Central Bank May Require Identification of Third-Party Accounts in SINPE Without Violating Privacy or Stock-Market ConfidentialityBanco Central puede exigir identificación de cuentas de terceros en SINPE sin vulnerar intimidad ni secreto bursátil

*090006261027CA* Res. 001247-F-S1-2011 FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at thirteen hours fifty-five minutes on September twenty-sixth, two thousand eleven.

Ordinary proceeding, filed in the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court by the CHAMBER OF STOCK MARKET INTERMEDIARIES AND RELATED ENTITIES (CÁMARA DE INTERMEDIARIOS BURSÁTILES Y AFINIES, CAMBOLSA), represented by its unlimited general attorney-in-fact Nombre223270, divorced, stockbroker, resident of Alajuela; against the CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA, currently represented by its unlimited general attorney-in-fact, Nombre127978, economist. Also appearing as special judicial attorneys for the plaintiff are Licenciados Guillermo Solórzano Marín, resident of Heredia, Marco Antonio López Volio, Fabián Volio Echeverría, who did not indicate marital status or domicile, and Licenciadas Ana Elena Carro Aguilar, single, domicile not indicated, and Nombre223271, and for the defendant, Licenciadas Eliana Fonseca Rojas, single, and Marianne Kott Salas. The individuals are of legal age and, with the noted exceptions, married, attorneys, and residents of San José.

WHEREAS

1.- Based on the facts set forth and legal provisions cited, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking that the judgment declare, according to the petition on folio 8 and its clarification in the preliminary hearing visible on folio 170: The lawsuit is granted and Article 113 of the Regulation of the Electronic Payment System (Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos Electrónicos) approved by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Costa Rica at session no. 5416-2009 of March 11, 2009, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta no. 61 of March 27, 2009, is annulled.

2.- The defendant entity answered in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of current interest, and lack of standing.

3.- The defendant party expressed its refusal to conciliate, and therefore this procedural stage was deemed failed (f231-f232).

4.- The preliminary hearing was held at 9 hours 15 minutes on December 17, 2009, at which time the representatives of the parties spoke.

5.- The Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, Fourth Section, composed of Judges Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, Sandra Quesada Vargas, and Judge David Fallas Redondo, in oral judgment no. 590-2010 of 8 hours 7 minutes on February 22, 2010, resolved: "The defenses of lack of standing and lack of current interest raised by the defendant Bank are rejected. The defense of lack of right is upheld and consequently the lawsuit filed is declared without merit in all its aspects. Costs of this action are to be borne by the plaintiff party." 6.- The attorneys for the plaintiff party filed a cassation appeal.

7.- The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings before this Chamber.

Drafted by Magistrate León Feoli

WHEREAS

I.- The Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (hereinafter BCCR), through article 11 of the minutes of session 5416-2009 held on March 11, 2009, approved the Regulation of the Electronic Payment System (Regulation of the SINPE hereinafter). Article 113 of that regulatory body establishes the duty to identify third-party accounts with the account holder's name, their identity number, and the code corresponding to the investment number made. In this proceeding, the Chamber of Stock Market Intermediaries and Related Entities (Cambolsa) seeks a ruling of absolute nullity of said article because, in its opinion, the BCCR exceeded the formal and substantial limits of the legal system for the exercise of regulatory power; and furthermore, it imposed on brokerage firms the duty to provide the personal information and data of their clients, which, in its understanding, are protected by the principle of confidentiality, the right to privacy, and stock market secrecy. Brokerage firms, as participants in the securities market, noted the legal representative of the plaintiff Chamber, cannot provide data related to the identity of their clients, since the BCCR lacks the legal competence to require that information. He affirmed that, in matters pertaining to privacy rights and the handling of personal data, regulation must be established by law, given that only through a formal law is it possible to regulate and restrict fundamental rights, according to precepts 11, 28, and 121 of the Constitution, and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, hereinafter LGAP). He added that the Central Bank also violated the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness because, in his understanding, there is no legal norm that serves as a basis for said entity to enact the challenged article of the Regulation of the SINPE. He stated that the rules on the structure and operation of securities registries and their identification systems correspond to the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System (Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, Conassif hereinafter) and the General Superintendency of Securities (Superintendencia General de Valores, Sugeval hereinafter), for which reason the BCCR lacks competence in this matter in accordance with the provisions of norm 116 of the Securities Market Regulatory Law. He asserted that the challenged provision places information that is not of a public nature and that could be used for the Bank's own benefit as a market participant in the hands of the BCCR, which is itself an issuer in the securities market. He insisted that the legal duty of identification only applies to regulated entities and not to the BCCR, so article 113 of the challenged Regulation cannot be supported by that regulation. The representative of the defendant entity answered in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of current interest, and lack of standing. The Court rejected the last two. It upheld the defense of lack of right. It declared the lawsuit without merit and imposed costs on the plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the attorneys for the losing party filed a cassation appeal, which was admitted by this Chamber in a ruling at 13 hours on August 1, 2011.

II.- The appellants list three substantive grievances. The first two are for direct violation of law, the third for breach of the regulatory regime for fundamental rights. First: They claim the challenged judgment incurs an improper interpretation contrary to the legal system, as it justifies the BCCR's competence to enact the questioned regulatory norm based on articles 2, 3, and 69 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Law no. 7558). They argue that for the Court, these norms are sufficient when considering that the BCCR has the competence to demand the identity of securities account holders, under the terms regulated by the challenged article 113 of the Regulation of the SINPE. However, they warn that after the entry into force of Law 7558, the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Law no. 7732) was enacted, which introduced a series of changes to the competencies assigned to the BCCR. In this regard, they explain, all competencies regarding the order and operation of securities registries and their identification systems were assigned to Sugeval, as, in their opinion, a maximum deconcentration (desconcentración máxima) occurred by virtue of precept 3 of Law 7732. They state that even though the BCCR has credit, monetary control, and exchange rate functions, the truth is that matters related to the operation of securities market systems were transferred to Sugeval. Article 116 of Law 7732, they point out, is a norm subsequent to the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, and for this reason, in their judgment, this norm should prevail, by virtue of a correct legal hermeneutics and considering both chronological and special criteria. They assert that numerals 2 and 3 of Law 7558 are extremely general norms, referring to stability and efficiency in financial intermediation; but on the other hand, they insist, Law 7732 contains a series of principles whose control has been transferred to Sugeval, coinciding, they assert, with the objectives of efficiency in financial and monetary intermediation cited by the Organic Law of the Central Bank. By virtue of this maximum deconcentration, they insist, the BCCR cannot intervene in these matters, since it would maintain a duplication of functions with Sugeval, an organ that, in their understanding, must be managed independently of the Bank's functions. They emphasize that with the thesis outlined in the judgment, one could conclude that the BCCR could intervene in practically all matters that fall under Sugeval's competence, since these could also be pigeonholed within the general objectives of the Organic Law of the Central Bank; a fact that would go against the principles informing maximum deconcentration contained in precept 83 of the LGAP. Thus, upon transferring the competence to Sugeval, the BCCR is incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. They mention that maximum deconcentration constitutes the greatest limit to the hierarchical relationship, insofar as it prevents the superior from exercising powers of command and control, and alternatively that of reviewing or avocating. Moreover, in maximum deconcentration, the rule is extensive interpretation, while minimum deconcentration is interpreted restrictively. They maintain that they do not deny the competence the BCCR has to regulate the payment system in accordance with norm 69 of Law 7558; however, they reiterate, this regulation must be consistent with the subsequent legal norms introduced in Law 7732. They censure the interpretation the Court gives to article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank. In this regard, they affirm that article 113 of the Regulation of the SINPE refers to the duty of brokerage firms to deliver information directly to the BCCR, whereas article 40 considered by the judges, they comment, has no relevance whatsoever, as it refers to the duty of collaboration of public entities and organs, not private legal subjects. They argue that it is not a matter of data that Sugeval holds and is providing to the Bank, but rather that the BCCR is demanding it directly from the brokerage firms. The duty of assistance from Sugeval, they assert, must be interpreted together with all the norms of the legal system, since if this body holds information on the identity of clients, it must analyze before delivering it to the BCCR whether it indeed serves to fulfill the public purpose, or if, on the contrary, it could endanger the principles of the Securities Market Regulatory Law. For these reasons, they affirm, the cited regulatory article 113 is absolutely null, for breaching the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness in the scope of regulatory power, given that the BCCR did not have the competence to regulate the registries and identification systems related to the securities markets. Finally, they reproach that the challenged norm places data that is not of a public nature, and that could even be used for its own benefit in its condition as a market participant, in the hands of the BCCR, which is itself an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market. They add that the Central Bank competes with the Brokerage Firms in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided for in the Regulation of the Payment System, they reproach, knowledge of its competitors' clients is imposed, which generates inequality.

III.- On the jurisdictional scope of the supervisory bodies. Before entering into the analysis of the regulatory power and its exercise in the specific case, it is pertinent to refer generally to the jurisdictional structure established in the legal system regarding supervision, a concept that encompasses oversight and regulation. In the development that central banking has undergone, it is not disputed that an important part of that directive, supervisory, and oversight power has passed to other public bodies. In this way, the legislator chose to distribute the different competencies that make up these powers among a series of bodies attached to the Central Bank of Costa Rica. To oversee certain activities, due to their importance in society, it created four superintendencies, in the form of maximum deconcentration bodies, namely, the General Superintendency of Financial Entities (Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, Sugef), the General Superintendency of Securities (Sugeval), the Superintendency of Pensions (Superintendencia de Pensiones, Supen), and, recently, the General Superintendency of Insurance (Superintendencia General de Seguros, Sugese). Of these, the last two have instrumental legal personality. From an organic point of view, each of them has a superintendent, who acts as the superior in administrative matters. It is their responsibility, according to the subject matter, to verify compliance by the supervised entities with the provisions that make up the respective regulatory subsystems, as well as the stability of the system, in their respective jurisdictional scope. Along with the superintendencies, by means of the Securities Market Regulatory Law, a body called the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System was also created. This body is mainly assigned the task of regulating the system and simultaneously acts as an improper monophasic superior of the superintendencies for challenge purposes (article 171 of Law 7732). Of relevance to the present appeal, it is important to note that the Securities Market Regulatory Law also created Sugeval as a body of "maximum deconcentration from the Central Bank of Costa Rica" (article 3). Its primary function is to ensure the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices in those markets, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these ends. This competence, in accordance with article 3 ibidem, is exercised over all securities markets, the activity of individuals or legal entities that intervene directly or indirectly in them, and the acts or contracts related to them, as provided by law. This general competence over the securities market is aimed at guaranteeing market stability in pursuit of its development, as well as investor protection. The supervisory bodies, including Sugeval, are maximum deconcentration bodies of the BCCR that participate in supervising compliance with the monetary policies issued by it, including that aimed at promoting efficiency and the normal functioning of the internal and external payment system.

IV.- On regulatory power. The main object of this litigation, developed more extensively in the first grievance of the appeal by the plaintiff Chamber, is limited to determining whether the challenged norm (article 113 of the Regulation of the SINPE) falls within the jurisdictional scope that, regarding the issuance of infra-legal norms, the legal system assigns to the BCCR. In this regard, it is essential to briefly refer to the content of regulatory power and the different types of regulations that the Public Administration can issue. Traditionally, it has been indicated that these can be classified into two large groups, for which purpose, one may consult ruling no. 749-F-04 of this Chamber at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 10, 2004, and of the Constitutional Chamber, among others, rulings no. 2005-14286 at 14 hours 45 minutes on October 19, 2005, and 2007-02063 at 14 hours 45 minutes on February 14, 2007. The first of these, regulated in article 140, subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution, is the executive regulation, through which the contents of a legal-rank norm are developed. It is a complementary provision, which serves to clarify the content or to facilitate the implementation of what is mandated in the law. In this sense, constitutional jurisprudence has indicated that this type of norm can only come from the Executive Branch. On this point, the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that it is not "...possible to attempt to make an extensive interpretation in favor of other public dependencies..." (ruling no. 17599-2006 at 15 hours on December 6, 2006). It is worth adding that it is an autonomous power, whose authorization is given generically in the Constitution, so that the Executive Branch is empowered to regulate, motu proprio, any law of the Republic. In other words, the existence or not of an authorization in the law is of no interest, insofar as the competence is given at the constitutional level and can be exercised regarding all laws issued, whether they provide for it or not. This, of course, without prejudice to a legal norm converting this faculty into a duty, a situation which, in any case, does not change its nature. The second typology of regulations is that of autonomous regulations, whose purpose is to regulate the organization of administrative dependencies (in which case they are called "autonomous organizational regulations"), or the operation of the public services they provide (generically referred to as "autonomous service regulations"). These can emanate from both the Central Administration and the decentralized administration. In the case of the former, by virtue of the express text contained in subsection 18) of article 140 of the Constitution, and for the latter, as a logical and necessary derivation of the power of self-organization implicit in the degree of administrative autonomy or first-degree autonomy granted to them at the time of their creation (considerations noted with greater detail in resolution no. 001000-F-S1-2010 of this Chamber at 9 hours 35 minutes on August 26, 2010).

V.- In this specific case, it is important to clarify two aspects of transcendental importance before considering the merits of the appeal. First, it must be made clear that the plaintiff's claim for nullity refers only to article 113 of the Regulation of the SINPE and not to the entirety of that regulatory body. Second, it is necessary to illustrate that after the challenged judgment was issued, the Regulation of the Payment System (approved by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, through article 11 of the minutes of session 5416-2009, held on March 11, 2009) was modified, so the originally questioned article 113 changed its numbering, and currently corresponds to precept 118 ibidem. However, the analyzed article maintains its original wording, which literally establishes: "Identification of third-party accounts. Third-party accounts are identified by the name and identification number of their holders, as well as by a code per type of investor". For the purposes of this appeal, it will from now on be referred to as article 118 of the Regulation of the SINPE. The BCCR is an autonomous institution of public law, with its own legal personality and patrimony, and which also forms part of the National Banking System (article 1 of its Organic Law). Said entity's main objective is to maintain the internal and external stability of the national currency and ensure its convertibility. Likewise, Law 7558 imposed on the BCCR a series of subsidiary objectives, among others, the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system and maintain its normal functioning (article 2, subsection c) ibidem). In line with the above, that regulatory body established that for the due fulfillment of its purposes, the Bank must have essential functions such as the establishment, operation, and oversight of clearing systems; and establish regulations for the creation, operation, and control of financial entities (precept 3, subsections i), j) of Law 7558). Added to the above, article 69 of the analyzed regulatory body categorically provides: "...The Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Costa Rica shall organize and regulate the operation of the payment system...". Thus, it can be established that the BCCR has been assigned several tasks by its Organic Law. It is worth highlighting the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system and maintain its normal functioning; a task that is currently fundamental, as the existence of a safe, effective, and efficient payment system is of vital importance for the normal performance of the economy, both for internal and external operations. A payment system is constituted by a set of instruments, banking procedures, and transfer systems for funds and securities that ensure their circulation in the financial and stock markets, respectively. They are mechanisms used for the movement of funds, money, and securities; they also contribute to the development of payments between financial entities, internally and externally. As observed from the cited articles, the legislator opted to entrust the Central Bank with the promotion and proper functioning of the payment system, since through this, it could regulate the money markets. Therefore, the Court is correct in considering that from the analysis of those legal concepts, the Central Bank's possibility of establishing, through regulations, the National Electronic Payment System, and everything related to its regulation, operation, and control is inferred. In this context, the judges considered that: "(...) In the specific case before us, specifically Law 7558 (Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica) in its articles 2, 3, and 69, expressly confers regulatory power on the Central Bank to regulate everything related to the operation of the SINPE (...) It is clear to this Court from the cited regulations that the autonomous or autarkic entities, among them the Central Bank of Costa Rica, possess the power to issue normative provisions of general scope. However, it is worth noting here that said normative provisions, unlike in the case of the Executive Branch, in principle should not contemplate the possibility of issuing legal aspects with erga omnes binding character for all the inhabitants of the Republic, as occurs in the case of executive decrees that regulate norms with the rank of law in the formal and material sense emanating from the legislature. Instead, it is limited solely to provisions pertaining to organization, service, and within the particular legal relationships with the entity, or within the scope of a special relationship of subjection, which undoubtedly occurs in this matter in relation to the users of the system. And it is this last aspect that is established in the transcribed articles of Law 7558 and its amendments, where the legislator expressly attributes to the Bank the regulation of the aspects pertaining to the efficient operation of the SINPE, through the issuance of legal norms of infra-legal rank and general scope via autonomous regulation. The foregoing in clear subjection to the principle of legality embodied in articles 11 of Law 6227 and 11 of the current Constitution (...)" (rendering of judgment starting at 8 hours 20 minutes on February 22, 2010). Note that it was through its own law of creation that this objective was granted to the BCCR, which is intimately linked to the rest of the assigned tasks, especially regarding the maintenance of a stable and efficient financial and clearing system.

VI.- The appellants also warn within their first censure that after the Organic Law of the Central Bank came into force, the Securities Market Regulatory Law was enacted, which introduced a series of changes to the competencies assigned to the BCCR. In this regard, they explain, all competencies regarding the organization and operation of securities registries and their identification systems were assigned to Sugeval, so in their opinion, a maximum deconcentration occurred by virtue of precept 3 of Law 7732. Article 116 ibidem, they point out, is a norm subsequent to the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, and for this reason, in their judgment, this norm should prevail over Law 7558, by virtue of a correct legal hermeneutics and considering both chronological and special criteria. This Chamber must indicate that deconcentration is indeed presented as a technique for distributing competencies among different bodies of the same entity or higher organ; and that its purpose is to entrust the exercise of certain competencies to a specialized body within an administrative structure in order to achieve greater efficiency. Deconcentration is contemplated in norm 83 of the General Law of Public Administration, which establishes: "Every body other than the superior shall be fully subordinate to the latter and to the immediate hierarchical superior, except for deconcentration effected by law or by regulation...". This normative precept establishes two modalities: minimum and maximum. The minimum modality states that the superior cannot avoke the inferior's competencies nor review or substitute the inferior's conduct, ex officio or at the instance of a party. In the maximum modality, in addition to the above, the superior cannot give orders, instructions, or circulars to the inferior. Up to this point, the representatives of Nombre223272 are correct. However, one must not forget that the assignment of the scope of competencies of the deconcentrated body originates, normally, in the norm that creates and regulates it. If it contains powers of authority, such a norm must be of legal rank. But, if the attributions do not involve powers of authority, the attribution may be made through regulatory norms. The purpose of deconcentration is to transfer competencies, and to establish the degree of independence with which these functions can be exercised. It is not about simple attributions; what is sought is the specialization of certain bodies in specific matters, in pursuit of satisfying the tasks entrusted to the supreme entity (public purpose). But this does not mean that such competencies are organically detached from the original structure. For this reason, it is essential to consult the norm that created the deconcentration, since it will be the one that establishes the type and scope of deconcentration and what powers the superior retains regarding the deconcentrated matter. The scope of a maximum deconcentration under the terms of article 83 ibidem is not disputed here; on the contrary, upon transferring the competence, it is clear that the hierarchical superior is incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. What must be defined is that the superior maintains its competence in the areas not covered by the deconcentration. The deconcentrated body, then, remains subject to hierarchy in those areas. That is why it is insisted that respecting the principle of legality is fundamental to determine the jurisdictional scope of the entity or the superior or higher organ. In the case under examination, as indicated earlier, the Securities Market Regulatory Law created the General Superintendency of Securities as a body of "maximum deconcentration from the Central Bank of Costa Rica" (article 3). Its primary mission is to ensure the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices in them, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these ends. In this sense, it is true that article 116 of Law 7732 granted Sugeval the power to regulate the organization and operation of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by electronic book entries, as well as the relationships and communications of the entities in charge of such registries with the issuers and the stock exchanges. However, the BCCR continues to maintain its condition as the directing entity and, therefore, the ultimate regulator of the financial, monetary, and credit system; since it is responsible for directing monetary, credit, and financial policy and guaranteeing the fluid functioning of the financial system (according to article 3 of its Organic Law). In this regard, the duty to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system, and maintain its normal functioning (article 2, subsection c) ibidem), is not a function that has been deconcentrated to Sugeval; on the contrary, this is one of the objectives that the Central Bank must constantly pursue, and it must even be classified as "essential".

