-398-2010-MINAET, de las 13:00 horas del 5 de julio del 2010, dictada por el Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones. En dicha resolución, el Ministro, conociendo en alzada, acogió un incidente de nulidad que había presentado mucho tiempo atrás la señora Nombre110953 –interesada en el procedimiento de evaluación ambiental-, contra una de las tantas resoluciones de la SETENA que fijaba fecha para la realización de la audiencia pública, y expresamente el Ministro ordenó así: “Se declara parcialmente con lugar el “incidente de nulidad” presentado por la señora Nombre110953 contra la resolución 2309-2008-SETENA, toda vez, que analizada se evidenció que no fue notificada de dicha resolución y por el fondo de la misma deben retrotraerse las actuaciones a la fijación de convocatoria de la audiencia que se fijaba en la misma ...” (folios 292 a 304). c) El Tribunal, sin tener conocimiento de la existencia de ulteriores actuaciones o resoluciones en la sede administrativa, dictó la sentencia el 10 de enero del 2011. En esa oportunidad, el Tribunal estimó que ciertamente se le estaba afectando en forma seria a Nombre110954 ., su derecho a obtener un acto final en un plazo razonable, y declaró con lugar la acción de amparo de legalidad. Sin embargo, en vista de que el Ministro, en la última resolución que se conocía hasta ese momento (N° R-V-398-2010-SETENA), había ordenado la retroacción de los procedimientos a la fijación de la convocatoria de la audiencia pública, esta Cámara entendió que dicha audiencia no se había realizado y por esa razón optó por otorgar quince días hábiles para que SETENA procediera a realizar la convocatoria de rigor, ordenando que luego continuara con los procedimientos hasta el dictado del acto final. Bajo la creencia de que ése era el panorama de lo acontecido, el Tribunal consideró que esta medida tutelaría el derecho de la accionante a obtener una justicia administrativa pronta y cumplida. d) Entre el mes de setiembre del 2010 y el mes de enero del 2011, efectivamente, el Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones había emitido tres nuevas resoluciones, a saber: N° R-670-2010-MINAET, de las 11:00 horas del 27 de octubre del 2010, N° R-671-2010-MINAET de las 7:00 horas del 28 de octubre del 2010 y N° R-672-2010-MINAET, de las 11:00 horas del 28 de octubre del 2010, del Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones. De ellas interesa destacar la N° R-672-2010-MINAET (folio 417), en la cual se rechazaron los recursos de apelación planteados por varios interesados contra la resolución N°1469-2009-SETENA, que fijaba la fecha de la audiencia pública para el día 1 de agosto del 2009. Del contenido de la resolución R-672-2010-MINAET se extrae que la audiencia pública sí se llevó a cabo en aquella fecha (1 de agosto del 2009), lo cual es coincidente con lo indicado por la Procuradora Sandra Sánchez Hernández en el escrito de folio s 538 a 540 atendiendo la prevención girada, con lo cual es claro que la audiencia pública quedó en firme. e) En el procedimiento ya se dictó el acto final por resolución N° 2966-2009-SETENA, de las 8:40 horas del 16 de diciembre del 2009 (hecho probado número 8 de la sentencia 03-2011).

V I .- Pues bien, conforme este recuento cronológico, y teniendo en cuenta que el fin que persigue el amparo de legalidad es proteger el derecho de los administrados a obtener una respuesta o un acto final en un plazo legal y razonable, concluye el Tribunal que lo solicitado es atendible, habida cuenta que de mantenerse lo ordenado por la sentencia N° 03-2011, ello implicaría llevar las actuaciones a una etapa que no se corresponde con el estado actual y real del procedimiento, generando un retroceso innecesario, que colocaría a la empresa accionante en una situación jurídica mucho más desfavorable que la que habría obtenido de no haberse presentado el amparo de legalidad. En ese tanto, existiendo a la fecha una audiencia pública firme y un acto final de viabilidad ambiental, lo que procede es anular parcialmente la sentencia N° 03-2011, de las 10:30 horas del 10 de enero del 2011, únicamente en cuanto dispuso lo siguiente: “Se otorga un plazo de quince días hábiles al Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia, para que fije la fecha y hora para la realización de la audiencia pública y la comunique en forma debida a las partes y a la comunidad, y cumpla con los actos necesarios hasta el dictado del acto final en los plazos que establece el Decreto Ejecutivo N°31849.” En su lugar, se ordena al Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones proceder a resolver , en la eventualidad de que los hubiere, todos los recursos de apelación que se encuentren pendientes de atender, en el plazo de quince días hábiles contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución. En lo demás se mantiene invariable la sentencia.

VI I .- Las gestiones que han presentado los señores Nombre77722 y Nombre110953 en este amparo de legalidad no son atendibles, en razón de que éste no es un proceso de conocimiento en el que se discuta algo más allá que el derecho de quién acciona, a obtener una respuesta o un acto final dentro de un procedimiento, de forma pronta y cumplida. De manera que resulta absolutamente improcedente pretender constituirse en coadyuvante pasivo, en un proceso sui generis que únicamente revisa, a nivel legal , el deber de de la Administración de no irrespetar aquel derecho fundamental de las personas.

POR TANTO

Se rechazan las gestiones presentadas por los señores Nombre77722 y Nombre110953 . Se anula parcialmente la sentencia N° 03-2011, de las 10:30 horas del 10 de enero del 2011, únicamente en cuanto dispuso lo siguiente: “Se otorga un plazo de quince días hábiles al Secretario General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia, para que fije la fecha y hora para la realización de la audiencia pública y la comunique en forma debida a las partes y a la comunidad, y cumpla con los actos necesarios hasta el dictado del acto final en los plazos que establece el Decreto Ejecutivo N°31849.” En su lugar, se ordena al Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones proceder a resolver , en la eventualidad de que los hubiere, todos los recursos de apelación que se enc o ntr aren pendientes de atender, en el plazo de quince días hábiles contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución. En lo demás se mantiene invariable la sentencia.- Nombre13370 Grace Loaiza Sánchez Jonatán Canales Hernández