It suffices to recall that it was the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores) itself that came to confirm what has been said, when through its Article 188, subsection d), it expressly amended precept 69 of the Organic Law of the BCCR. With this reform, the legislator reaffirmed the duty of the Board of Directors of the BCCR to organize and regulate the functioning of the payments system (formerly called only Clearing House, Cámara de Compensación). In this sense, the legislator considered that the Central Bank's participation in the matter of the payments system was inherent to it because it was essential to its primary purpose, and that the Organic Law of the Central Bank so commands it. It should be emphasized at this point that the term encompasses establishing, regulating, operating, and overseeing the system. The Securities Market Regulatory Law, for its part, does not determine that the functions of Sugeval in relation to the payments system and the service entailed by the administration of the registry of book-entry securities (valores anotados en cuenta) have been assigned to that body exclusively; on the contrary, from the relationship of Articles 188, subsection d) of the Securities Market Regulatory Law and 2, 3, 69 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, it is inferred that the National Payments System (Sistema Nacional de Pagos) (creation and functioning) must be in the hands of the BCCR. Therefore, these tasks concerning the system are the competence of the Bank's Board of Directors (this is also derived from subsections c, h, l of Article 28 of its Organic Law). Article 116 of Law 7732 provided that Sugeval could regulate the organization and functioning of registries, identification systems, and control of securities represented by electronic book entries (anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta); however, this was done in a generic and not specific manner, since the legislator always considered keeping this task in the hands of the Central Bank. In reality, the duty held by the BCCR in this regard was never eliminated, since it would be incompatible with the independence of the Central Bank to establish institutional factors that tend to subject it to instructions, authorizations, suspensions, and worse yet, to restrict its competence regarding decisions related to monetary policy and the rest of its subsidiary objectives (including the maintenance of the SINPE). The existence of a permit or prohibition to exercise a specific monetary instrument would imply a limit on the cited independence and competences, since the Central Bank would see its powers limited to establish the strategy aimed at achieving the objectives defined in Article 2 of Law 7558. Nor is the issue exhausted by institutional independence (defining the objectives of monetary policy) but it also involves functional independence to decide the application of the monetary policy instruments that the legislator established, understood as the choice of which instrument should be used and how it should be done; as occurs with the Book-Entry System (Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta, which will be examined in greater detail in the following recital) and the SINPE. Within this scheme, a supervisory entity cannot assume the definition of organizational aspects of a system that is administered by the Monetary Authority, since its independence would be affected, and consequently, the effectiveness of the financial system could also be jeopardized. In the sub judice case, the BCCR regulated a service entrusted to it by its Organic Law, so it is not true that the Bank is being recognized for competences that belong to Sugeval (as defined in subsection 3 of its Regulatory Law) or that this regulation is inconsistent with the subsequent legal norms that were introduced in Law 7732.

VII.- Having analyzed the regulatory power held by the Central Bank to issue the SINPE Regulation (Reglamento del SINPE), it is next necessary to refer to the Book-Entry System (Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta, SAC hereinafter); given that the article challenged by the plaintiff is found within the Book of the Regulation called "Book-Entry" (Anotación en Cuenta). Book-entry and settlement systems (sistemas de anotación y liquidación) are based on the representation of securities by means of book entries. It is a computerized system for creating and registering securities representative of capital through the book-entry method. The security is constituted, deposited, and transferred as a book entry, legal acts that are not materialized. This is the trend followed by the Securities Market Regulatory Law. Thus, Article 115 of that normative body establishes: "...Issues of securities registered in the National Registry of Securities and Intermediaries (Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios) may be represented by means of electronic book entries (anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta) or by certificates…". The securities clearing and settlement system (Sistema de compensación y liquidación de valores) must seek, says Law 7732 in its subsection 129, the generalization of the electronic book-entry system, save for exceptions authorized by the Superintendency due to market circumstances or the particular nature of certain securities. Securities represented by means of electronic book entries shall be constituted and transmitted by virtue of their entry in the corresponding accounting record (Articles 122 and 123 ibidem). Modern securities clearing and settlement systems tend to dematerialize securities, which is achieved through representation by book entries. According to the Securities Market Regulatory Law, the book entry (anotación en cuenta) may be in charge of the Central Bank of Costa Rica or central securities depositories (centrales de valores) (precept 117). This accounting record of securities represented by electronic book entries, proclaims canon 117 of Law 7732, shall be kept by a two-level system: a) the first level is composed of the BCCR (which is responsible for administering the registry of issues of the State and public institutions) and by central securities depositories authorized by the Superintendency (which shall be responsible for administering the registry of issues of private issuers); b) the second level is formed by the entities adhering to the SAC, which may be all those authorized to provide custody services and the clearing members (miembros liquidadores) of the National Securities Clearing and Settlement System (Sistema Nacional de Compensación y Liquidación de Valores). Within these latter entities, broker-dealers (puestos de bolsa) are eminently found. The Regulation of the Book-Entry System (Reglamento del Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta, agreement adopted by the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System (Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero), through Article 10, of the minutes of session 606-2006, held on September 28, 2006) regulates in greater detail the organization and functioning of registries, identification systems, and control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries in accounts. This Regulation provides that the Central Bank is responsible for administering the accounting record of securities through electronic book entry for issues of the State and public institutions, and may delegate that function to a central securities depository (canon 19). Likewise, it mentions that only member entities of the National Book-Entry Registry System (Sistema Nacional de Registro de Anotaciones en Cuenta) that are constituted as central securities depositories, authorized for such purpose by the Superintendency, may provide administrative services for the accounting record of securities through electronic book entry for issues of private issuers (Article 21). That is how the securities registries are administered in Costa Rica according to their issuer. Now, in practice, the SAC functions as a service provided by the BCCR, which was added to the SINPE platform due to the facilities and security that this latter system provided in the country for fund transfers; which implied taking advantage of the available tool, adding one more service to it (the transfer of securities). The SAC has four clearly delimited specific services: 1. the issue registration service that functions as a registry where the BCCR and the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) register the issues that Sugeval authorizes them to place in the securities market; 2. securities accounts, is the service in charge of keeping control and maintenance of the accounts; 3. market settlement, allows the National Stock Exchange (Bolsa Nacional de Valores) to connect with the SINPE to send for settlement both the primary and secondary stock exchange market; and finally it provides 4. a securities transfer service for managing those securities movements that are non-pecuniary in nature (on this topic, the BCCR witness, Mr. Nombre223273, referred extensively during the public oral trial starting at 10 hours 6 minutes on February 15, 2010). Although the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain an article that refers to the Bank's participation in creating a book-entry system, from the detailed analysis of subsections 2 and 3 of that Law, it does emerge that the book-entry systems are within the sphere of the Bank's competences; given that the BCCR, for the fulfillment of its macroeconomic objectives, unavoidably must provide the national economy with an agile, modern, efficient, and secure financial system. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Central Bank is responsible for "establishing, operating, and monitoring clearing systems (sistemas de compensación)", and although the legislator was not precise on this specific topic, it nevertheless concerns the entire clearing system, relating to the financial system as a whole; therefore, both the clearing of funds and the clearing of securities. Even though Article 68 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain detailed regulations like those existing in Article 69 ibidem for the payments system, the truth is that clearing between funds and securities is provided for there; it suffices that they are clearable securities (valores compensables). Therefore, from the analysis of Law 7558, it is concluded that the Central Bank has among its functions, to develop a securities clearing system. In this understanding, the SAC plays a very important role as a component of the financial system, whereby the Bank, in compliance with the objective of achieving financial and monetary stability, must promote, drive, and supervise its development, adhering to the letter of Article 3 ibidem; hence, the issuance of the criticized article is consistent with the legal system.

VIII.- The appellants question the assessment made by the judges of canon 40, second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Law 7558, to justify the general client information that numeral 118 of the Electronic Payments Regulation (Reglamento de Pagos Electrónicos) requires to be recorded by the broker-dealers in the SINPE. The norm 40 considered by the Tribunal, they comment, has no relevance whatsoever, as it refers to the duty of assistance of public entities and bodies, and not of private legal subjects. They argue that it is not information that Sugeval holds and is providing to the Bank, but rather that the BCCR is demanding directly from the broker-dealers. Regarding the argument presented, the Tribunal considered: "(…) Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, in its second, third, and fourth paragraphs, expressly establishes the legal obligation that weighs upon every public agency and office, as well as upon every autonomous entity; concepts that encompass deconcentrated bodies with a minimal or maximum degree of deconcentration inscribed to it, to provide their assistance to the Bank for the fulfillment of its functions, which implies, as derived from the literal wording of the cited legal norm, providing with the greatest brevity the data, reports, and studies requested. It is within the concept of data, and in general the concept of information provided in the norm, where without greater effort it is concluded that the general client information that numeral 113 of the Electronic Payments Regulation requires to be recorded by the broker-dealers in the SINPE is included (…)" (considerations expressed by the judges during the dictation of the sentence, at 8 hours and 31 minutes on February 22, 2010). Article 40 of Law 7558 encompasses the duty weighing upon the offices and agencies of the State, and upon autonomous institutions, to provide assistance and grant general information to the departments of the BCCR, so that the Bank can efficiently fulfill its functions. This duty, attending the literal wording of the norm, is inferred to fall upon public offices and agencies; however, in this specific case, it is feasible to recognize an analogical integration for the situation being analyzed, since there is no norm in Law 7558 that imposes this duty on private entities, despite the BCCR using this data for the exclusive fulfillment of one of its objectives. However, it must be pointed out that the Tribunal did not solely justify the BCCR's power to request the questioned information based on Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, since it also conducted an analysis of the BCCR's powers to request the criticized data, in relation to the powers granted to supervisory entities in the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (Ley sobre Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso no Autorizado, Actividades Conexas, Legitimación de Capitales y Financiamiento al Terrorismo, hereinafter Law no. Placa5173). This is because the data mentioned in subsection 118 of the SINPE Regulation are vitally important for combating and preventing money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and related activities through the transfer of securities. An aspect that will be analyzed in greater detail in the following grievance. Thus, no direct violation of the norm analyzed by the judges is found, since the information requested is related to one of the services that this entity directly provides to the entities adhering to the SINPE and the SAC, among the latter the broker-dealers. The request for information contemplated in canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation is made so that the BCCR can fulfill one of its basic objectives (maintaining efficient payment and clearing systems), as established by subsections 2, 3, 24, 69 in relation to canon 40, all of Law 7558. In relation to this argument, they also accuse that Article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is absolutely null, for violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness (principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad) in the field of regulatory power, given that the BCCR lacked competence to regulate registries and identification systems related to securities markets. Through the identification mechanism provided in the Payments System Regulation (Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos), they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients can be imposed, which would generate inequality. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has stated the following regarding the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness: "… A matter of first order in every administrative act is the proportionality in the strict sense between the means employed by the respective public administration and the ends intended to be achieved with it, as well as the suitability or necessity of its content and, of course, when it is afflictive or burdensome, the weighing of its minimum intervention or impact. Precisely for the foregoing, the principle of interdiction of arbitrariness has emerged in contemporary Constitutional Law as one of the guiding principles of the administrative function, according to which administrative conduct must be sufficiently coherent and reasonably supported by the bloc of legality, so that it is self-sufficient and self-explanatory. In our constitutional legal order, such principle emanates from what is established in the first part of Article 11 of the Political Constitution…" (resolution no. 2004-14421 of 11 hours on December 17, 2004). The fundamental objective is to avoid arbitrary actions by the public agent, understood as the lack of objective legal support or foundation for administrative conduct, consequently violating the existing bloc of legality. In regulatory matters, this principle plays a relevant role within the legal system. In the sub lite case, as indicated previously, the Central Bank was legally empowered to issue the SINPE Regulation and therefore the questioned article. From the analysis of numerals 2, 3, and 69 of its Organic Law, it is inferred how the legislator entrusted this function to it, for which reason it refers to the considerations set forth in recital five. Due to the express mandate that Law 7558 made to the BCCR to create, legalize, and control the Payments System, this Collegiate Body considers that the alleged conflict of competences between the normative powers of SUGEVAL in relation to those conferred on the BCCR does not exist, for which reason the grievance must be dismissed.

IX.- Within the first objection, they finally reproach that the challenged norm places in the hands of the BCCR, which in turn is an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market, information that is not of a public nature and that even may be used for its own benefit in its capacity as a market participant. They add that the Central Bank acts as a competitor of the Broker-Dealers in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided in the Payments System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients is imposed, which generates inequality. This Chamber must indicate that the participation of the BCCR in creating a book-entry system that contemplates not only public debt but also private debt was based on the Bank's authority regarding the financial sector. Since the clearing and settlement process (proceso de compensación y liquidación), including book-entry registries, are processes of a financial, economic, and legal nature, they are of interest and within the competence of the central bank. In this regard, the regulation of the system must maintain a close correspondence with the rest of the legal order, including with Law 8204, through the establishment of transparent and non-discriminatory norms, based on objective criteria in relation to the services that can be accessed. For this reason, one of the main reasons why the Central Bank requires the information discussed here is to faithfully comply with the mandates contained in Law 8204 and not to compete, as the appellants claim. Likewise, when the BCCR issues open market operations, it does so as an instrument of financial policy, with the aim of maintaining market stability; it does not do so for profit or for its own benefit. Due to its institutional position, it must be remembered, the BCCR has a transcendent role in monitoring the normal functioning of clearing systems. This competence may be linked to a supervisory task, aimed at maintaining the stability of the financial system, avoiding the presence of a domino effect in the event of liquidity or credit problems on the part of any financial agent. The correct functioning of the clearing and payment systems, as well as the stability of the financial system, is fundamental for the proper execution of monetary policy; without prejudice to also recognizing the need to maintain confidence in the security and reliability of the systems, in order to preserve market efficiency and investment security. The Bank's role is restricted to the duty of direction and supervision proper and necessary to achieve the system's stability and the realization of its monetary policy. Consequently, it is not true that the data the Central Bank obtains through canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation are used for its benefit or to compete in the market, given that this is not its function; a fact that, moreover, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff Chamber throughout the process. Thus, the first ground must be dismissed in its entirety.

X.- In the second of the grievances, they allege errors of interpretation by the Tribunal regarding the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (Law no. 8204). They comment that the contested judgment considers the National Electronic Payments System (Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos) to be an electronic means of transferring funds to prevent the commission of illicit acts and achieve effective oversight work according to Law 8204. In the Tribunal's judgment, they say, that subjection to the indicated norm implies that, according to Article 16 ibidem, the subjects described in canon 14 of that normative body must maintain the identity of persons who open accounts or carry out transactions, and that the BCCR as supervisor must also ensure compliance with the Law. They assert that it is not true that subsection 113 of the SINPE Payments Regulation is required to give effective compliance to Law 8204. The foregoing because, in their opinion, that Law is clear in conferring upon Sugeval competence to act in determining the origin and provenance of funds that may be linked to illicit activities. They consider that, although there is an accessory function of the BCCR related to its duty to collaborate with Law 8204, the truth is that this Law is also clear in establishing Sugeval's own and specific competences in matters of securities registration, control, and issuance; and, in turn, in establishing duties of broker-dealers to inform Sugeval regarding their clients and investments. They transcribe numerals 14, 16, and 22 ibidem, which they consider erroneously applied. In this way, they consider that Sugeval is the competent entity in securities matters to ensure compliance with Law 8204, with the responsibility of each broker-dealer being to inform Sugeval and not the BCCR. They assert that it is not true that the BCCR's intervention in securities account identification matters is required in order to comply with Law no. 8204. They warn that regulated entities such as broker-dealers are subject to rigorous control norms for the exercise of their activities and are also obliged to comply with the provisions relating to Law 8204; therefore, in their judgment, the full identification of holders is also not justified from a perspective where it can be considered as a contribution to the reliability of the registries. They allege that this legal duty of identification only applies to regulated entities and not to the BCCR, so the impugned article cannot be supported by said norm.

XI.- Among the objectives of Law 8204, those that stand out are regulating and sanctioning financial activities, with the aim of preventing money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and actions that may serve to finance terrorist activities (Article 1). This prevention regime aims to regulate the obligations, actions, and procedures to prevent and impede the use of the financial system, as well as other sectors of economic activity, for the laundering of funds (blanqueo de capitales) proceeding from any type of criminal participation. To this effect, the Law establishes a series of obligations that certain subjects must fulfill. Article 14 of Law 8204 considers entities subject to the obligations of the Law to be those that regulate, supervise, and oversee, namely: Sugef, Sugeval, Supen, and Sugese. Likewise, the obligations of the Law are applicable to all entities or companies that are members of financial groups supervised by the aforementioned bodies, including financial transactions carried out by banks or financial entities domiciled abroad, through a financial entity domiciled in Costa Rica. The Law grants special attention to systematic or substantial money and fund exchange operations, carried out by any means and which, in the opinion of this Chamber, could be carried out through the SINPE platform. For this reason, the bodies described in numeral 14 ibidem must ensure that natural or legal persons, whatever their legal domicile or place of operation, who habitually and by any title carry out such activities without authorization, do not operate in Costa Rican territory. It is appropriate to clarify that these operations, even if carried out by authorized persons, may be suspicious, hence the control must be permanent. Suspicious are those financial activities carried out by clients of supervised entities that, due to their magnitude, lack of habitual nature, rotation speed, or conditions of unjustified complexity, seem to have no economic sense or lawful purpose. Article 24 of Law 8204 defines them as "…those that are carried out outside the usual transaction patterns and those that are not significant but are periodic, without evident economic or legal basis…". At the same time, numerals 16 to 23 of the analyzed legislative body proclaim basic conditions that audited entities must fulfill to reduce the risks that financial activity provokes within the paradigm of the money launderer (lavador). Among others, the following stand out: 1. precise identification of clients; 2. maintenance of nominative accounts; 3. prohibition of opening anonymous accounts or accounts under fictitious names; 4. verification, through reliable documentary means, of the identity, representation, address, occupation, or corporate purpose of clients; 5. maintenance of documentary records during the term of the operation and for at least five years after the business relationship ends; 6. recording of every cash operation in national or foreign currency equal to or exceeding $10,000; 7. special attention to atypical financial activities, such as those carried out outside usual patterns or lacking economic basis; and 8. duty to report suspicious financial operations to the supervisory and oversight bodies. According to these obligations, any natural or legal person whose economic activity falls within the scope of the norms must be overseen by any of the superintendencies charged with regulating and controlling compliance with anti-money laundering norms or by the Central Bank as appropriate. This action is justified not only by the need to implement mechanisms that prevent the entry of illegal capital, but also because they constitute financial actions vulnerable to the entry of illicit assets. These compliance programs for the regulations aimed at preventing the entry of "dirty" capital into the financial and stock market system are linked to internationally assumed commitments and recommendations that require the national financial system to develop and comply with programs of such nature. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF, Grupo de Acción Financiera del Caribe, GAFIC), to which Costa Rica belongs, evaluates compliance with several recommendations aimed at preventing, among other aspects, the penetration of capital from criminal activities into the national financial system. Also found at the banking level is the Declaration of Principles of the Basel Committee, which seeks to prevent banks and other financial institutions from being used for transfers or deposits of funds of illicit origin. Within this normative analysis, norm 28 of Law 8204 is of capital importance, as it grants bodies endowed with oversight and supervisory powers certain obligations in relation to compliance with said norm, such as monitoring the effective fulfillment of the registration and notification obligations that the Law indicates, but mainly to cooperate with the competent authorities and provide them with technical assistance, within the framework of investigations and processes concerning the crimes defined in the Law. This last precept unquestionably reflects that the Central Bank is among the bodies endowed with supervisory and oversight powers. For this reason, the BCCR incorporated Article 118 into the SINPE Regulation, to have available in its records all the information required to identify the natural or legal persons who carried out securities transactions in the SINPE, since at any time the competent authorities could require that information as provided by Law 8204 and the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications (Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, Law no. Placa42033). Thus, the Tribunal correctly specifies that: "(…) The cited legislation evidently emerges as a legal bastion concomitantly with the Organic Law of the Central Bank to support the issuance of Article 113 of the SINPE Payments Regulation; and if analyzed from this perspective, said article rather seems too timid with respect to the information that must be included regarding financial and stock market transfers. Requesting that a subject be identified by their name, identity document number, and the assignment of a code for the activity they carry out, evidently are not contrary to the right to privacy since in any case a protected legal right of very high public interest and immeasurable value is involved, which happens to be the security of the Nation and the inhabitants of the Republic." Which can be evidently affected should the State incur an omission in exercising its oversight competence for the purpose of settling and sanctioning the commission of illicit acts such as the laundering of capital from criminal activities or destined for the realization of said illicit activities (…)” (recording of the judgment at 8 hours 29 minutes). This Chamber also considers that the information requested from brokerage firms through article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is meager if the nature and philosophy of Law 8204 are analyzed in depth. For there is no doubt that money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is a form of concealment (article 69 of Law 8204), whose protected legal interest is the administration of justice and public security, since actions aimed at revealing the link between the predicate offense and the assets originating as a consequence thereof harm the correct administration of justice by obstructing the respective investigation; hence the importance of having a firm and secure financial system, from its apex, which is unquestionably in the hands of the Central Bank. It must not only regulate and control the SINPE, but must also be a guarantor of the correct application of the principles of Law 8204, along with the supervisory entities (among them Sugeval) and each of the supervised entities (such as brokerage firms). On the occasion of the transfer of securities, Law 8204 must be applied by all participants in the securities market, whether they are supervisory entities or entities adhered to the SAC, with the objective of creating a system against money laundering (blanqueo de capitales) and related activities. Note that if, by reason of acts or illicit activities contemplated in the Law, an inquiry is initiated by the competent authorities (judicial or administrative), every financial entity or entity forming part of a financial group shall have the obligation to safeguard the information, documents, securities, and funds that may be used as evidence or proof within the investigation or in a judicial process. Even more, the law establishes the duty of these offices that the funds or securities held on deposit or in custody be frozen or deposited in the Banco Central de Costa Rica, informing the authorities of the actions taken (article 86). By virtue of the reasons elucidated, the grievance must be rejected and the judgment, on this point, must be confirmed.

XII.- In the third and final charge, they question that the appealed judgment did not consider the violation of the right to privacy (derecho a la intimidad) incurred by the information provided through the SINPE Regulation. They state that, although a person's names and identification card numbers constitute data of a public nature, the revelation of the ownership of a specific securities account, carried out through the link of said name and identification to a specific securities account, does constitute a sensitive fact. They argue that the names of persons who have investments and securities accounts with each brokerage firm are being revealed, and that information, they state, does possess a sensitive nature. The foregoing, they accuse, constitutes an intrusion into private life which, besides being unreasonable, empties the essential content of stock market secrecy (secreto bursátil) and is unconstitutional. In this regard, they allege that the SINPE Regulation obliges brokerage firms to provide the BCCR with personal information and the data of their clients that are protected by the principle of confidentiality, the right to privacy, and stock market secrecy, since it is revealing the identity of persons who hold securities accounts. They invoke precepts 24 of the Political Constitution and 108 of the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores) in support of their grievance. Regarding article 108 ibidem, they point out that it regulates what is known as stock market secrecy or “stock market confidentiality (sigilo bursátil)”; which exists by reason of protecting transparency in the price formation of securities markets. In support of their censure, they mention jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber on the right to privacy and bank secrecy, as well as national doctrine on the subject. Finally, they emphasize that, in the case of the right to privacy, the regulation should be based on a law, since only in this way is it possible to regulate and, where appropriate, restrict fundamental rights, in accordance with articles 11, 28, 121 of the Magna Carta and 19 of the LGAP.

XIII.- Regarding the potential breach of the right to privacy and stock market secrecy, originating from the application of canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation; it must be indicated that the information requested by the SINPE does not entail that violation, since the data requested, namely the name, identification number, and a code to identify the activity carried out, cannot be considered sensitive, intimate, or private information for the reasons that will be analyzed below. It would be so for any data relating to ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affinity, sexual preferences, or strategies specific to the commercial or financial development of a company, among others of a similar nature for both natural and legal persons. For this reason, that aspect fell outside the scope of coverage protected by the right to privacy. Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the fundamental rights to privacy, to the inviolability of private documents, the secrecy of communications, and the right to informational self-determination (autodeterminación informativa) or the right to have control over information that third parties hold about the person in question. This information is comprised of matters that directly concern the sphere of the person, whether because it refers to their family or private life, their beliefs, convictions or sexual preferences, commercial relations, among other aspects (developed in canon 9 subsection 1) of the Law for the Protection of the Person against the Processing of Their Personal Data (Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales), Law no. 8968). On the other hand, there are personal data that are public or may be communicated to third parties, either because they appear in public registries, or because there is no duty of confidentiality, such as the name, identification, profession, data on assets, and, in particular, the economic and financial situation of the person. Now, this latter information qualifies as what is known as private information and although it receives protection from the Constitution (article 24 paragraph 2), its access may be authorized by law if there is a public interest at stake. In this regard, the cited Law 8968, states in precept 9 the following: “2.- Personal data of restricted access. Personal data of restricted access are those that, even forming part of public access registries, are not of unrestricted access because they are of interest only to their owner or to the Public Administration. Their processing will be permitted only for public purposes or with the express consent of the owner… 4.- Data referring to credit behavior. Data referring to credit behavior shall be governed by the rules that regulate the National Financial System (Sistema Financiero Nacional), so as to guarantee an acceptable degree of risk on the part of financial entities, without impeding the full exercise of the right to informational self-determination nor exceeding the limits of this law.” But that protection does not mean that they should be framed within what doctrine, jurisprudence, and the Law know as “sensitive data.” For these reasons, it is important to distinguish between both types of data, since sensitive data have no relevance in the exercise of financial activity (regarding the prohibition of processing data relating to the intimate sphere of the citizen by entities not authorized for this; the Constitutional Chamber has ruled in Voto no. 1176-2008 of 11 hours 21 minutes of January 25, 2008). Thus, the information on the identification of third-party accounts obtained by the BCCR on the occasion of the SAC is not configured within the concept of sensitive data, which is why this Chamber shares the reasons given by the Tribunal to dismiss the plaintiff's allegation (according to the recording of the judgment delivery at 8 hours 35 minutes of February 22, 2010). Now, both the Organic Law of the Central Bank and Law 8204 empower the BCCR to request the information contemplated in cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation, for the sole and exclusive purpose of promoting the efficiency of the payment and clearing system, as well as to prevent money laundering; matters that are of undoubted public interest. Thus, it can be affirmed that the legal system allows the BCCR to request the information contained in precept 118 of the SINPE Regulation. Within this topic, it is true that canon 108 of Law 7732 regulates what is known as the stock market secrecy that market participants must keep regarding their clients. Bank or stock market secrecy (secreto bancario o bursátil) has traditionally been conceived as one of the main duties arising from commercial relations -perfect or imperfect- between banks, financial institutions, and in this case, between brokerage firms and their clients. This secrecy obliges entities to remain silent, that is, not to disclose or reveal information about clients and the operations they have carried out or have been about to carry out. That private bond between the parties tends to be protected, which materializes through different physical or computer files or documents, containing aspects relating to the identification of clients, the origin and destination of funds, periodic movements, earnings, investments, losses, transfers, and relations with other persons or institutions. Law 8204, starting from chapter four, incorporated into the legal system not only the legal tools to investigate the crime of money laundering, but also created the institutions and coordination mechanisms of the entities in charge of its supervision, execution, and investigation. This fact has generated much controversy regarding the information requested by supervisory entities (among them the Central Bank), since it has been considered that these mechanisms violate bank secrecy. A fact that does not escape the case under examination. For this reason, this Chamber considers it essential to highlight three aspects surrounding article 118 of the SINPE Regulation. First, the information provided or that may be provided by the BCCR to the Drug Control Institute (Instituto de Control de Drogas, ICD), the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), and the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), is framed within the powers recognized by the Organic Law of the Central Bank, Law 8204, and recently by the Law for the Strengthening of Legislation against Terrorism (Law no. 8719 of March 4, 2009), by virtue of the supervisory and oversight role of the Central Bank. Second, said information is not used for the benefit of third parties or for its disclosure; on the contrary, it must be understood as preventive information, which, if required, conforms to the purposes of cardinal one of the Law on Registration, Seizure and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications. Third, related to the above, the Central Bank, as operator of the SAC and the SINPE, is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the information it obtains, as derived from precepts 119 subsection c), 166 of Law 7732; 13 final paragraph of Law 7558; 44, 133 of the SINPE Regulation; 12 of the Regulation on Book-Entry Systems (Reglamento sobre los Sistemas de Anotación en Cuenta); 339 of the Penal Code, 10 and 11 of Law 8968. In national legislation, then, it is expressly established that such interference, as well as access to private documentation, are not violative of the rights to intimacy and privacy of persons, but rather respond to a substantive function of public order (in this line, the Constitutional Chamber has manifested itself in Voto no. 5275-03 of 14 hours 53 minutes of June 18, 2003). The regulation and oversight functions carried out by the BCCR are necessary for the due control of financial transactions in the country, and its work is directed at ensuring that the operations occurring in the transfer of funds and securities are lawful, an end that justifies the recognition of the information requested by cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation. The aim is to maintain the solvency, stability, and liquidity of the national financial system, within an environment of legality, protecting the investor themselves; reasons that are also of public interest. Grounds that are clearly defined both in the Organic Law of the BCCR, the Securities Market Regulatory Law, and Law 8204. Therefore, the appellants are not correct when they affirm that articles 11, 24, 28, 121 of the Political Constitution, 19 of the LGAP, and 108 of the Securities Market Regulatory Law are violated. Hence, the reproach is not admissible to quash the questioned judgment.

XIV.- By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal shall be declared without merit, and the costs generated by its exercise shall be imposed on the appellant party in accordance with precept 150 subsection 3) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo).

POR TANTO

The appeal is declared without merit, with costs to be borne by the appellant party.

Anabelle León Feoli Luis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga Román Solís Zelaya Nombre11387 Nombre32003 Telephones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, email ...36 He asserted that the challenged provision places in the hands of the BCCR, which is itself an issuer in the securities market, information that is not of a public nature and which could be used for the benefit of the Bank itself as a market participant. He affirmed that the legal duty of identification applies only to regulated entities and not to the BCCR, and therefore Article 113 of the challenged Regulation cannot be based on that legal framework. The representative of the defendant entity answered in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of current interest, and lack of standing. The Court rejected the latter two. It upheld the lack of right. It dismissed the claim and imposed costs on the plaintiff. Disagreeing, the legal representatives of the losing party filed a cassation appeal, which was admitted by this Chamber by order at 1:00 p.m. on August 1, 2011.

**II.-** The appellants list three substantive grievances. The first two allege a direct violation of law, the third a breach of the system regulating fundamental rights. **First:** They claim that the challenged judgment incurs in an improper interpretation contrary to the legal system, since it justifies the BCCR's competence to enact the challenged regulatory provision based on Articles 2, 3, and 69 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Law No. 7558). They argue that for the Court, these provisions are sufficient when considering that the BCCR has the competence to require the identity of securities account holders, in the terms regulated by the challenged Article 113 of the SINPE Regulation. However, they note, after the entry into force of Law 7558, the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Law No. 7732) was enacted, which introduced a series of changes to the competences assigned to the BCCR. In this regard, they explain, all competences regarding the organization and operation of securities registries and their identification systems were assigned to Sugeval, since, in their view, a maximum deconcentration (desconcentración máxima) occurred pursuant to Article 3 of Law 7732. They state that even though the BCCR has credit, monetary control, and exchange functions, the fact is that matters related to the operation of securities market systems were transferred to Sugeval. Article 116 of Law 7732, they point out, is a later provision than the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, and for this reason, in their judgment, this provision should prevail, by virtue of a correct legal hermeneutics and considering both chronological and specialty criteria. They affirm that Articles 2 and 3 of Law 7558 are extremely general provisions, referring to stability and efficiency in financial intermediation; but on the other hand, they insist, Law 7732 contains a series of principles whose control has been transferred to Sugeval, coinciding, they assert, with the objectives of efficiency in financial and monetary intermediation cited by the Organic Law of the Central Bank. By virtue of this maximum deconcentration, they insist, the BCCR cannot intervene in these matters, since it would maintain a duplication of functions with Sugeval, a body which, in their understanding, must operate independently of the Bank's functions. They emphasize that, under the thesis outlined in the judgment, one could conclude that the BCCR could intervene in practically all matters under Sugeval's competence, since these could also be pigeonholed within the general objectives of the Organic Law of the Central Bank; a fact that would contravene the principles informing maximum deconcentration contained in Article 83 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP). Specifically, upon transferring the competence to Sugeval, the BCCR becomes incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. They mention that maximum deconcentration constitutes the greatest limit on the hierarchical relationship, insofar as it prevents the superior from exercising powers of command and control, and alternatively, the power to review or to assume competence (avocar). Specifically, in maximum deconcentration, the rule is expansive interpretation, whereas minimum deconcentration is interpreted restrictively. They maintain that they do not deny the BCCR's competence to regulate the payments system in accordance with Article 69 of Law 7558; however, they reiterate, this regulation must be consistent with the later legal provisions introduced in Law 7732. They censure the interpretation the Court gives to Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank. In this regard, they affirm, Article 113 of the SINPE Regulation refers to the duty of brokerage firms (puestos de bolsa) to deliver information directly to the BCCR, whereas Article 40 considered by the judges, they comment, has no relevance, since it refers to the duty of collaboration of public entities and bodies, and not of private law subjects. They argue that these are not data that Sugeval holds and is providing to the Bank, but rather that the BCCR is making demands directly on brokerage firms. The duty of assistance on the part of Sugeval, they affirm, must be interpreted in conjunction with all the provisions of the legal system, since if this body holds the information on the identity of clients, it must analyze before delivering it to the BCCR whether it indeed serves the fulfillment of the public purpose, or whether, on the contrary, it might endanger the principles of the Securities Market Regulatory Law. For these reasons, they affirm, the cited regulatory Article 113 is absolutely null, for violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness in the sphere of regulatory power (potestad reglamentaria), given that the BCCR lacked competence to regulate registries and identification systems related to securities markets. Finally, they reprove that the challenged provision places in the hands of the BCCR, which is itself an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market, data that are not of a public nature and that could even be used for its own benefit in its capacity as a market participant. They add that the Central Bank competes with brokerage firms (Puestos de Bolsa) in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payments System Regulation, they recriminate, it imposes knowledge of the clients of its competitors, which generates inequality.

**III.- On the Competence Scope of the Supervisory Bodies.** Before entering into the analysis of regulatory power and its exercise in the specific case, it is pertinent to refer, in general terms, to the competence structure established in the legal system regarding supervision, a concept comprised of oversight (fiscalización) and regulation. In the development undergone by central banking, it is undisputed that an important part of that directing, supervisory, and vigilance power has passed to other public bodies. In this manner, the legislator chose to distribute the different competences that make up these powers among a series of bodies attached to the Banco Central de Costa Rica. For the purpose of overseeing certain activities, due to their importance in society, it created four superintendencies, in the form of maximum deconcentration bodies, namely, the General Superintendency of Financial Entities (Sugef), the General Superintendency of Securities (Sugeval), the Superintendency of Pensions (Supen), and, more recently, the General Superintendency of Insurance (Sugese). Of these, the latter two possess instrumental legal personality. From an organic standpoint, each of them has a superintendent, who acts as the superior (jerarca) in administrative matters. They are responsible, depending on the subject matter, for verifying compliance by the supervised entities with the provisions making up the respective normative subsystems, as well as the stability of the system, in what corresponds to them according to their competence scope. Along with the superintendencies, the Securities Market Regulatory Law also created a body called the National Council for Financial System Supervision (Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero). This body is assigned, primarily, the task of regulating the system and simultaneously acts as an improper single-phase superior of the superintendencies for challenge purposes (Article 171 of Law 7732). Of relevance to the present appeal, it is important to note that the Securities Market Regulatory Law also created Sugeval as a body of “maximum deconcentration (máxima desconcentración) from the Banco Central de Costa Rica” (Article 3). Its primary function consists of ensuring the transparency of securities markets, the correct formation of prices in those markets, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. This competence, in accordance with Article 3 ibidem, is exercised over all securities markets, the activity of natural or legal persons directly or indirectly involved in them, and the acts or contracts related to them, as provided by law. This general competence over the securities market is aimed at guaranteeing the stability of the market in pursuit of its development, as well as the protection of the investor. The supervisory bodies, including Sugeval, are maximum deconcentration bodies of the BCCR that participate in supervising compliance with the monetary policies issued by it, including that aimed at promoting efficiency and the normal functioning of internal and external payment systems.

**IV.- On the Regulatory Power.** The main object of the present litigation, developed in greater detail in the first objection of the appeal by the plaintiff Chamber, is limited to determining whether the challenged provision (Article 113 of the SINPE Regulation) falls within the competence scope that the legal system assigns to the BCCR regarding the issuance of infra-legal provisions. In this regard, it is essential to refer briefly to the content of the regulatory power (potestad reglamentaria) and the different types of regulations that the Public Administration may issue. Traditionally, it has been indicated that these can be classified into two large groups, for which one may consult ruling No. 749-F-04 of this Chamber at 9:30 a.m. on September 10, 2004, and of the Constitutional Chamber, among others, rulings No. 2005-14286 at 2:45 p.m. on October 19, 2005, and 2007-02063 at 2:45 p.m. on February 14, 2007. The first of these, regulated in Article 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution, is the executive regulation, through which the contents of a legal norm are developed. It is a complementary provision, used to specify the content or to facilitate the implementation of what is prescribed in the law. In this sense, constitutional jurisprudence has indicated that this type of provision can only originate from the Executive Branch. On this point, the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that it is not *“…possible to attempt an expansive interpretation in favor of other public dependencies…”* (ruling No. 17599-2006 at 3:00 p.m. on December 6, 2006). It should be added that this is an autonomous power, whose authorization is given generically in the Magna Carta, such that the Executive Branch is empowered to regulate, *motu proprio*, any law of the Republic. In other words, the existence or absence of an authorization in the law is irrelevant, to the extent that the competence is granted at the constitutional level and may be exercised regarding all laws enacted, whether or not they provide for it. This, of course, without prejudice to a legal provision converting this power into a duty, a situation which, in any case, does not change its nature. The second type of regulations is autonomous regulations, whose purpose is to regulate the organization of administrative dependencies (in which case they are called “autonomous organizational regulations”), or the functioning of the public services they provide (generically referred to as “autonomous service regulations”). These may emanate from both the Central Administration and the decentralized administration. In the case of the former, by virtue of the express text contained in subsection 18) of Article 140 of the Constitution, and for the latter, as a logical and necessary derivation of the power of self-organization implicit in the degree of administrative autonomy, or first-degree autonomy, granted to them at the time of their creation (considerations noted in greater detail in resolution No. 001000-F-S1-2010 of this Chamber at 9:35 a.m. on August 26, 2010).

**V.-** In this specific case, it is important to clarify two aspects of transcendental importance before addressing the merits of the appeal. First, it must be made clear that the plaintiff’s claim for nullity refers solely to Article 113 of the SINPE Regulation and not to the entirety of that regulatory body. Second, it is necessary to illustrate that after the issuance of the challenged judgment, the Payments System Regulation (approved by the Board of Directors of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, through Article 11 of the minutes of session 5416-2009, held on March 11, 2009) was modified, so the originally challenged Article 113 changed its numbering and currently corresponds to Article 118 ibidem. However, the analyzed article maintains its original wording, which literally states: *“**Identification of third-party accounts.** Third-party accounts are identified by the name and identification number of their holders, as well as by a code by type of investor.”* For purposes of this appeal, it will henceforth be referred to as Article 118 of the SINPE Regulation. The BCCR is an autonomous institution under public law, with its own legal personality and patrimony, and which also forms part of the National Banking System (Article 1 of its Organic Law). This entity’s primary objective is to maintain the internal and external stability of the national currency and ensure its convertibility. Likewise, Law 7558 imposed on the BCCR a series of subsidiary objectives, among others, <span style="text-decoration:underline">the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment systems and maintain their normal functioning</span> (Article 2 subsection c) ibidem). In line with the above, that legal body established that for the due fulfillment of its purposes, the Bank should have essential functions such as the establishment, operation, and surveillance of clearing systems; and the establishment of regulations for the creation, functioning, and control of financial entities (Article 3 subsections i), j) of Law 7558). Added to the above, Article 69 of the analyzed legal body categorically provides: *“…The Board of Directors of the Banco Central de Costa Rica shall organize and regulate the functioning of the payments system…”* In this way, it can be established that the BCCR is assigned several tasks by its Organic Law. It is fitting to highlight the obligation to promote the efficiency of internal and external payment systems and maintain their normal functioning; a task that is currently fundamental, as the existence of a safe, effective, and efficient payment system is of vital importance for the normal performance of the economy, both for internal and external operations. A payment system is constituted by a set of instruments, banking procedures, and fund and securities transfer systems that ensure their circulation in the financial and stock markets respectively. They are mechanisms used for the movement of funds, money, and securities; likewise, they contribute to the development of payments between financial entities, internally and externally. As can be observed from the cited articles, the legislator chose to entrust the Central Bank with the promotion and proper functioning of the payment system, since through this, it could regulate the money markets. Therefore, the Court is correct in considering that from the analysis of these legal concepts, the possibility of the Central Bank establishing, through regulatory means, the National Electronic Payments System (SINPE), and everything related to its regulation, functioning, and control, is inferred. In this context, the judges considered that: *“(…) In the specific case before us, precisely Law 7558 (Organic Law of the Banco Central de Costa Rica) in its Articles 2, 3, and 69, expressly confers regulatory power to the Central Bank to regulate everything related to the functioning of the SINPE (…) It is clear for this Court from the cited regulations, that autonomous or autarchic entities, among them, the Banco Central de Costa Rica, possess the power to issue normative provisions of general scope. However, it is worth noting here that such normative provisions, unlike the case of the Executive Branch, in principle should not contemplate the possibility of issuing legal aspects with a binding erga omnes character for all inhabitants of the Republic, as occurs in the case of executive decrees that regulate norms with the rank of law in a formal and material sense emanating from the legislature. Rather, it is limited solely to provisions pertaining to the organization, the service, and within the private legal relationships with the entity, or within the scope of a relationship of special subjection, which undoubtedly occurs in this matter in relation to the users of the system. And it is this last aspect that is established in the transcribed articles of Law 7558 and its amendments, where the legislator expressly attributes to the Bank the regulation of aspects pertaining to the efficient functioning of the SINPE, through the issuance of legal provisions of infra-legal rank and general scope via an autonomous regulation. The foregoing in clear subjection to the principle of legality embodied in Articles 11 of Law 6227 and 11 of the current Constitution (…)”* (dictation of the judgment beginning at 8:20 a.m. on February 22, 2010). Note that it was through its own enabling act that the BCCR was granted this objective, which is intimately linked to the rest of the assigned tasks, especially with respect to maintaining a stable and efficient financial and clearing system.

**VI.-** The appellants also assert within their first objection that after the Organic Law of the Central Bank came into effect, the Securities Market Regulatory Law was enacted, which introduced a series of changes in the competences assigned to the BCCR. In this sense, they explain, all competences regarding the organization and operation of securities registries and their identification systems were assigned to Sugeval, and therefore, in their view, a maximum deconcentration (desconcentración máxima) occurred pursuant to Article 3 of Law 7732. Article 116 ibidem, they point out, is a later provision than the Organic Law of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, and for this reason, in their judgment, this provision should prevail over Law 7558, by virtue of correct legal hermeneutics and considering both chronological and specialty criteria. This Chamber must indicate that deconcentration is indeed presented as a technique for distributing competences among different bodies of the same entity or superior body; and whose purpose is to entrust to a specialized body within an administrative structure the exercise of certain competences in order to achieve greater efficiency. Deconcentration is contemplated in Article 83 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), which establishes that: *“Every body other than the superior (jerarca) shall be fully subordinated to the latter and to the immediate hierarchical superior, except for deconcentration carried out by law or by regulation…”*. In this normative provision, two modalities are established: minimum and maximum. The minimum modality provides that the superior may not assume the competences of the inferior (avocar) nor review or substitute the conduct of the inferior, ex officio or at the instance of a party. In the maximum modality, in addition to the above, the superior may not give orders, instructions, or circulars to the inferior. Up to this point, the representatives of Nombre223272 are correct. However, it must not be forgotten that the assignment of the scope of competences of the deconcentrated body normally originates from the norm that creates and regulates it. If it contains powers of authority (potestades de imperio), such a norm must be of legal rank. But if the attributions do not involve powers of authority, the assignment may be made through regulatory provisions. The purpose of deconcentration is to transfer competences and establish the degree of independence with which these functions may be exercised. It does not involve simple attributions; what is sought is the specialization of certain bodies in specific matters, in pursuit of satisfying the tasks entrusted to the overarching entity (public purpose). But this does not mean that these competences are organically detached from the original structure. For this reason, it is essential to consult the norm that created the deconcentration, since this will establish the type and scope of deconcentration and what powers the superior retains over the deconcentrated matter. The reach of maximum deconcentration under the terms of Article 83 ibidem is not disputed here; on the contrary, upon transferring the competence, it is clear that the hierarchical superior becomes incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. What must be defined, however, is that the superior maintains its competence in areas not covered by the deconcentration. The deconcentrated body is thus subject to hierarchy in those areas. Therefore, it is insisted, it is fundamental to respect the principle of legality to determine the competence scope of the entity or of the superior or parent body. In the case under examination, as indicated above, the Securities Market Regulatory Law created the General Superintendency of Securities as a body of “maximum deconcentration from the Banco Central de Costa Rica” (Article 3). Its primary task is to ensure the transparency of securities markets, the correct formation of prices therein, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. In this regard, it is true that Article 116 of Law 7732 granted Sugeval the power to regulate the organization and operation of registries, identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries, as well as the relationships and communications of the entities responsible for such registries with issuers and stock exchanges.

However, the BCCR continues to maintain its condition as the governing entity and, therefore, the ultimate regulator of the financial, monetary, and credit system; since it is responsible for directing monetary, credit, and financial policy and guaranteeing the smooth functioning of the financial system (according to Article 3 of its Organic Law). In this regard, the duty to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payments system and maintain its normal functioning (canon 2, subsection c) ibidem), is not a function that has been deconcentrated to Sugeval; on the contrary, this is one of the objectives that the Central Bank must constantly pursue, and it should even be qualified as “essential.” It suffices to recall that it was the Securities Market Regulatory Law itself that came to confirm the aforementioned, when through its Article 188, subsection d), it expressly modified precept 69 of the Organic Law of the BCCR. With this reform, the legislator reaffirmed the duty of the Board of Directors of the BCCR to organize and regulate the functioning of the payments system (previously called only the Clearing House). In this sense, the legislator considered that the Central Bank's participation in the area of the payments system was inherent to it because it was essential to its priority mission, and that the Organic Law of the Central Bank so commands it. It should be highlighted at this point that the term encompasses establishing, regulating, operating, and overseeing the system. The Securities Market Regulatory Law, for its part, does not determine that Sugeval's functions in relation to the payments system and the service involving the administration of the registry of book-entry securities have been assigned to that body exclusively; on the contrary, from the relationship of Articles 188, subsection d) of the Securities Market Regulatory Law and 2, 3, 69 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, it is inferred that the National Payments System (Sistema Nacional de Pagos) (creation and operation) must be in the hands of the BCCR. Therefore, these tasks concerning the system are the competence of the Bank's Board of Directors (as is also derived from subsections c, h, l of Article 28 of its Organic Law). Article 116 of Law 7732 provided that Sugeval could regulate the organization and operation of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries; however, this was done in a generic and not a special manner, since the legislator always considered maintaining this task in the hands of the Central Bank. In reality, the duty that the BCCR maintained in this regard was never eliminated, as the establishment of institutional factors tending to subject it to instructions, authorizations, suspensions, and even worse, to restrict its competence regarding decisions related to monetary policy and the rest of its subsidiary objectives (among them the maintenance of the SINPE) would be incompatible with the independence of the Central Bank. The existence of a permit or prohibition to exercise a specific monetary instrument would imply a limit to the aforementioned independence and competencies, since the Central Bank would see its powers limited to establish the strategy aimed at achieving the objectives defined in Article 2 of Law 7558. The issue is not even exhausted in institutional independence (defining the objectives of monetary policy) but rather also involves functional independence to decide the application of the monetary policy instruments that the legislator established, understood as the choice of which instrument should be used and how it should be done; just as happens with the Book-Entry System (Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta) (which will be examined in greater detail in the following recital) and the SINPE. Within this scheme, a supervisory entity cannot assume the definition of organizational aspects of a system that is administered by the Monetary Authority, since its independence would be affected and, consequently, the effectiveness of the financial system could also be jeopardized. In the sub júdice, the BCCR regulated a service that its Organic Law entrusted to it, so it is not true that the Bank is being recognized with competencies that are proper to Sugeval (according to what is defined in cardinal 3 of its Regulatory Law) or that this regulation is not consistent with the subsequent legal norms that were introduced in Law 7732.

**VII.-** Having analyzed the regulatory power that the Central Bank possesses to issue the SINPE Regulation, next, it is necessary to refer to the Book-Entry System (SAC hereinafter); since the article challenged by the plaintiff is found within the Book of the Regulation called *“Book Entry” (Anotación en Cuenta)*. The book-entry and settlement systems are based on the representation of securities through book entries. It is a computerized system for creating and registering securities representing capital through the book-entry method. The security is constituted, deposited, and transferred as a book entry, legal acts that do not materialize. This is the trend followed by the Securities Market Regulatory Law. Thus, Article 115 of that normative body establishes: *“…Issues of securities registered in the National Registry of Securities and Intermediaries may be represented by means of electronic book entries or through certificates…”*. The Securities clearing and settlement system must seek, says Law 7732 in its cardinal 129, the generalization of the electronic book-entry system, except for the exceptions authorized by the Superintendency due to market circumstances or the particular nature of certain securities. Securities represented by means of electronic book entries shall be constituted and transmitted by virtue of their inscription in the corresponding accounting registry (Articles 122 and 123 ibidem). Modern securities clearing and settlement systems tend to dematerialize securities, which is achieved through representation by book entries. According to the Securities Market Regulatory Law, the book entry can be in charge of the Central Bank of Costa Rica or of central securities depositories (precept 117). This accounting registry of securities represented by means of electronic book entries, proclaims canon 117 of Law 7732, shall be maintained by a two-level system: a) the first level is comprised of the BCCR (which is responsible for administering the registry of issues of the State and public institutions) and the central securities depositories authorized by the Superintendency (which shall be responsible for administering the registry of issues of private issuers); b) the second level is formed by the entities adhered to the SAC, which may be all those authorized to provide custody services and the clearing members of the National Securities Clearing and Settlement System. Within these latter entities, brokerage firms are eminently found. The Regulation of the Book-Entry System (agreement adopted by the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System, through Article 10 of the minutes of session 606-2006, held on September 28, 2006) regulates in greater detail the organization and operation of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries. This Regulation provides that the Central Bank is responsible for administering the accounting registry of securities through electronic book entry for the issues of the State and public institutions, and may delegate this function to a central securities depository (canon 19). Likewise, it mentions that only member entities of the National System of Book-Entry Registration that are constituted as central securities depositories, authorized for such purpose by the Superintendency, may provide the services of administering the accounting registry of securities through electronic book entry for issues of private issuers (Article 21). That is how the securities registries are administered in Costa Rica according to their issuer. Now, in practice, the SAC functions as a service provided by the BCCR, which was added to the SINPE platform due to the facilities and security that the latter system provided in the country for the transfer of funds; which meant taking advantage of the available tool, adding another service to it (the transfer of securities). The SAC has four clearly delimited specific services: **1.** the issuance registry service that functions as a registry where the BCCR and the Ministry of Finance register the issues that Sugeval authorizes them to place in the securities market; **2.** securities accounts, is the service in charge of maintaining control and maintenance of the accounts; **3.** market settlement, which allows the National Stock Exchange to connect with the SINPE to send for settlement both the primary and secondary exchange market; and finally, it provides for **4.** a securities transfer service for the management of those securities movements that do not have an onerous nature (on this topic, the BCCR witness, Mr. Nombre223273, spoke extensively during the oral and public trial starting at 10 hours 6 minutes on February 15, 2010). Although the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain an article referring to the Bank's participation in the creation of a book-entry system, from the detailed analysis of cardinals 2 and 3 of that Law, it is indeed inferred that the book-entry systems fall within the sphere of competence of the Bank; given that the BCCR, for the fulfillment of its macroeconomic objectives, must unavoidably endow the national economy with an agile, modern, efficient, and secure financial system. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the Central Bank is responsible for *“establishing, operating, and monitoring the clearing systems”*, and although the legislator was not precise on this specific topic, it nevertheless concerns the entire clearing system, relative to the financial system as a whole; therefore, both the clearing of funds and the clearing of securities. While Article 68 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain detailed regulations like those existing in Article 69 ibidem for the payments system, the truth is that the clearing between funds and securities is provided for there; it suffices that they are clearable securities. Therefore, from the analysis of Law 7558, it is concluded that the Central Bank has among its functions the development of a securities clearing system. In this understanding, the SAC plays a very important role as a component of the financial system, for which reason the Bank, in compliance with the objective of achieving financial and monetary stability, must promote, drive, and supervise its development, adhering to the letter of Article 3 ibidem; hence the issuance of the criticized article is in accordance with the legal system.

**VIII.-** The appellants question the judges' assessment of canon 40, second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Law 7558, to justify the general client information that numeral 118 of the Electronic Payments Regulation requires to be recorded by the brokerage firms in the SINPE. The norm 40 considered by the Court, they comment, has no relevance, since it refers to the duty of assistance of public entities and bodies, and not of subjects of private law. They argue that it is not information that Sugeval holds and is providing to the Bank, but rather that the BCCR is demanding it directly from the brokerage firms. Regarding the stated claim, the Court considered: *“(…) Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica in its second, third, and fourth paragraphs, expressly establishes the legal obligation that weighs on every public dependency and office, as well as on every autonomous entity; concepts that encompass the deconcentrated bodies with a minimum or maximum degree of deconcentration registered therein, to provide their assistance to the Bank for the fulfillment of its functions, which implies, as derived from the literal wording of the cited legal norm, providing at the earliest possible time the data, reports, and studies that are requested. It is within the concept of data, and in general the concept of information provided for in the norm, where without major effort it is concluded that the general client information that numeral 113 of the Electronic Payments Regulation requires to be recorded by the brokerage firms in the SINPE is included (…)”* (considerations stated by the judges during the pronouncement of the judgment, at 8 hours 31 minutes on February 22, 2010). Article 40 of Law 7558 encompasses the duty that weighs on State offices and dependencies, and autonomous institutions, to provide assistance and provide general information to the departments of the BCCR, so that the Bank can efficiently fulfill its functions. This duty, attending to the literal wording of the norm, is understood to fall on public offices and dependencies; however, in the specific case, it is feasible to recognize an analogical integration for the case being analyzed, since there is no norm in Law 7558 that imposes this duty on private entities, despite the fact that the BCCR uses this data for the exclusive fulfillment of one of its objectives. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that the Court not only justified the power of the BCCR to request the questioned information based on Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, since it also conducted an analysis of the powers of the BCCR to request the criticized data, in relation to the powers granted to the supervisory entities in the Law on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter Law no. Placa5173). This is because the data mentioned by cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation are of vital importance to combat and prevent money laundering and related activities through the transfer of securities. An aspect that will be analyzed in greater detail in the following complaint. In this manner, no direct violation of the norm analyzed by the judges is found, since the information requested is related to one of the services that this entity provides directly to the entities adhered to the SINPE and the SAC, among the latter, the brokerage firms. The request for the information contemplated by canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation is made so that the BCCR can fulfill one of its basic objectives (maintaining an efficient payment and clearing system), as established by cardinals 2, 3, 24, 69 in relation to canon 40, all of Law 7558. In relation to this argument, they also accuse that Article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is absolutely null, for violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness in the sphere of regulatory power, given that the BCCR did not have competence to regulate the registries and identification systems related to the securities markets. Through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payments System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients can be imposed, which would generate inequality. The Constitutional Chamber has said the following regarding the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness: *“…A matter of first order in every administrative act is proportionality in the strict sense between the means employed by the respective public administration and the ends sought to be achieved with it, as well as the suitability or necessity of its content and, of course, when it is afflictive or burdensome, the weighing of its intervention or minimum impact. Precisely for the above reason, in contemporary Constitutional Law, the prohibition of arbitrariness has emerged as one of the guiding principles of the administrative function, according to which administrative conduct must be sufficiently coherent and reasonably grounded in the legality block, so that it is sufficient and explains itself. In our constitutional legal system, such principle emanates from what is established in the first part of Article 11 of the Political Constitution…”* (resolution no. 2004-14421 of 11 hours on December 17, 2004). The fundamental objective is to avoid arbitrariness by the public agent, understood as the lack of objective legal basis or foundation for administrative conduct, consequently violating the existing legality block. In regulatory matters, this principle plays a relevant role within the legal system. In the sub lite, as indicated earlier, the Central Bank was legally empowered to issue the SINPE Regulation and consequently the questioned article. From the analysis of numerals 2, 3, and 69 of its Organic Law, it is inferred how the legislator entrusted this function to it, for which reason it refers to the considerations set forth in the fifth recital. Due to the express mandate made by Law 7558 to the BCCR to create, legalize, and control the Payments System, this Collegiate Body considers that the alleged conflict of competencies between the normative powers of SUGEVAL in relation to those conferred on the BCCR does not exist, for which reason the complaint must be dismissed.

**IX.-** Within the first objection, they finally reproach that the challenged norm places in the hands of the BCCR, which in turn is an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market, information that is not of a public nature and that may even be used for its own benefit in its capacity as a market participant. They add that the Central Bank acts as a competitor of the Brokerage Firms in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payments System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients is imposed, which generates inequality. This Chamber must indicate that the BCCR's participation in the creation of a book-entry system that contemplates not only public debt but also private debt, was based on the Bank's authority regarding the financial sector. Since the clearing and settlement process, including the book-entry registries, are processes of a financial, economic, and legal nature, they are of interest and competence to the central bank. In this regard, the regulation of the system must maintain a close correspondence with the rest of the legal system, among them with Law 8204, through the establishment of transparent and non-discriminatory norms, based on objective criteria in relation to the services that can be accessed. For this reason, one of the main reasons why the Central Bank requires the information discussed here is to faithfully comply with the mandates contained in Law 8204 and not to compete as the appellants claim. Likewise, when the BCCR conducts open market operations, it does so as an instrument of financial policy, in order to maintain stability in the market, it does not do so for profit or for its own benefit. Due to its institutional position, it must be remembered, the BCCR has a transcendent role in monitoring the normal functioning of clearing systems. This competence may be joined to a supervisory task, aimed at maintaining the stability of the financial system, avoiding the presence of a domino effect in the event of liquidity or credit problems by any financial agent. The correct operation of the clearing and payment systems, as well as the stability of the financial system, is fundamental for the adequate execution of monetary policy; without prejudice to also recognizing the need to maintain confidence in the security and reliability of the systems, in order to preserve the efficiency of the markets and the security of the investment. The Bank's role is restricted to the duty of direction and its own necessary supervision to achieve system stability and the realization of its monetary policy. Consequently, it is not true that the data obtained by the Central Bank through canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation are used for its benefit or to compete in the market, given that this is not its function; a fact that, moreover, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff Chamber throughout the process. In this manner, the first ground must be dismissed in its entirety.

**X.-** In the **second** of the grievances, they allege errors of interpretation by the Court regarding the Law on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (Law no. 8204). They comment, the questioned judgment considers that the National Electronic Payments System is an electronic means of capital transfer to prevent the commission of illicit acts and achieve effective oversight work according to Law 8204. In the Court's opinion, they say, this subjection to the indicated norm implies that in accordance with Article 16 ibidem, the subjects described in canon 14 of that normative body must maintain the identity of the persons who open accounts or carry out transactions, and that the BCCR as supervisor must also ensure compliance with the Law. They assert that it is not true that cardinal 113 of the SINPE Payments Regulation is required to effectively comply with Law 8204. This is because, in their opinion, that Law is clear in conferring on Sugeval the competence to act in determining the origin and provenance of monies that may be linked to illicit activities. They consider that although there is an accessory function of the BCCR regarding its duty to collaborate with Law 8204, the truth is that this Law is also clear in establishing Sugeval's own and specific competencies in matters of registration, control, and issuance of securities; and in turn in establishing the duties of brokerage firms to inform Sugeval regarding their clients and investments. They transcribe numerals 14, 16, and 22 ibidem, which they consider erroneously applied. In this way, they consider that Sugeval is the entity that is competent in securities matters to ensure compliance with Law 8204, with it being the responsibility of each brokerage firm to inform Sugeval and not the BCCR. They assert that it is not true that the BCCR's intervention in securities account identification issues is required to comply with Law no. 8204. They warn that the regulated entities such as brokerage firms are subject to rigorous control norms for the exercise of their activities and are also obliged to comply with the provisions related to Law 8204; therefore, in their judgment, the full identification of the holders is also not justified from a perspective where it could be considered as a contribution to the reliability of the registries. They claim that this legal duty of identification only applies to the regulated entities and not to the BCCR, so the challenged article cannot be sustained on said regulation.

**XI.-** Among the objectives of Law 8204, the regulation and sanctioning of financial activities stand out, in order to prevent money laundering and actions that may serve to finance terrorist activities (Article 1). This prevention regime is intended to regulate the obligations, actions, and procedures to prevent and impede the use of the financial system, as well as other sectors of economic activity, for the laundering of capital from any type of criminal participation. To this effect, the Law establishes a series of obligations that certain subjects must comply with. Article 14 of Law 8204 considers entities subject to the obligations of the Law to be those that regulate, supervise, and oversee, namely: Sugef, Sugeval, Supen, and Sugese. Likewise, the obligations of the Law are applicable to all entities or companies that are part of the financial groups supervised by the aforementioned bodies, including financial transactions carried out by banks or financial entities domiciled abroad, through a financial entity domiciled in Costa Rica. The Law grants special attention to systematic or substantial money and funds exchange operations, carried out by any means and which, in the opinion of this Chamber, could be carried out through the SINPE platform. For this reason, the bodies described in numeral 14 ibidem must ensure that natural or legal persons, whatever their legal domicile or place of operation, do not operate in Costa Rican territory who, on a habitual basis and by any title, carry out such activities without authorization. It is appropriate to clarify that these operations, even if carried out by authorized persons, may be suspicious, hence the control must be permanent. Those financial activities developed by clients of supervised entities are considered suspicious when, due to their magnitude, lack of regularity, rotation speed, or unjustified conditions of complexity, they seem to have no economic sense or lawful object. Article 24 of Law 8204 defines them as *“…those carried out outside the usual transaction patterns and those that are not significant but are periodic, without evident economic or legal grounds…”*. At the same time, numerals 16 through 23 of the analyzed legislative body proclaim basic conditions that the supervised entities must comply with to reduce the risks that financial activity provokes within the money launderer's paradigm. Among others, the following stand out: 1. the precise identification of clients; 2. maintenance of nominative accounts; 3. prohibition of opening anonymous accounts or accounts under fictitious names; 4. verifying, through reliable documentary means, the identity, representation, domicile, occupation, or corporate purpose of clients; maintenance of documentary records during the term of the operation and for at least five years after the commercial relationship ends; 6. recording of every cash transaction in national or foreign currency equal to or exceeding $10,000; 7. special attention to atypical financial activities, such as those conducted outside normal patterns or lacking economic justification; and 8. duty to report suspicious financial transactions to the oversight and supervisory bodies. According to these obligations, any natural or legal person whose economic activity falls within the scope of the regulations must be supervised by any of the superintendencies responsible for regulating and controlling compliance with anti-money laundering standards or by the Banco Central as applicable. This action is justified not only by the need to implement mechanisms that prevent the entry of illegal capital, but also because they constitute financial activities vulnerable to the entry of illicit assets. These compliance programs for regulations aimed at preventing the entry of “dirty” capital into the financial and securities market system are linked to internationally assumed commitments and recommendations that require the national financial system to develop and comply with programs of such nature. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), to which Costa Rica belongs, evaluates compliance with several recommendations aimed at preventing, among other aspects, the penetration of capital from criminal activities into the national financial system. Also found at the banking level is the Declaration of Principles of the Basel Committee, which seeks to prevent banks and other financial institutions from being used for transfers or deposits of funds of illicit origin.

Within this regulatory analysis, Rule 28 of Ley 8204 is of paramount importance, as it grants bodies vested with supervisory and oversight powers certain obligations regarding compliance with said law, such as monitoring the effective fulfillment of the registration and notification obligations set forth in the Law, but mainly cooperating with competent authorities and providing them with technical assistance within the framework of investigations and proceedings concerning offenses defined in the Law. This last precept unquestionably reflects that the Banco Central is among the bodies vested with supervisory and oversight powers. For this reason, the BCCR incorporated Article 118 into the SINPE Regulations, to have at its disposal, in its records, all the information required to identify the natural or legal persons who conducted securities transactions in the SINPE, since at any time the competent authorities may require that information as provided by Ley 8204 and the Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones (Ley no. Placa42033). Thus, the Tribunal correctly specifies that: “(...) The cited legislation evidently emerges as a legal bastion concomitantly with the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central to support the issuance of Article 113 of the SINPE Payment Regulations; and if analyzed from this perspective, said article rather appears too timid regarding the information that must be included in matters of financial and securities transfers. Requiring that a subject be identified by their name, identity document number, and the assignment of a code for the activity they carry out evidently does not contravene the right to privacy since, in any case, a protected legal interest of extremely high public interest and immeasurable value is at stake, which is the security of the Nation and the inhabitants of the Republic. This can evidently be affected if the State incurs an omission in exercising its supervisory competence in order to tolerate and sanction the commission of illicit acts such as the laundering of capital from criminal activities or destined for the carrying out of such illicit activities (...)” (recording of the judgment at 8:29). This Chamber also considers that the information requested from brokerage firms (puestos de bolsa) through Article 118 of the SINPE Regulations is meager if the nature and philosophy of Ley 8204 are analyzed in depth. And there is no doubt that money laundering is a form of concealment (Article 69 of Ley 8204), whose protected legal interest is the administration of justice and public safety, since actions aimed at revealing the link between the predicate offense and the assets originating as a consequence thereof injure the correct administration of justice by obstructing the respective investigation; hence the importance of having a firm and secure financial system, from its apex, which is unquestionably in the hands of the Banco Central. It must not only regulate and control the SINPE, but also be a guarantor in the correct application of the postulates of Ley 8204, just like the supervisory entities (among them Sugeval) and each of the supervised entities (such as brokerage firms). On the occasion of the transfer of securities, Ley 8204 must be applied by all participants in the securities market, whether they are supervisory entities or entities adhered to the SAC, with the aim of creating a system against money laundering and related activities. It should be noted that if, by reason of acts or offenses contemplated in the Law, an inquiry is initiated by the competent authorities (judicial or administrative), every financial entity or entity forming part of a financial group shall have the obligation to safeguard the information, documents, securities, and monies that may be used as evidence or proof within the investigation or in a judicial process. The law even establishes the duty of these offices to have the monies or securities held on deposit or in custody frozen or deposited in the Banco Central de Costa Rica, informing the authorities of the actions taken (Article 86). In virtue of the elucidated reasons, it is appropriate to reject the grievance, and the ruling, on this point, must be confirmed.

**XII.-** In the **third** and final charge, they question that the appealed judgment did not consider the violation of the right to privacy incurred through the information provided under the SINPE Regulations. They state that, although a person's names and identity card number consist of data of a public nature, the revelation of the ownership of a specific securities account, carried out by linking said name and identification to a specific securities account, does constitute a sensitive fact. They argue that the names of persons who have investments and securities accounts with each brokerage firm are being revealed, and that information, they claim, is indeed sensitive. They accuse that the foregoing constitutes an intrusion into private life that, besides being unreasonable, empties the essential content of securities secrecy and is unconstitutional. In this sense, they allege that the SINPE Regulations oblige brokerage firms to supply the BCCR with personal information and data of their clients that are protected by the principle of confidentiality, the right to privacy, and securities secrecy, since it is revealing the identity of persons who hold securities accounts. They invoke precepts 24 of the Constitución Política and 108 of the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores in support of their grievance. Regarding Article 108 ibidem, they point out that it regulates what is known as securities secrecy or “securities confidentiality (sigilo bursátil)”; which exists by reason of protecting transparency in the price formation of securities markets. In support of their criticism, they mention case law of the Sala Constitucional on the right to privacy and banking secrecy, as well as national doctrine on the subject. Finally, they emphasize that, concerning the right to privacy, the regulation should be supported by a law, since only in this way is it possible to regulate and, where appropriate, restrict fundamental rights, pursuant to Articles 11, 28, 121 of the Carta Magna and 19 of the LGAP.

**XIII.-** Regarding the potential breach of the right to privacy and securities secrecy originating from the application of canon 118 of the SINPE Regulations; it must be stated that the information requested by the SINPE does not entail such a violation, since the requested data, namely the name, identity card number, and a code to identify the activity carried out, cannot be considered sensitive, intimate, or private information for the reasons that will be analyzed below. Any data relating to ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affiliation, sexual preferences, or strategies specific to the commercial or financial development of a company, among others of a similar nature for both natural and legal persons, would indeed be so. For this reason, that aspect fell outside the scope of coverage protecting the right to privacy. Article 24 of the Constitución Política enshrines the fundamental rights to privacy, the inviolability of private documents, the secrecy of communications, and the right to informational self-determination or the right to control over information that third parties hold about the person in question. This information falls within matters that directly concern the sphere of the person, whether because it refers to their family or private life, their beliefs, convictions, or sexual preferences, commercial relations, among other aspects (developed in canon 9, subsection 1) of the Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales, Ley no. 8968). On the other hand, there are personal data that are public or may be communicated to third parties, either because they appear in public records or because there is no duty of confidentiality, such as name, identification, profession, data on assets, and, in particular, the economic and financial situation of the person. Now, this latter information qualifies within what is known as private information, and although it receives protection from the Constitution (Article 24, paragraph 2), its access may be authorized by law if a public interest is involved. In this regard, the cited Ley 8968 states in precept 9 the following: “2.- Personal data of restricted access. Personal data of restricted access are those which, even forming part of publicly accessible records, are not of unrestricted access because they are of interest only to their owner or to the Public Administration. Their processing shall be permitted only for public purposes or if the express consent of the owner is obtained... 4.- Data referring to credit behavior. Data referring to credit behavior shall be governed by the rules regulating the National Financial System, so as to guarantee an acceptable degree of risk on the part of financial entities, without impeding the full exercise of the right to informational self-determination nor exceeding the limits of this law.” But that protection does not mean they should be classified within what doctrine, case law, and the Law know as “sensitive data.” For these reasons, it is important to distinguish between both types of data, since sensitive data have no relevance in the exercise of financial activity (regarding the prohibition of processing data relating to the intimate sphere of the citizen by entities not authorized to do so; the Sala Constitucional has ruled in Voto no. 1176-2008 at 11:21 a.m. on January 25, 2008). Thus, the information on the identification of third-party accounts obtained by the BCCR on the occasion of the SAC does not fall within the concept of sensitive data, so this Chamber shares the reasons given by the Tribunal to dismiss the claimant's allegation (according to the recording of the delivery of the judgment at 8:35 a.m. on February 22, 2010). Now, both the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central and Ley 8204 empower the BCCR to request the information contemplated in cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulations, with the sole and exclusive purpose of promoting the efficiency of the payment and clearing system, as well as preventing money laundering; matters that are of undoubted public interest. In this way, it can be affirmed that the legal system allows the BCCR to request the information contained in precept 118 of the SINPE Regulations. Within this topic, it is true that canon 108 of Ley 7732 regulates what is known as securities secrecy that market participants must maintain regarding their clients. Banking or securities secrecy has traditionally been conceived as one of the main duties arising from commercial relations —perfect or imperfect— between banks, financial institutions, and in this case, between brokerage firms and their clients. This secrecy obliges entities to remain silent, that is, not to divulge or reveal that information about clients and the operations they have carried out or have been about to carry out. It tends to protect that private link between the parties, which materializes through various physical or digital files or documents containing aspects related to client identification, the origin and destination of funds, periodic movements, gains, investments, losses, transfers, and relationships with other persons or institutions. Ley 8204, starting from Chapter Four, incorporated into the legal system not only the legal tools to investigate the crime of money laundering, but also created the institutions and coordination mechanisms for the entities responsible for its supervision, execution, and investigation. This fact has generated much controversy regarding the information requested by supervisory entities (including the Banco Central), since it has been considered that these mechanisms violate banking secrecy. A fact that does not escape the case under review. For this reason, this Chamber considers it essential to highlight three aspects concerning Article 118 of the SINPE Regulations. First, the information provided or that may be provided by the BCCR to the Instituto de Control de Drogas (ICD), the Organismo de Investigación Judicial, and the Ministerio Público falls within the powers recognized by the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, Ley 8204, and recently by the Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Legislación contra el Terrorismo (Ley no. 8719 of March 4, 2009), by virtue of the supervisory and oversight role of the Banco Central. Second, said information is not used for the benefit of third parties or for its disclosure; on the contrary, it must be understood as preventive information, which, if required, conforms to the purposes of cardinal one of the Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones. Third, related to the previous point, the Banco Central, as operator of the SAC and the SINPE, is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the information it obtains, as derived from precepts 119 subsection c), 166 of Ley 7732; 13 final paragraph of Ley 7558; 44, 133 of the SINPE Regulations; 12 of the Reglamento sobre los Sistemas de Anotación en Cuenta; 339 of the Código Penal; 10 and 11 of Ley 8968. In national legislation, it is thus expressly established that such interference as well as access to private documentation are not violative of the rights of intimacy and privacy of persons, but rather obey a substantive public order task (the Sala Constitucional has expressed itself along these lines in Voto no. 5275-03 at 2:53 p.m. on June 18, 2003). The regulatory and oversight functions carried out by the BCCR are necessary for the due control of financial transactions in the country, and its work is aimed at ensuring that operations occurring in the transfer of funds and securities are lawful, a purpose that justifies the recognition of the information requested by cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulations. The aim is thereby to maintain the solvency, stability, and liquidity of the national financial system within an environment of legality, protecting the investor themselves; reasons that are also of public interest. Motives that are clearly defined both in the Ley Orgánica del BCCR, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, and Ley 8204. Therefore, the appellants are not correct when they affirm that Articles 11, 24, 28, 121 of the Constitución Política, 19 of the LGAP, and 108 of the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores are violated. Hence, the reproach is not acceptable to overturn the questioned ruling.

**XIV.-** In virtue of the foregoing, it shall be appropriate to declare the appeal without merit and to impose the costs generated by its exercise on the appellant pursuant to precept 150, subsection 3) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

**POR TANTO** The appeal is declared without merit, with costs borne by the appellant.

**Anabelle León Feoli** **Luis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga** **Román Solís Zelaya** **Nombre11387** **Nombre32003** { "norm_nom": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "137288", "norm_anno": "1997", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "73500", "norm_fecha": "17 Dic 1997", "norm_id": "29302", "art_num": "123" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "137294", "norm_anno": "1997", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "73500", "norm_fecha": "17 Dic 1997", "norm_id": "29302", "art_num": "129" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "137331", "norm_anno": "1997", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "73500", "norm_fecha": "17 Dic 1997", "norm_id": "29302", "art_num": "166" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "137336", "norm_anno": "1997", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "73500", "norm_fecha": "17 Dic 1997", "norm_id": "29302", "art_num": "171" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "art_subnum": "0", "norm_inciso": "d", "norm_anno": "1997", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "73500", "norm_detalle": "Inciso d", "norm_fecha": "17 Dic 1997", "norm_id": "29302", "bdt": "1", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "137353", "art_num": "188" }, { "norm_nom": "Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales", "art_subnum": "0", "norm_inciso": "1", "norm_anno": "2011", "norm_num": "8968", "norm_ver": "85989", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 1", "norm_fecha": "07 Jul 2011", "norm_id": "70975", "bdt": "1", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "10", "art_num": "9" }, { "norm_nom": "Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "11", "norm_anno": "2011", "norm_num": "8968", "norm_ver": "85989", "norm_fecha": "07 Jul 2011", "norm_id": "70975", "art_num": "10" }, { "norm_nom": "Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "12", "norm_anno": "2011", "norm_num": "8968", "norm_ver": "85989", "norm_fecha": "07 Jul 2011", "norm_id": "70975", "art_num": "11" } ]"esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "0", "fecha": "2011-09-26", "tipoDocumento": "EXT", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "tipoContenido": "Voto de mayoría", "sourceName": "Documentos", "formatoDocumento": "ESCRITO", "tipoResolucion": "De Fondo", "tipoInformacion": "Resolución Judicial", "normasNacionales": [ "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4859||art_num::11||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4866||art_num::18||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4872||art_num::24||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4876||art_num::28||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4969||art_num::121||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4988||art_num::140||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::85571||norm_detalle::Inciso 3||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::5027||norm_num::4573||norm_nom::Código Penal||art_id::24123||art_num::339||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 May 1970||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::86117||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::65150||norm_num::5416||norm_nom::Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos||art_id::13||art_num::12||bdt::1||norm_fecha::11 Mar 2009||tipo_norma::Reglamento||norm_ver::86054||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::65150||norm_num::5416||norm_nom::Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos||art_id::45||art_num::44||bdt::1||norm_fecha::11 Mar 2009||tipo_norma::Reglamento||norm_ver::86054||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::65150||norm_num::5416||norm_nom::Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos||art_id::112||art_num::118||bdt::1||norm_fecha::11 Mar 2009||tipo_norma::Reglamento||norm_ver::86054||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::65150||norm_num::5416||norm_nom::Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos||art_id::127||art_num::133||bdt::1||norm_fecha::11 Mar 2009||tipo_norma::Reglamento||norm_ver::86054||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::13231||norm_num::6227||norm_nom::Ley General de la Administración Pública||art_id::77087||art_num::19||bdt::1||norm_fecha::02 May 1978||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::80205||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::13231||norm_num::6227||norm_nom::Ley General de la Administración Pública||art_id::77151||art_num::83||bdt::1||norm_fecha::02 May 1978||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::80205||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178811||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178812||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178813||art_num::3||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::Inciso i,j||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178823||art_num::13||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178834||art_num::24||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178838||art_num::28||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178850||art_num::40||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178878||art_num::68||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::40928||norm_num::7558||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica||art_id::178879||art_num::69||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1995||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::83851||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137167||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137168||art_num::3||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137234||art_num::69||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137273||art_num::108||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137280||art_num::115||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137281||art_num::116||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137282||art_num::117||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137284||art_num::119||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::Inciso c||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137287||art_num::122||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137288||art_num::123||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137294||art_num::129||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137331||art_num::166||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137336||art_num::171||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::29302||norm_num::7732||norm_nom::Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores||art_id::137353||art_num::188||bdt::1||norm_fecha::17 Dic 1997||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::73500||norm_detalle::Inciso d||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::70975||norm_num::8968||norm_nom::Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales||art_id::10||art_num::9||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Jul 2011||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::85989||norm_detalle::Inciso 1||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::70975||norm_num::8968||norm_nom::Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales||art_id::11||art_num::10||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Jul 2011||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::85989||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::70975||norm_num::8968||norm_nom::Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales||art_id::12||art_num::11||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Jul 2011||tipo_norma::Ley||norm_ver::85989||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0" ], "html": "III.- Sobre el ámbito competencial de los órganos de supervisión." Prior to examining the regulatory power and its exercise in the specific case, it is appropriate to refer, in a general manner, to the jurisdictional structure established in the legal system regarding supervision, a concept comprised of oversight (fiscalización) and regulation. In the development undergone by central banking, it is undisputed that an important part of that directive, supervisory, and monitoring power has been transferred to other public bodies. Thus, the legislator chose to distribute the various competencies that make up these powers among a series of bodies attached to the Banco Central de Costa Rica. For the purpose of overseeing certain activities, due to their importance in society, it created four superintendencies, in the form of maximally deconcentrated bodies (órganos de desconcentración máxima), namely, the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (Sugef), the Superintendencia General de Valores (Sugeval), the Superintendencia de Pensiones (Supen), and, recently, the Superintendencia General de Seguros (Sugese). Of these, the latter two have instrumental legal personality. From an organic standpoint, each of them has a superintendent, who acts as the senior authority in administrative matters. They are responsible, according to their subject matter, for verifying compliance by the supervised entities with the provisions that make up the respective regulatory subsystems, as well as the stability of the system, in what pertains to them according to their scope of competence. Along with the superintendencies, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores also created a body named the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero. This body is assigned, mainly, the task of regulating the system and at the same time acts as the improper single-phase senior authority (jerarca impropio monofásico) of the superintendencies for appeals purposes (Article 171 of Ley 7732). Of relevance to this appeal, it is important to note that the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores also created the Sugeval as a body of "maximum deconcentration from the Banco Central de Costa Rica" (Article 3). Its primary function is to ensure the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices in those markets, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. This competence, in accordance with canon 3 ibidem, is exercised over all securities markets, the activity of natural or legal persons who intervene directly or indirectly in them, and the acts or contracts related to them, as provided by law. This general competence over the securities market is aimed at guaranteeing market stability in pursuit of its development, as well as investor protection. The supervisory bodies, including the Sugeval, are maximally deconcentrated bodies (órganos de desconcentración máxima) of the BCCR that participate in supervising compliance with the monetary policies issued by it, including that aimed at promoting the efficiency and normal functioning of the internal and external payment system.

**IV.- On the regulatory power.** The main object of this litigation, developed in greater detail in the first objection of the plaintiff Cámara's appeal, is limited to determining whether the challenged rule (Article 113 of the SINPE Reglamento) falls within the scope of competence that the legal system assigns to the BCCR regarding the issuance of infralegal norms (normas infralegales). In this regard, it is essential to refer briefly to the content of the regulatory power and the different types of regulations that the Public Administration can issue. Traditionally, it has been indicated that these can be classified into two large groups, for which one can consult the ruling of this Chamber no. 749-F-04 of 9:30 a.m. on September 10, 2004, and of the Sala Constitucional, among others, rulings no. 2005-14286 of 2:45 p.m. on October 19, 2005, and 2007-02063 of 2:45 p.m. on February 14, 2007. The first of these, regulated in numeral 140, subsections 3) and 18) of the Constitución Política, is the executive regulation, through which the contents of a legal-rank norm are developed. It is a complementary provision, which serves to specify the content or to facilitate the implementation of what is prescribed in the law. In this sense, constitutional jurisprudence has indicated that this type of norm can only originate from the Executive Branch. On this matter, the Sala Constitucional has indicated that it is not *"...possible to attempt an extensive interpretation in favor of other public dependencies..."* (ruling no. 17599-2006 of 3:00 p.m. on December 6, 2006). It should be added that it is an autonomous power, whose authorization is given generically in the Carta Magna, so that the Executive Branch is empowered to regulate, *motu proprio*, any law of the Republic. Stated differently, the existence or not of an authorization in the law is of no interest, insofar as the competence is given at the constitutional level and can be exercised regarding all issued laws, whether they provide for it or not. This, of course, without prejudice that a legal norm converts this power into a duty, a situation which, in any case, does not change its nature. The second type of regulation is the autonomous regulation, whose object is to regulate the organization of administrative dependencies (in which case they are called "autonomous of organization"), or else, the functioning of the public services they provide (generically referred to as "autonomous of service"). These can emanate from both the Central Administration and the decentralized one. In the case of the former, by virtue of the express text contained in subsection 18) of cardinal 140 of the Constitution, and for the latter, as a logical and necessary derivation of the power of self-organization implicit in the degree of administrative autonomy, or first-degree autonomy, granted to them at the time of their creation (considerations noted in greater detail, through resolution of this Chamber no. 001000-F-S1-2010 of 9:35 a.m. on August 26, 2010).

**V.-** In this specific case, it is important to clarify two aspects of transcendental importance, before hearing the merits of the appeal. First, it must be made clear that the plaintiff's nullity claim refers only to Article 113 of the SINPE Reglamento and not to the entirety of that regulatory body. Second, it is necessary to illustrate that after the issuance of the appealed judgment, the Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos (approved by the Junta Directiva of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, through Article 11 of the minutes of session 5416-2009, held on March 11, 2009) was modified, so the originally challenged Article 113 changed its numbering, and currently corresponds to precept 118 ibidem. However, the analyzed article maintains its original wording, which literally states: *"**Identification of third-party accounts.** Third-party accounts are identified by the name and identification number of their holders, as well as by a code by type of investor"*. For the purposes of this appeal, it will be referred to henceforth as canon 118 of the SINPE Reglamento. The BCCR is an autonomous institution under public law, with its own legal personality and patrimony, and which is also part of the Sistema Bancario Nacional (Article 1 of its Ley Orgánica). The primary objective of said entity is to maintain the internal and external stability of the national currency and ensure its convertibility. Likewise, Ley 7558 imposed on the BCCR a series of subsidiary objectives, among others, <u>the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system and maintain its normal functioning</u> (canon 2, subsection c) ibidem). In line with the above, that regulatory body established that for the due fulfillment of its purposes, the Bank had to have essential functions such as the establishment, operation, and monitoring of clearing systems; and to establish the regulations for the creation, functioning, and control of financial entities (precept 3, subsections i), j) of Ley 7558). In addition to the above, Article 69 of the analyzed regulatory body categorically provides: *"...The Junta Directiva of the Banco Central de Costa Rica shall organize and regulate the functioning of the payment system…"*. In this way, it can be established that the BCCR has several tasks assigned by its Ley Orgánica. It is appropriate to highlight the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system and maintain its normal functioning; a task that is currently fundamental, since the existence of a safe, effective, and efficient payment system is of vital importance for the normal performance of the economy, both for internal and external operations. A payment system is constituted by a set of instruments, banking procedures, and funds and securities transfer systems that ensure their circulation in the financial and stock markets respectively. They are mechanisms used for the movement of funds, money, and securities; they also contribute to the development of payments between financial entities, internally and externally. As observed from the cited articles, the legislator chose to entrust the Central Bank with the promotion and proper functioning of the payment system, since through this, it could regulate money markets. In such a way, the Court was correct in considering that from the analysis of these legal concepts, the possibility is inferred for the Central Bank to establish, by regulatory means, the Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos, and everything related to its regulation, functioning, and control. **[...]** **VI.-** **[...]** This Chamber must indicate that deconcentration is effectively presented as a technique for distributing competencies among different bodies of the same entity or superior body; and its object is to entrust a specialized body within an administrative structure with the exercise of certain competencies in order to achieve greater efficiency. Deconcentration is contemplated in norm 83 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública by establishing that: *"Every body other than the senior authority (jerarca) shall be fully subordinate to the latter and to the immediate superior hierarchical authority, except for deconcentration effected by law or regulation…"*. In this normative precept, two modalities are established, the minimal and the maximal. The minimal one informs that the superior cannot assume (avocar) the inferior's competencies nor review or substitute the inferior's conduct, ex officio or at the request of a party. In the maximal one, in addition to the above, the superior cannot give orders, instructions, or circulars to the inferior. The representatives of Cambolsa are correct up to this point. However, it must not be forgotten that the assignment of the scope of competencies of the deconcentrated body originates, normally, in the norm that creates and regulates it. In the event it contains sovereign powers (potestades de imperio), such norm must be of legal rank. But, if the attributions do not involve sovereign powers, the attribution may be made by means of regulatory norms. The purpose of deconcentration is to transfer competencies, and to establish the degree of independence with which these functions can be exercised. It is not about simple attributions; what is sought is the specialization of certain bodies in specific matters, in pursuit of satisfying the tasks entrusted to the maximum entity (public purpose). But this does not mean that such competencies are organically detached from the original structure. For this reason, it is essential to refer to the norm that created the deconcentration, since it will be that norm which establishes the type and scope of deconcentration and what powers the senior authority retains regarding the deconcentrated matter. The scope of maximal deconcentration under the terms of Article 83 ibidem is not disputed here; on the contrary, upon transferring the competence, it is clear that the hierarchical superior is incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. What must be defined is that the senior authority maintains its competence in areas not covered by the deconcentration. The deconcentrated body remains, then, subject to hierarchy in said areas. For this reason, it must be insisted, it is fundamental to respect the principle of legality to determine the scope of competence of the entity or the superior or higher body. In the case under review, as indicated above, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores created the Superintendencia General de Valores as a body of "maximum deconcentration from the Banco Central de Costa Rica" (Article 3). Its primary duty consists of ensuring the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices within them, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. In this sense, it is true that Article 116 of Ley 7732 granted the Sugeval the power to regulate the organization and functioning of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries (anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta), as well as the relationships and communications of the entities in charge of such registries with the issuers and the stock exchanges. However, the BCCR continues to maintain its condition as the directive entity and, therefore, the ultimate regulator of the financial, monetary, and credit system; since it is responsible for directing monetary, credit, and financial policy and guaranteeing the fluid functioning of the financial system (according to Article 3 of its Ley Orgánica). In this regard, the duty to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payment system and maintain its normal functioning (canon 2, subsection c) ibidem), is not a function that has been deconcentrated in the Sugeval; on the contrary, this is one of the objectives that the Central Bank must constantly pursue, and must indeed be qualified as "essential". It suffices to recall that it was the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores itself that came to confirm the foregoing, when through its Article 188, subsection d), it expressly modified precept 69 of the Ley Orgánica of the BCCR. With this reform, the legislator reaffirmed the duty of the Junta Directiva of the BCCR to organize and regulate the functioning of the payment system (previously called only the Clearing House (Cámara de Compensación)). In this sense, the legislator considered that the Central Bank's participation in the matter of the payment system was inherent to it, as it was essential to its primary duty, and that the Ley Orgánica of the Central Bank commands it so. It must be highlighted at this point that the term encompasses establishing, regulating, operating, and supervising the system. The Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, on its part, does not determine that the functions of the Sugeval in relation to the payment system and the service involved in administering the registry of book-entry securities (valores anotados en cuenta) have been assigned to that body exclusively; on the contrary, from the relationship of Articles 188, subsection d) of the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores and 2, 3, 69 of the Ley Orgánica of the Central Bank, it is inferred that the Sistema Nacional de Pagos (creation and functioning) must be in the hands of the BCCR. Therefore, these tasks regarding the system are the competence of the Junta Directiva of the Bank (as is also derived from subsections c, h, l of Article 28 of its Ley Orgánica). Article 116 of Ley 7732 provided that the Sugeval could regulate the organization and functioning of registries, identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries; however, this was done in a generic and not special manner, since the legislator always considered maintaining this task in the hands of the Central Banking authority (Banca Central). In reality, the duty that the BCCR held in this regard was never eliminated, as it would be incompatible with the independence of the Central Bank to establish institutional factors that tend to subject it to instructions, authorizations, suspensions, and worse yet, to restrict its competence regarding decisions related to monetary policy and the rest of its subsidiary objectives (among them the maintenance of the SINPE). The existence of a permit or prohibition to exercise a certain monetary instrument would imply a limit to the cited independence and competencies, since the Central Banking authority would see its faculties limited to establish the strategy aimed at realizing the objectives defined in Article 2 of Ley 7558. Nor is the matter exhausted in institutional independence (defining monetary policy objectives) but it also concerns functional independence to decide the application of the monetary policy instruments that the legislator established, understood as the choice of which instrument should be used and how it should be done, just as happens with the Book-Entry System (Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta) (which will be examined in greater detail in the following recital (considerando)) and the SINPE. Within this scheme, a supervisory entity cannot assume the definition of organizational aspects of a system that is administered by the Monetary Authority (Autoridad Monetaria), since its independence would be affected, and consequently, the effectiveness of the financial system could also be jeopardized. In the sub júdice matter, the BCCR regulated a service that its Ley Orgánica entrusted to it, so it is not true that competencies that are proper to the Sugeval are being recognized to the Bank (according to what is defined in cardinal 3 of its Ley Reguladora) or that this regulation is not consistent with the subsequent legal norms that were introduced in Ley 7732.

**VII.-** Having analyzed the regulatory power that the Central Bank has to issue the SINPE Reglamento, it is next necessary to refer to the Book-Entry System (Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta, SAC hereinafter); since the article challenged by the plaintiff is located within the Book of the Reglamento called *"Book Entry (Anotación en Cuenta)"*. The book-entry and settlement systems are based on the representation of securities by means of book entries. It is a computerized system for creating and recording securities representative of capital through the book-entry method. The security is constituted, deposited, and transferred as a book entry, legal acts that are not materialized. This is the trend followed by the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. Thus, Article 115 of that regulatory body establishes: *"…Securities issuances registered in the Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios may be represented by means of electronic book entries or by certificates…"*. The Securities Clearing and Settlement System shall seek, says Ley 7732 in its cardinal 129, the generalization of the electronic book-entry system, except for the exceptions authorized by the Superintendencia by virtue of market circumstances or the particular nature of certain securities. Securities represented by means of electronic book entries shall be constituted and transferred by virtue of their inscription in the corresponding accounting registry (Articles 122 and 123 ibidem). Modern securities clearing and settlement systems tend to dematerialize securities, which is achieved through representation by book entries. According to the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, the book entry may be managed by the Banco Central de Costa Rica or by central securities depositories (centrales de valores) (precept 117). This accounting register of securities represented by means of electronic book entries, proclaims canon 117 of Ley 7732, shall be carried out by a two-tier system: a) the first tier is made up of the BCCR (which is responsible for administering the register of issuances from the State and public institutions) and by the central securities depositories authorized by the Superintendencia (they shall be responsible for administering the register of issuances from private issuers); b) the second tier is formed by the entities adhered to the SAC, which may be all those authorized to provide custody services and the clearing members of the Sistema Nacional de Compensación y Liquidación de Valores. Among these latter entities, brokerage houses (puestos de bolsa) are eminently found. The Reglamento del Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta (agreement adopted by the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, through Article 10, of the minutes of session 606-2006, held on September 28, 2006) regulates in greater detail the organization and functioning of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by means of electronic book entries. This Reglamento provides that the Central Bank is responsible for administering the accounting registry of securities through electronic book entry for issuances from the State and public institutions, and may delegate that function to a central securities depository (canon 19). Likewise, it mentions that only entities that are members of the Sistema Nacional de Registro de Anotaciones en Cuenta constituted as central securities depositories, authorized for such purpose by the Superintendencia, may provide the services of administering the accounting registry of securities, through electronic book entry for issuances from private issuers (Article 21). That is the manner in which securities registries are administered in Costa Rica according to their issuer.

Now, in practice, the SAC functions as a service provided by the BCCR, which was added to the SINPE platform due to the ease and security that the latter system offered in the country for the transfer of funds; this implied taking advantage of the available tool by adding one more service to it (the transfer of securities). The SAC has four clearly defined specific services: **1.** the issuance registration service, which functions as a registry where the BCCR and the Ministry of Finance register the issuances that the Sugeval authorizes them to place in the securities market; **2.** securities accounts, the service responsible for maintaining control and upkeep of the accounts; **3.** market settlement, which allows the Bolsa Nacional de Valores to connect with the SINPE to send both the primary and secondary stock market for settlement; and finally, it provides **4.** a securities transfer service for managing those securities movements that are not of an onerous nature (on this topic, the BCCR witness, Mr. Melvin Jiménez Quesada, spoke extensively during the oral and public trial starting at 10:06 a.m. on February 15, 2010). Although the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central does not contain an article that refers to the Bank's participation in the creation of a book-entry system, a detailed analysis of articles 2 and 3 of that Law does reveal that book-entry systems fall within the Bank's sphere of competence; given that the BCCR, for the fulfillment of its macroeconomic objectives, must unavoidably provide the national economy with an agile, modern, efficient, and secure financial system. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Central Bank is responsible for *“establishing, operating, and overseeing compensation systems”*, and although the legislator was not precise on this specific topic, it nevertheless refers to the entire compensation system, relating to the financial system as a whole; therefore, both the compensation of funds and the compensation of securities. While Article 68 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central does not contain detailed regulations like those existing in Article 69 ibidem for the payment system, the truth is that compensation between funds and securities is provided for there; it is sufficient that they are compensable securities. Therefore, from the analysis of Law 7558, it is concluded that the Central Bank has among its functions the development of a securities compensation system. In this understanding, the SAC plays a very important role as a component of the financial system, for which reason the Bank, in fulfillment of the objective of achieving financial and monetary stability, must promote, drive, and supervise its development, attending to the letter of Article 3 ibidem; hence, the issuance of the criticized article is in accordance with the legal system.

**VIII.-** [...] Article 40 of Law 7558 encompasses the duty incumbent upon the offices and dependencies of the State, and of the autonomous institutions, to provide assistance and grant information of a general nature to the departments of the BCCR, so that the Bank can efficiently fulfill its functions. This duty, considering the literal wording of the rule, is understood to fall upon public offices and dependencies; however, in the specific case, it is feasible to recognize an analogical integration for the scenario under analysis, since there is no rule in Law 7558 that imposes this duty on private entities, despite the fact that the BCCR uses this data for the exclusive fulfillment of one of its objectives. However, it must be indicated that the Court did not only justify the authority of the BCCR to request the questioned information based on Article 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, given that it also conducted an analysis of the powers of the BCCR to request the criticized data, in relation to the powers granted to supervisory entities in the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter Law no. 8204). This is because the data mentioned in article 118 of the SINPE Regulation are of vital importance to combat and prevent money laundering and related activities through the transfer of securities. This aspect will be analyzed in greater detail in the following grievance. Thus, no direct violation of the analyzed rule by the judges is found, since the information requested is related to one of the services that this entity provides directly to the entities adhered to the SINPE and to the SAC, among the latter, the brokerage firms. The request for the information contemplated in article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is made so that the BCCR can fulfill one of its basic objectives (maintaining efficient payment and compensation systems), as established by articles 2, 3, 24, 69 in relation to article 40, all of Law 7558. In relation to this argument, they also accuse that Article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is absolutely null, for violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness in the sphere of regulatory power, given that the BCCR did not have the competence to regulate the registries and identification systems related to the securities markets. Through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payment System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients can be imposed, which would generate inequality. The Sala Constitucional has said the following about the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness: *“... A first-order aspect in every administrative act is the strict proportionality between the means employed by the respective public administration and the ends intended to be achieved with it, as well as the suitability or necessity of its content and, of course, when it is afflictive or burdensome, the consideration of its minimal intervention or impact. Precisely for this reason, the principle of the prohibition of arbitrariness has emerged in contemporary Constitutional Law, as one of the guiding principles of the administrative function, according to which administrative conduct must be sufficiently coherent and reasonably grounded in the legal framework, so that it is self-sufficient and self-explanatory. In our constitutional legal system, such principle emanates from what is established in the first part of Article 11 of the Constitución Política...”* (resolution no. 2004-14421 of 11:00 a.m. on December 17, 2004). The fundamental objective is to avoid arbitrary actions by the public agent, understood as the lack of objective legal support or foundation for an administrative conduct, consequently violating the existing legal framework. In regulatory matters, this principle plays a relevant role within the legal system. In the sub lite, as indicated earlier, the Central Bank was legally empowered to issue the SINPE Regulation and therefore the questioned article. From the analysis of articles 2, 3, and 69 of its Ley Orgánica, it is inferred how the legislator entrusted it with this function, for which reason it refers to the considerations set forth in Considerando V. Due to the express mandate that Law 7558 made to the BCCR to create, legalize, and control the Payment System, this Collegiate Body considers that the alleged conflict of competences between the normative powers of the SUGEVAL in relation to those conferred on the BCCR does not exist, for which reason the grievance must be dismissed.

**IX.-** Within the first objection, they finally reproach that the challenged rule places in the hands of the BCCR, which in turn is an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market, information that is not of a public nature and that may even be used for its own benefit in its capacity as a market participant. They add that the Central Bank acts as a competitor of the Brokerage Firms in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payment System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients is imposed, which generates inequality. This Chamber must indicate that the participation of the BCCR in the creation of a book-entry system that contemplates not only public debt but also private debt, was founded on the Bank's authority regarding the financial sector. Since the compensation and settlement process, including book-entry registries, are processes of a financial, economic, and legal nature, they are of interest and competence to the central bank. In this regard, the regulation of the system must maintain a close correspondence with the rest of the legal system, among them with Law 8204, through the establishment of transparent and non-discriminatory rules, based on objective criteria in relation to the services that can be accessed. For this reason, one of the main reasons why the Central Bank demands the information discussed here is to faithfully comply with the mandates contained in Law 8204 and not to compete as the appellants allege. Likewise, when the BCCR issues open market operations, it does so as a financial policy instrument, in order to maintain stability in the market; it does not do so for profit or for its own benefit. Due to its institutional position, it must be remembered, the BCCR has a transcendent role in monitoring the normal functioning of the compensation systems. This competence may be linked to a supervisory task, aimed at maintaining the stability of the financial system, avoiding the presence of a domino effect in case of liquidity or credit problems on the part of any financial agent. The correct functioning of the compensation and payment systems, as well as the stability of the financial system, is fundamental for the adequate execution of monetary policy; without prejudice to also recognizing the need to maintain confidence in the security and reliability of the systems, in order to preserve the efficiency of the markets and the security of the investment. The role of the Bank is restricted to the duty of direction and supervision proper and necessary to achieve the stability of the system and the realization of its monetary policy. Consequently, it is not true that the data obtained by the Central Bank through article 118 of the SINPE Regulation are used for its benefit or to compete in the market, given that this is not its function; a fact that was furthermore not demonstrated by the plaintiff Chamber throughout the process. Thus, the first ground must be dismissed in its entirety.

**XI.-** Among the objectives of Law 8204, regulating and sanctioning financial activities stand out, in order to prevent money laundering and actions that may serve to finance terrorist activities (Article 1). This prevention regime aims to regulate the obligations, actions, and procedures to prevent and impede the use of the financial system, as well as other sectors of economic activity, for the laundering of capital originating from any type of criminal participation. To this end, the Law establishes a series of obligations that certain subjects must fulfill. Article 14 of Law 8204 considers entities subject to the obligations of the Law to be those that regulate, supervise, and oversee, namely: the Sugef, the Sugeval, the Supen, and the Sugese. Likewise, the obligations of the Law are applicable to all entities or companies that are members of financial groups supervised by the aforementioned bodies, including financial transactions carried out by banks or financial entities domiciled abroad, through a financial entity domiciled in Costa Rica. The Law gives special attention to systematic or substantial money and fund exchange operations, carried out by any means, which, in the opinion of this Chamber, could be carried out through the SINPE platform. For this reason, the bodies described in Article 14 ibidem must ensure that no natural or legal persons, whatever their legal domicile or place of operation may be, operate in Costa Rican territory, habitually and by any title, without authorization for those activities. It is opportune to clarify that these operations, even if carried out by authorized persons, may be suspicious, hence the control must be permanent. Financial activities carried out by clients of supervised entities that, due to their magnitude, lack of regularity, speed of rotation, or unjustified complexity conditions, seem to have no economic sense or lawful purpose, are suspicious. Article 24 of Law 8204 defines them as *“…those carried out outside the usual transaction patterns and those that are not significant but are periodic, without evident economic or legal foundation…”*. At the same time, articles 16 to 23 of the legislative body under analysis proclaim basic conditions that the overseen entities must fulfill to reduce the risks that financial activity provokes within the money launderer's paradigm. Among others, the following stand out: 1. accurate identification of clients; 2. maintenance of nominative accounts; 3. prohibition of opening anonymous accounts or accounts under fictitious names; 4. verification, through reliable documentary means, of the identity, representation, domicile, occupation, or corporate purpose of clients; 5. maintenance of documentary records during the life of the operation and for at least five years after the business relationship ends; 6. registration of every cash transaction in national or foreign currency equal to or greater than $10,000; 7. special attention to atypical financial activities, such as those carried out outside usual patterns or lacking economic foundation; and 8. duty to report suspicious financial operations to the supervision and oversight bodies. According to these obligations, any natural or legal person whose economic activity falls within the scope of the rules must be overseen by any of the superintendencies responsible for regulating and controlling compliance with anti-money laundering rules or by the Central Bank as appropriate. This action is justified not only by the need to implement mechanisms that prevent the entry of illegal capital but also because they constitute financial actions that are vulnerable to the entry of illicit assets. These compliance programs for regulations aimed at preventing the entry of “dirty” capital into the financial and stock market system are linked to internationally assumed commitments and recommendations that require the national financial system to develop and fulfill programs of such nature. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (GAFIC), to which Costa Rica belongs, evaluates compliance with several recommendations aimed at preventing, among other aspects, the penetration of capital from criminal actions into the national financial system. Also found at the banking level is the Declaration of Principles of the Basel Committee, which seeks to prevent banks and other financial institutions from being used for transfers or deposits of funds of illicit origin. Within this normative analysis, Article 28 of Law 8204 is of capital importance, as it grants the bodies endowed with oversight and supervision powers certain obligations in relation to compliance with the same rule, such as monitoring the effective fulfillment of the registration and notification obligations that the Law indicates, but mainly cooperating with the competent authorities and providing them with technical assistance, within the framework of the investigations and proceedings regarding the crimes typified in the Law. This last precept unquestionably reflects that the Central Bank is among the bodies endowed with supervision and oversight powers. For this reason, the BCCR incorporated Article 118 into the SINPE Regulation, to have in its registries all the information required to identify the natural or legal persons who carried out securities transactions in the SINPE, since at any time the competent authorities could require that information as provided by Law 8204 and the Law on the Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications (Law no. 7425).

**XIII.-** Regarding the potential violation of the right to privacy and stock market secrecy, which originates from the application of article 118 of the SINPE Regulation; it must be indicated that the information requested by the SINPE does not entail that violation, since the requested data, namely the name, identity card number, and a code to identify the activity carried out, cannot be considered sensitive, intimate, or private information for the reasons that will be analyzed forthwith. Any data relating to ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affinity, sexual preferences, or strategies specific to the commercial or financial development of a company, among others of a similar nature for both natural and legal persons, would be so. For this reason, that aspect fell outside the scope of coverage protected by the right to privacy. Article 24 of the Constitución Política enshrines the fundamental rights to privacy, the inviolability of private documents, the secrecy of communications, and the right to informational self-determination or the right to have control over the information that third parties hold about the person in question. This information is comprised within matters that directly concern the sphere of the person, whether because it refers to their family or private life, their beliefs, convictions or sexual preferences, commercial relations, among other aspects (developed in article 9, subsection 1) of the Law for the Protection of the Person Regarding the Processing of Their Personal Data, Law no. 8968). On the other hand, there are personal data that are public or may be communicated to third parties, either because they appear in public registries, or because there is no duty of confidentiality, such as the name, identification, profession, data on assets, and, in particular, the economic and financial situation of the person. Now, this latter information qualifies within what is known as private information and although it receives protection from the Constitution (Article 24, paragraph 2), its access can be authorized by law if there is a public interest involved. In this regard, the cited Law 8968 expresses in Article 9 the following: *“2.- Personal data of restricted access. Personal data of restricted access are those that, even though forming part of registries accessible to the public, are not of unrestricted access because they are of interest only to their holder or to the Public Administration. Their processing shall be permitted only <u>for public purposes</u> or if the express consent of the holder is obtained… 4.- Data referring to credit behavior. Data referring to credit behavior shall be governed by the rules that regulate the National Financial System, so as to guarantee an acceptable degree of risk on the part of financial entities, without impeding the full exercise of the right to informational self-determination nor exceeding the limits of this law.”* But this protection does not mean that they should be framed within what doctrine, jurisprudence, and the Law know as “sensitive data”. For these reasons, it is important to distinguish between both types of data, since sensitive data have no relevance in the exercise of financial activity (on the prohibition of processing data relating to the intimate sphere of the citizen by entities not authorized to do so; the Sala Constitucional has ruled in Voto no. 1176-2008 of 11:21 a.m. on January 25, 2008). Thus, the information on the identification of third-party accounts that the BCCR obtains on the occasion of the SAC does not fall within the concept of sensitive data, for which reason this Chamber shares the reasons given by the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's allegation (according to the recording of the rendering of the judgment at 8:35 a.m. on February 22, 2010). Now, both the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central and Law 8204 empower the BCCR to request the information contemplated in article 118 of the SINPE Regulation, with the sole and exclusive purpose of promoting the efficiency of the payment and compensation system, as well as to prevent money laundering; matters that are of unquestionable public interest. In this way, it can be affirmed that the legal system allows the BCCR to request the information contained in article 118 of the SINPE Regulation. Within this topic, it is true that article 108 of Law 7732 regulates what is known as the stock market secrecy that market participants must maintain regarding their clients. Traditionally, bank or stock market secrecy has been conceived as one of the main duties arising from commercial relations - perfect or imperfect - between banks, financial institutions, and in this case between brokerage firms and their clients. This secrecy obliges the entities to remain silent, that is, not to divulge or reveal that information about clients and the operations they have carried out or were about to carry out. There is a tendency to protect this private bond between the parties, which materializes through different physical or computer files or documents, containing aspects relating to the identification of clients, the origin and destination of funds, periodic movements, earnings, investments, losses, transfers, and relations with other persons or institutions.

La Ley 8204 a partir del capítulo cuarto, incorporó al ordenamiento jurídico, no sólo las herramientas jurídicas para investigar el delito de legitimación de capitales, sino que además creó las instituciones y los mecanismos de coordinación de las entidades encargadas de su supervisión, ejecución e investigación. Este hecho ha generado mucha polémica respecto a la información que solicitan las entidades supervisoras (entre ellas el Banco Central), puesto que se ha considerado que con estos mecanismos se vulnera el secreto bancario. Hecho que no escapa del caso en examen. Por tal razón, esta Sala considera indispensable resaltar tres aspectos alrededor del artículo 118 del Reglamento SINPE. Primero, la información brindada o que pueda brindar el BCCR al Instituto de Control de Drogas (ICD), al Organismo de Investigación Judicial y al Ministerio Público, se enmarca dentro de las facultades reconocidas por la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, la Ley 8204 y recientemente por la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Legislación contra el Terrorismo (Ley no. 8719 de 4 de marzo de 2009), en virtud del rol supervisor y fiscalizador del Banco Central. Segundo, dicha información no es utilizada ni para el provecho de terceros ni para su divulgación, por el contrario, esta debe entenderse como información preventiva, que en caso de ser requerida, se ajuste a los fines del cardinal primero de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones. Tercero, relacionado con el anterior, el Banco Central como operador del SAC y del SINPE está obligado a mantener la confidencialidad de la información que obtiene, según se desprende de los preceptos 119 inciso c), 166 de la Ley 7732; 13 párrafo final de la Ley 7558; 44, 133 del Reglamento SINPE; 12 del Reglamento sobre los Sistemas de Anotación en Cuenta; 339 del Código Penal, 10 y 11 de la Ley 8968. En la legislación nacional entonces, se establece expresamente que tal ingerencia así como el acceso a la documentación privada no son violatorios a los derechos de intimidad y privacidad de las personas, sino que obedece a una labor sustantiva de orden público (en esta línea se ha manifestado la Sala Constitucional en el Voto no. 5275-03 de las 14 horas con 53 minutos del 18 de junio de 2003). Las funciones de regulación y fiscalización que realiza el BCCR, son necesarias para el debido control de las transacciones financieras en el país y su labor va dirigida a velar porque las operaciones que se den en la transferencia de fondos y valores sean lícitas, fin que justifica el reconocimiento de la información que solicita el cardinal 118 del Reglamento SINPE. Se busca con ello, mantener la solvencia, estabilidad y liquidez del sistema financiero nacional, dentro de un ambiente de legalidad, protegiendo al mismo inversionista; razones que además son de interés público. Motivos que se encuentran claramente definidos tanto en la Ley Orgánica del BCCR, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores y la Ley 8204. Por lo que no llevan razón los recurrentes cuando afirman que se vulneran los artículos 11, 24, 28, 121 de la Constitución Política, 19 de la LGAP y 108 de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. De ahí que el reproche no sea de recibo para casar el fallo cuestionado.” For the purpose of supervising specific activities, due to their importance in society, it created four superintendencies, structured as organs of maximum deconcentration, namely, the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (Sugef), the Superintendencia General de Valores (Sugeval), the Superintendencia de Pensiones (Supen), and, recently, the Superintendencia General de Seguros (Sugese). Of these, the latter two have instrumental legal personality. From an organic perspective, each of them has a superintendent, who acts as the chief officer in administrative matters. They are responsible, according to their subject matter, for verifying compliance by the supervised entities with the provisions that make up the respective regulatory subsystems, as well as the stability of the system, in what pertains to them according to their scope of competence. Along with the superintendencies, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores also created an organ called the Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero. This body is primarily assigned the task of regulating the system and simultaneously acts as the improper single-phase hierarchical superior of the superintendencies for purposes of challenge (article 171 of Ley 7732). Of relevance to this appeal, it is important to note that the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores also created Sugeval as an organ of "maximum deconcentration of the Banco Central de Costa Rica" (article 3). Its primary function is to ensure the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices in those markets, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. This competence, in accordance with canon 3 ibid., is exercised over all securities markets, the activity of natural or legal persons that intervene directly or indirectly in them, and the acts or contracts related to them, as provided by law. This general competence over the securities market is aimed at guaranteeing the stability of the market in pursuit of its development, as well as the protection of the investor. The supervisory organs, including Sugeval, are organs of maximum deconcentration of the BCCR that participate in supervising compliance with the monetary policies issued by it, including that aimed at promoting the efficiency and normal functioning of the internal and external payments system.

IV.- Regarding regulatory power. The main object of this litigation, developed in greater detail in the first objection of the appeal by the plaintiff Chamber, is limited to determining whether the challenged norm (article 113 of the SINPE Regulation) falls within the scope of competence that, in matters of issuing infra-legal norms, the legal system assigns to the BCCR. In this regard, it is essential to briefly refer to the content of regulatory power and the different types of regulations that the Public Administration may issue. Traditionally, it has been indicated that these can be classified into two large groups, for which one may consult the vote of this Chamber no. 749-F-04 of 9:30 a.m. on September 10, 2004, and of the Constitutional Chamber, among others, rulings no. 2005-14286 of 2:45 p.m. on October 19, 2005, and 2007-02063 of 2:45 p.m. on February 14, 2007. The first of these, regulated in numeral 140, subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution, is the executive, through which the contents of a legal-rank norm are developed. It is a complementary provision, which serves to specify the content or to facilitate the implementation of what is mandated in the law. In this sense, constitutional jurisprudence has indicated that this type of norm can only come from the Executive Branch. On this point, the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that it is not "...possible to attempt to make an extensive interpretation in favor of other public agencies..." (vote no. 17599-2006 of 3:00 p.m. on December 6, 2006). It should be added that it is an autonomous power, whose authorization is given generically in the Magna Carta, so that the Executive Branch is empowered to regulate, motu proprio, any law of the Republic. In other words, the existence or not of an authorization in the law is irrelevant, insofar as the competence is given at the constitutional level and can be exercised with respect to all issued laws, whether they provide for it or not. This, of course, without prejudice to a legal norm converting this power into a duty, a situation that, in any case, does not change its nature. The second type of regulation is that of autonomous regulations, which have the purpose of regulating the organization of administrative agencies (in which case they are called "autonomous of organization"), or the functioning of the public services they provide (referred to generically as "autonomous of service"). These can emanate from both the Central Administration and the decentralized one. In the case of the former, by virtue of the express text contained in subsection 18) of cardinal 140 of the Constitution, and for the latter, as a logical and necessary derivation of the power of self-organization implicit in the degree of administrative or first-degree autonomy granted to them at the time of their creation (considerations noted in greater detail, by resolution of this Chamber no. 001000-F-S1-2010 of 9:35 a.m. on August 26, 2010).

V.- In this specific case, it is important to clarify two aspects of transcendental importance, before addressing the merits of the appeal. First, it must be made clear that the plaintiff's claim for nullity is referred only to article 113 of the SINPE Regulation and not to the entirety of that regulatory body. Second, it is necessary to illustrate that after the issuance of the challenged judgment, the Payments System Regulation (approved by the Junta Directiva of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, through article 11 of the minutes of session 5416-2009, held on March 11, 2009) was modified, so the originally questioned article 113 changed its numbering, and currently corresponds to precept 118 ibid. However, the analyzed article maintains its original wording, which literally states: "Identification of third-party accounts. Third-party accounts are identified by the name and identification number of their holders, as well as by a code by type of investor". For the purposes of this appeal, it will henceforth be referred to as canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation. The BCCR is an autonomous institution under public law, with its own legal personality and assets, and which also forms part of the National Banking System (article 1 of its Organic Law). This entity’s main objective is to maintain the internal and external stability of the national currency and ensure its convertibility. Likewise, Ley 7558 imposed a series of subsidiary objectives on the BCCR, among others, the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payments system and maintain its normal functioning (canon 2, subsection c) ibid.). In line with the above, that regulatory body established that for the proper fulfillment of its purposes, the Bank must have essential functions such as the establishment, operation, and oversight of clearing systems; and to erect the regulations for the creation, functioning, and control of financial entities (precept 3 subsections i), j) of Ley 7558). In addition to the above, article 69 of the analyzed regulatory body categorically states: "...The Junta Directiva of the Banco Central de Costa Rica shall organize and regulate the functioning of the payments system...". Thus, it can be established that the BCCR has been assigned several tasks by its Organic Law. It is worth highlighting the obligation to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payments system and maintain its normal functioning; a task that is currently fundamental, because the existence of a safe, effective, and efficient payments system is of vital importance for the normal performance of the economy, both for internal and external operations. A payments system is constituted by a set of instruments, banking procedures, and systems for the transfer of funds and securities that ensure their circulation in the financial and stock markets, respectively. They are mechanisms used for the movement of funds, money, and securities; they also contribute to the development of payments between financial entities, internally and externally. As can be observed from the cited articles, the legislator chose to entrust the Central Bank with the promotion and proper functioning of the payments system, since through it, it could regulate the money markets. Thus, the Court is correct in considering that from the analysis of these legal concepts, the possibility of the Central Bank to establish, by regulatory means, the Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos, and everything related to its regulation, functioning, and control, is inferred. In this context, the judges determined that: "(...) In the specific case before us, specifically Ley 7558 (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica) in its numerals 2, 3 and 69, expressly confers regulatory power on the Central Bank to regulate everything related to the functioning of the SINPE (...) It is clear to this Court from the cited regulations, that autonomous or autarchic entities, among them, the Banco Central de Costa Rica possess the power to issue normative provisions of general scope. However, it is worth noting here that said normative provisions, unlike the case of the Executive Branch, in principle, should not contemplate the possibility of issuing legal aspects with erga omnes binding effect for all inhabitants of the Republic, as occurs in the case of executive decrees that regulate norms with the rank of law in a formal and material sense emanating from the Legislature. Rather, it is limited solely to provisions regarding the organization, the service, and within the particular legal relationships with the entity, or within the scope of a special subjection relationship, which undoubtedly happens in this matter in relation to the users of the system. And it is this last aspect that is established in the transcribed articles of Ley 7558 and its reforms, where the legislator expressly attributes to the Bank the regulation of aspects inherent to the efficient functioning of the SINPE, through the issuance of legal norms of infra-legal rank and general scope via autonomous regulation. The foregoing in clear subjection to the principle of legality embodied in articles 11 of Ley 6227 and 11 of the current Constitution (...)" (dictum of the judgment from 8:20 a.m. on February 22, 2010). Note that it was through its own law of creation that this objective was granted to the BCCR, which is intimately linked to the rest of the assigned tasks, especially regarding the maintenance of a stable and efficient financial and clearing system.

VI.- The appellants also warn within their first challenge, that after the Organic Law of the Central Bank came into effect, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores was enacted, which introduced a series of changes in the competencies assigned to the BCCR. In this sense, they explain, all the competencies regarding the organization and functioning of securities registries and their identification systems were assigned to Sugveval, so in their opinion, a maximum deconcentration occurred by virtue of precept 3 of Ley 7732. Article 116 ibid., they point out, is a norm subsequent to the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, for this reason, in their judgment, this norm should prevail over Ley 7558, by virtue of a correct legal hermeneutics and considering both chronological and special criteria. This Chamber must indicate that deconcentration effectively appears as a technique for distributing competencies among different organs of the same entity or superior organ; and whose purpose is to entrust a specialized organ within an administrative structure with the exercise of specific competencies in order to achieve greater efficiency. Deconcentration is contemplated in norm 83 of the General Law of Public Administration by establishing that: "Every organ other than the chief officer shall be fully subordinated to the latter and to the immediate hierarchical superior, except for deconcentration operated by law or by regulation...". In this normative precept, two modalities are established, the minimum and the maximum. The minimum informs that the superior cannot delegate the competencies of the inferior nor review or substitute the conduct of the inferior, ex officio or at the request of a party. In the maximum, in addition to the foregoing, the superior cannot give orders, instructions, or circulars to the inferior. Up to this point, the representatives of Nombre223272 are correct. However, one must not forget that the assignment of the scope of competencies of the deconcentrated organ has its origin, normally, in the norm that creates and regulates it. In the event of containing powers of authority, such norm must be of legal rank. But, if the attributions do not involve powers of authority, the assignment may be made through regulations. The purpose of deconcentration is to transfer competencies, and to establish the degree of independence with which these functions can be exercised. It is not about simple attributions; what is sought is the specialization of certain organs in specific matters, in pursuit of satisfying the tasks entrusted to the maximum entity (public purpose). But this does not mean that such competencies are organically separated from the original structure. For this reason, it is essential to refer to the norm that created the deconcentration, since it will be the one that establishes the type and scope of deconcentration and what powers the superior retains over what is deconcentrated. The scope of a maximum deconcentration in the terms of article 83 ibid. is not discussed here; on the contrary, when the competence is transferred, it is clear that the hierarchical superior is incompetent to issue acts related to the deconcentrated matter. What must be defined is that the chief officer maintains his competence in the areas not covered by the deconcentration. The deconcentrated organ, then, remains subject to hierarchy in those areas. For this reason, it is insisted, it is fundamental to respect the principle of legality to determine the scope of competence of the entity or the superior or main organ. In the case under review, as indicated above, the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores created the Superintendencia General de Valores as an organ of "maximum deconcentration of the Banco Central de Costa Rica" (article 3). Its primary purpose is to ensure the transparency of the securities markets, the correct formation of prices in them, the protection of investors, and the dissemination of the information necessary to ensure the achievement of these purposes. In this sense, it is true that article 116 of Ley 7732 granted Sugeval the power to regulate the organization and functioning of the registries, identification systems, and the control of securities represented by electronic book entries, as well as the relations and communications of the entities in charge of such registries with issuers and stock exchanges. However, the BCCR continues to maintain its condition as the directing entity and, therefore, the ultimate regulator of the financial, monetary, and credit system; since it is responsible for directing monetary, credit, and financial policy and guaranteeing the smooth functioning of the financial system (according to article 3 of its Organic Law). In this regard, the duty to promote the efficiency of the internal and external payments system, and maintain its normal functioning (canon 2 subsection c) ibid.), is not a function that has been deconcentrated to Sugeval; on the contrary, this is one of the objectives that the Central Bank must constantly pursue, and must even be classified as "essential." It suffices to recall that it was the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores itself that confirmed what has been said, when through its article 188, subsection d), it expressly modified precept 69 of the Organic Law of the BCCR. With this reform, the legislator reaffirmed the duty of the Junta Directiva of the BCCR to organize and regulate the functioning of the payments system (formerly called only the Clearing House). In this sense, the legislator considered that the Central Bank's participation in matters of the payments system was inherent to it as it is essential to its priority purpose, and that the Organic Law of the Central Bank so commands. It should be highlighted at this point that the term encompasses establishing, regulating, operating, and supervising the system. The Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, for its part, does not determine that the functions of Sugeval in relation to the payments system and the service that involves the administration of the registry of book-entry securities, have been assigned to that organ on an exclusive basis; on the contrary, from the relationship of articles 188, subsection d) of the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores and 2, 3, 69 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, it is deduced that the National Payments System (creation and functioning) must be in the hands of the BCCR. Therefore, these tasks concerning the system are the competence of the Junta Directiva of the Bank (it is also derived from subsections c, h, l of article 28 of its Organic Law). Article 116 of Ley 7732 provided that Sugeval could regulate the organization and functioning of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by electronic book entries; however, this was done in a generic and not special manner, since the legislator always considered keeping this task in the hands of the Central Bank. In reality, the duty that the BCCR maintained in this regard was never eliminated, since it would be incompatible with the independence of the Central Bank to establish institutional factors that tend to subject it to instructions, authorizations, suspensions, and even worse, to restrict its competence regarding decisions related to monetary policy and the rest of its subsidiary objectives (among them, the maintenance of the SINPE). The existence of a permit or prohibition to exercise a specific monetary instrument would imply a limit to the cited independence and competencies, since the Central Bank would see its faculties limited to establish the strategy aimed at achieving the objectives defined in article 2 of Ley 7558. Nor is the issue exhausted in institutional independence (defining the objectives of monetary policy) but also involves functional independence to decide the application of the monetary policy instruments that the legislator established, understood as the selection of which instrument should be used and how it should be done; as happens with the Book-Entry System (which will be examined in greater detail in the following recital) and the SINPE. Within this scheme, a supervisory entity cannot assume the definition of organizational aspects of a system that is administered by the Monetary Authority, since it would affect its independence and, consequently, could also risk the efficiency of the financial system. In the sub júdice, the BCCR regulated a service that its Organic Law entrusted to it, so it is not true that the Bank is being recognized competencies that belong to Sugeval (as defined in cardinal 3 of its Regulatory Law) or that this regulation is not consistent with the subsequent legal norms that were introduced in Ley 7732.

VII.- Having analyzed the regulatory power that the Central Bank has to issue the SINPE Regulation, it is next necessary to refer to the Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta (SAC hereinafter); since the article challenged by the plaintiff is found within the Book of the Regulation called "Anotación en Cuenta". The book-entry and settlement systems are based on the representation of securities through book entries. It is a computerized system for creating and registering securities representing capital through the book-entry method. The security is constituted, deposited, and transferred as a book entry, legal acts that do not materialize. This is the trend followed by the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. Thus, article 115 of that regulatory body establishes: "...The issuances of securities registered in the Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios may be represented by electronic book entries or by certificates...". The securities clearing and settlement system shall seek, says Ley 7732 in its cardinal 129, the generalization of the electronic book-entry system, except for the exceptions authorized by the Superintendency by virtue of market circumstances or the particular nature of certain securities. Securities represented by electronic book entries shall be constituted and transmitted by virtue of their inscription in the corresponding accounting register (articles 122 and 123 ibid.). Modern securities clearing and settlement systems tend to dematerialize securities, which is achieved through representation by book entries. According to the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, the book entry may be in charge of the Banco Central de Costa Rica or of central securities depositories (precept 117). This accounting register of securities represented by electronic book entries, proclaims canon 117 of Ley 7732, shall be kept by a two-tier system: a) the first tier is formed by the BCCR (which is responsible for administering the register of issuances by the State and public institutions) and by the central securities depositories authorized by the Superintendency (which shall be responsible for administering the register of issuances by private issuers); b) the second tier is formed by the entities adhered to the SAC, which may be all those authorized to provide custody services and the settling members of the Sistema Nacional de Compensación y Liquidación de Valores. Within these latter entities, brokerage houses are eminently found.

The Regulation of the Book-Entry System (Reglamento del Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta) (agreement adopted by the National Council for Supervision of the Financial System, through article 10 of the minutes of session 606-2006, held on September 28, 2006) regulates in greater detail the organization and operation of the registries, the identification systems, and the control of securities represented by electronic book entries. This Regulation provides that the Central Bank is responsible for administering the accounting registry of securities by electronic book entry for issuances of the State and public institutions, and may delegate this function to a central securities depository (canon 19). It also mentions that only member entities of the National Book-Entry Registration System that are constituted as central securities depositories, authorized for such purpose by the Superintendency, may provide the services of administering the accounting registry of securities by electronic book entry for issuances of private issuers (article 21). This is how securities registries are administered in Costa Rica according to their issuer. Now then, in practice, the SAC functions as a service provided by the BCCR, which was added to the SINPE platform due to the facilities and security that this latter system offered in the country for the transfer of funds; this implied leveraging the tool that was available by adding one more service (the transfer of securities). The SAC has four clearly defined specific services: 1. the issuance registration service, which functions as a registry where the BCCR and the Ministry of Finance register the issuances that Sugeval authorizes them to place in the securities market; 2. securities accounts, which is the service responsible for controlling and maintaining the accounts; 3. market settlement, which allows the National Stock Exchange to connect with SINPE to send for settlement both the primary and secondary exchange markets; and finally, 4. a securities transfer service for managing those securities movements that are not onerous in nature (on this topic, the BCCR witness, Mr. Nombre223273, spoke extensively during the oral and public trial starting at 10 hours 6 minutes on February 15, 2010). Although the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain an article referring to the Bank's participation in the creation of a book-entry system, from a detailed analysis of cardinals 2 and 3 of that Law, it is indeed inferred that book-entry systems fall within the sphere of the Bank's competencies; given that the BCCR, for the fulfillment of its macroeconomic objectives, must inevitably provide the national economy with an agile, modern, efficient, and secure financial system. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the Central Bank is responsible for "establishing, operating, and overseeing the clearing systems," and although the legislator was not precise on this specific topic, it nevertheless refers to the entire clearing system, relating to the financial system as a whole; therefore, both the clearing of funds and the clearing of securities. While article 68 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank does not contain detailed regulations like those existing in article 69 thereof for the payment system, the truth is that the clearing of funds and securities is provided for there; it suffices that they are clearable securities. Thus, from the analysis of Law 7558, it is concluded that the Central Bank has, among its functions, the development of a securities clearing system. In this understanding, the SAC plays a very important role as a component of the financial system, for which reason, the Bank, in fulfillment of the objective of achieving financial and monetary stability, must promote, drive, and supervise its development, adhering to the letter of article 3 thereof; hence the issuance of the criticized article is in accordance with the legal system.

VIII.- The appellants question the judges' assessment of canon 40, second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Law 7558, to justify the client's general information that numeral 118 of the Electronic Payments Regulation requires to be recorded by the brokerage firms in SINPE. The rule 40 considered by the Tribunal, they comment, has no relevance whatsoever, since it refers to the duty of assistance of public entities and bodies, and not of subjects of private law. They argue that this is not information that Sugeval holds and is providing to the Bank, but rather that the BCCR is requesting it directly from the brokerage firms. Regarding the argument presented, the Tribunal considered: "(...) Article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica in its second, third, and fourth paragraphs, expressly establishes the legal obligation upon every public dependency and office, as well as upon every autonomous entity; concepts that encompass deconcentrated bodies with a minimum or maximum degree of deconcentration attached thereto, to provide their assistance to the Bank for the fulfillment of its functions, which implies, as derived from the literal text of the cited legal norm, providing as quickly as possible the data, reports, and studies that are requested. It is within the concept of data, and in general the concept of information provided for in the norm, where without great effort it is concluded that the client's general information that numeral 113 of the Electronic Payments Regulation requires to be recorded by the brokerage firms in SINPE is included (...)" (considerations set forth by the judges during the issuance of the judgment, at 8 hours 31 minutes on February 22, 2010). Article 40 of Law 7558 encompasses the duty incumbent upon State offices and dependencies, and autonomous institutions, to provide assistance and grant general information to the BCCR's departments, so that the Bank can efficiently fulfill its functions. This duty, considering the literal text of the norm, is inferred to fall upon public offices and dependencies; however, in the specific case, it is feasible to recognize an analogical integration for the situation being analyzed, because there is no norm in Law 7558 that imposes this duty on private entities, despite the fact that the BCCR uses this data for the exclusive fulfillment of one of its objectives. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that the Tribunal did not solely justify the BCCR's power to request the questioned information based on article 40 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank, since it also conducted an analysis of the BCCR's powers to request the criticized data, in relation to the powers granted to supervisory entities in the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter Law No. Placa5173). This is because the data mentioned in cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation are of vital importance to combat and prevent money laundering and related activities through the transfer of securities. An aspect that will be analyzed in greater detail in the following grievance. Thus, no direct violation of the analyzed norm by the judges is found, since the information requested is related to one of the services that that entity provides directly to the entities adhered to SINPE and the SAC, among these latter, the brokerage firms. The request for the information contemplated by canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation is made so that the BCCR can fulfill one of its basic objectives (maintaining efficient payment and clearing systems), as established by cardinals 2, 3, 24, 69 in relation to canon 40, all of Law 7558. In relation to this argument, they also accuse that article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is absolutely null, for violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness in the scope of regulatory power, given that the BCCR lacked the competence to regulate the registries and identification systems related to the securities markets. Through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payment System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients may be imposed, which would generate inequality. The Constitutional Chamber has said the following regarding the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness: "… An aspect of the first order in every administrative act is proportionality in the strict sense between the means employed by the respective public administration and the ends sought to be achieved with it, as well as the suitability or necessity of its content and, of course, when it is afflictive or burdensome, the weighing of its intervention or minimum impact. Precisely for the foregoing reason, the principle of the prohibition of arbitrariness has emerged in contemporary Constitutional Law, as one of the guiding principles of the administrative function, according to which administrative conduct must be sufficiently coherent and reasonably supported by the block of legality, so that it suffices and explains itself. In our constitutional legal system, such a principle arises from the provisions of the first part of article 11 of the Political Constitution…" (resolution no. 2004-14421 at 11 hours on December 17, 2004). The fundamental objective is to prevent arbitrariness on the part of the public agent, understood as the lack of objective legal support or foundation for an administrative conduct, consequently violating the existing block of legality. In regulatory matters, this principle plays a relevant role within the legal system. In the sub lite case, as indicated above, the Central Bank was legally empowered to issue the SINPE Regulation and therefore the questioned article. From the analysis of numerals 2, 3, and 69 of its Organic Law, it is inferred how the legislator entrusted this function to it, for which reason reference is made to the considerations set forth in the fifth considerando. Due to the express mandate that Law 7558 made to the BCCR to create, legalize, and control the Payment System, this Collegiate Body considers that the alleged conflict of competencies between the SUGEVAL's regulatory powers in relation to those conferred upon the BCCR does not exist, for which reason the grievance must be dismissed.

IX.- Within the first objection, they finally reproach that the challenged norm places in the hands of the BCCR, which in turn is an issuer in the Costa Rican securities market, information that is not of a public nature and that could even be used for its own benefit in its capacity as a market participant. They add that the Central Bank acts as a competitor of the Brokerage Firms in the market, and through the identification mechanism provided for in the Payment System Regulation, they reproach, knowledge of their competitors' clients is imposed, which generates inequality. This Chamber must indicate that the BCCR's participation in the creation of a book-entry system that contemplates not only public debt but also private debt was based on the Bank's authority regarding the financial sector. As clearing and settlement processes, including book-entry registries, are processes of a financial, economic, and legal nature, they are of interest and competence to the central bank. In this sense, the regulation of the system must maintain a close correspondence with the rest of the legal system, among them with Law 8204, through the establishment of transparent and non-discriminatory norms, based on objective criteria in relation to the services that can be accessed. For this reason, one of the main reasons why the Central Bank requires the information discussed here is to faithfully comply with the commandments contained in Law 8204 and not to compete, as the appellants allege. Likewise, the BCCR, when issuing open market operations, does so as an instrument of financial policy, in order to maintain market stability, and does not do so for profit or for its own advantage. Due to its institutional position, it must be remembered, the BCCR has a transcendental role in monitoring the normal functioning of clearing systems. This competence may be linked to a supervisory task, aimed at maintaining the stability of the financial system, preventing the presence of a domino effect in case of liquidity or credit problems on the part of any financial agent. The correct functioning of the clearing and payment systems, as well as the stability of the financial system, is fundamental for the adequate execution of monetary policy; without prejudice to also recognizing the need to maintain confidence in the security and reliability of the systems, in order to preserve the efficiency of the markets and the security of the investment. The Bank's role is restricted to the duty of direction and supervision proper and necessary to achieve system stability and the realization of its monetary policy. Consequently, it is not true that the data the Central Bank obtains through canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation are used for its advantage or to compete in the market, given that this is not its function; a fact that, moreover, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff Chamber throughout the process. In this way, the first ground must be dismissed in all its aspects.

X.- In the second of the grievances, they allege errors of interpretation by the Tribunal concerning the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Financing of Terrorism (Law No. 8204). They comment that the questioned judgment considers that the National Electronic Payment System is an electronic means of transferring capital to prevent the commission of illicit acts and achieve effective oversight work according to Law 8204. In the Tribunal's judgment, they say, this subjection to the indicated norm implies that pursuant to article 16 thereof, the subjects described in canon 14 of that regulatory body must maintain the identity of the persons who open accounts or carry out transactions, and that the BCCR as supervisor must also ensure compliance with the Law. They assert that it is not true that cardinal 113 of the SINPE Payment Regulation is required to give effective compliance to Law 8204. The foregoing because, in their view, that Law is clear in conferring upon Sugeval the competence to act in determining the origin and provenance of funds that may be linked to illicit activities. They consider that, although there is an accessory function of the BCCR referring to its duty to collaborate with Law 8204, the truth is that said Law is also clear in establishing Sugeval's own and specific competencies in matters of registration, control, and issuance of securities; and in turn, in establishing the duties of brokerage firms to inform Sugeval regarding their clients and investments. They transcribe numerals 14, 16, and 22 thereof, which they consider erroneously applied. In this way, they consider that Sugeval is the one competent in securities matters to ensure compliance with Law 8204, and it is the responsibility of each brokerage firm to inform Sugeval and not the BCCR. They assert that it is not true that the BCCR's intervention in matters of identifying securities accounts is required to comply with Law No. 8204. They warn that regulated entities such as brokerage firms are subject to rigorous control norms for the exercise of their activities and are also obliged to comply with the provisions relating to Law 8204; so in their judgment, the full identification of holders is also not justified from a perspective where it could be considered a contribution to the reliability of the registries. They allege that this legal duty of identification only applies to regulated entities and not to the BCCR, so the challenged article cannot be supported by said regulation.

XI.- Among the objectives of Law 8204, regulating and sanctioning financial activities stand out, in order to prevent money laundering and actions that may serve to finance terrorist activities (article 1). This prevention regime aims to regulate the obligations, actions, and procedures to prevent and impede the use of the financial system, as well as other sectors of economic activity, for the laundering of capital from any type of criminal participation. To this effect, the Law establishes a series of obligations that certain subjects must fulfill. Article 14 of Law 8204 considers entities subject to the obligations of the Law to be those that regulate, supervise, and oversee, namely: Sugef, Sugeval, Supen, and Sugese. Likewise, the obligations of the Law are applicable to all entities or companies that are part of the financial groups supervised by the aforementioned bodies, including financial transactions carried out by banks or financial entities domiciled abroad, through a financial entity domiciled in Costa Rica. The Law pays special attention to systematic or substantial money and fund exchange operations, carried out by any means and which, in this Chamber's judgment, could be carried out through the SINPE platform. For this reason, the bodies described in numeral 14 thereof must ensure that individuals or legal entities, whatever their legal domicile or place of operation, do not operate in Costa Rican territory that, habitually and for any reason, carry out those activities without authorization. It is appropriate to clarify that these operations, even if carried out by authorized persons, may be suspicious, hence the control must be permanent. Those financial activities developed by clients of supervised entities that, due to their magnitude, lack of regularity, speed of turnover, or unjustified complexity conditions, appear to lack economic sense or a lawful purpose, are suspicious. Article 24 of Law 8204 defines them as "...those carried out outside the patterns of habitual transactions and those that are not significant but are periodic, without evident economic or legal basis...". At the same time, numerals 16 to 23 of the analyzed legislative body proclaim basic conditions that the supervised entities must meet to reduce the risks that financial activity provokes within the paradigm of the money launderer. Among others, the following stand out: 1. the precise identification of clients; 2. maintenance of nominative accounts; 3. prohibition of opening anonymous accounts or accounts under fictitious names; 4. verification, by reliable documentary means, of the identity, representation, domicile, occupation, or corporate purpose of the clients; 5. maintenance of documentary records during the term of the operation and for at least five years after the termination of the commercial link; 6. recording of every cash transaction in national or foreign currency equal to or exceeding $10,000; 7. special attention to atypical financial activities, such as those carried out outside usual patterns or lacking economic basis; and 8. duty to communicate suspicious financial operations to the supervisory and oversight bodies. According to these obligations, any individual or legal entity whose economic activity is included in the assumption of the norms must be supervised by any of the superintendencies charged with regulating and controlling matters of compliance with anti-money laundering norms or by the Central Bank as appropriate. This action is justified not only before the need to implement mechanisms that prevent the entry of illegal capital, but also because they constitute financial actions vulnerable to the entry of illicit assets. These compliance programs for the regulations aimed at preventing the entry of "dirty" money into the financial and stock market system are linked with internationally assumed commitments and recommendations that require the national financial system to develop and execute programs of such nature. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), to which Costa Rica belongs, evaluates compliance with various recommendations aimed at preventing, among other aspects, the penetration of capital from criminal actions into the national financial system. There is also, at the banking level, the Declaration of Principles of the Basel Committee, which seeks to prevent banks and other financial institutions from being used for transfers or deposits of funds of illicit origin. Within this regulatory analysis, norm 28 of Law 8204 is of capital importance, as it grants the bodies endowed with oversight and supervisory powers certain obligations in relation to compliance with the same norm, such as monitoring the effective compliance with the registration and notification obligations that the Law indicates, but principally cooperating with the competent authorities and providing them with technical assistance, within the framework of the investigations and processes concerning the crimes typified in the Law. This last precept unquestionably reflects that the Central Bank is among the bodies endowed with supervisory and oversight powers. For this reason, the BCCR incorporated article 118 into the SINPE Regulation, to have available in its registries all the information required to identify the individuals or legal entities who carried out securities transactions in SINPE, since at any time the competent authorities could require that information as provided by Law 8204 and the Law on the Registry, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications (Law No. Placa42033). In this way, the Tribunal correctly specifies that: "(...) The cited legislation evidently emerges as a legal bastion concomitantly with the Organic Law of the Central Bank to support the issuance of article 113 of the SINPE Payment Regulation; and if analyzed from this perspective, said article rather seems too timid with respect to the information that must be included in financial and stock market transfers. Requesting that a subject be identified by their name, identification document number, and with the assignment of a code for the activity they carry out, evidently are not contrary to the right to privacy since in any case a protected legal right of the highest public interest and immeasurable value is at stake, which is the security of the Nation and of the inhabitants of the Republic. Which can be evidently affected in the event that the State incurs an omission by exercising its supervisory competence in the interest of allowing and sanctioning the commission of illicit acts such as the laundering of capital from criminal activities or destined for the carrying out of said illicit activities (...)" (recording of the judgment at 8 hours 29 minutes). This Chamber also considers that the information requested from the brokerage firms through article 118 of the SINPE Regulation is meager if the nature and philosophy of Law 8204 are analyzed in depth. And there is no doubt that money laundering is a form of concealment (article 69 of Law 8204), whose protected legal right is the administration of justice and public security, since the actions directed at revealing the link between the predicate offense and the assets originating as a consequence thereof, harm the correct administration of justice, by obstructing the respective investigation; hence the importance of having a firm and secure financial system, from its apex, which is unquestionably in the hands of the Central Bank. The latter must not only regulate and control SINPE, but must also be a guarantor in the correct application of the postulates of Law 8204, just like the supervisory entities (among them Sugeval) and each of the supervised entities (such as brokerage firms). On the occasion of the transfer of securities, Law 8204 must be applied by all participants in the securities market, be they supervisory entities or entities adhered to the SAC, with the objective of creating a system against money laundering and related activities. Note that if, due to facts or illicit acts contemplated in the Law, an investigation is initiated by the competent authorities (judicial or administrative), every financial entity or entity part of a financial group will have the obligation to safeguard the information, documents, securities, and money that may be used as evidence or proof within the investigation or in a judicial process. The law even establishes the duty of these offices that the money or securities held on deposit or in custody be frozen or deposited in the Central Bank of Costa Rica, informing the authorities of the actions taken (article 86). In merit of the reasons elucidated, the grievance is dismissed, and the ruling, on this point, must be confirmed.

XII.- In the third and last charge, they question that the appealed judgment did not consider the violation of the right to privacy incurred with the information provided through the SINPE Regulation. They state that, although the names and identification numbers of a person's ID card consist of public data, the disclosure of the ownership of a specific securities account, which is carried out by linking said name and identification to a specific securities account, does constitute a sensitive fact.

They argue that the names of persons who have investments and securities accounts with each brokerage firm are being revealed, and that information, they state, does have a sensitive nature. The foregoing, they claim, constitutes an intrusion into private life that, besides being unreasonable, empties the essential content of stock market confidentiality (secreto bursátil) and is unconstitutional. In this regard, they contend that the SINPE Regulation obligates brokerage firms to provide the BCCR with personal information and data of their clients that are protected by the principle of confidentiality, the right to privacy, and stock market confidentiality, since it is revealing the identity of persons who hold securities accounts. They invoke precepts 24 of the Political Constitution and 108 of the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores) in support of their grievance. Regarding Article 108 ibidem, they point out that it regulates what is known as stock market confidentiality or “stock market secrecy”; which exists by reason of protecting transparency in the price formation of securities markets. In support of their challenge, they mention jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber on the right to privacy and bank secrecy, as well as national doctrine on the subject. Finally, they emphasize that, concerning the right to privacy, the regulation should be supported by a law, since only in this way is it possible to regulate and, where appropriate, restrict fundamental rights, pursuant to Articles 11, 28, 121 of the Magna Carta and 19 of the LGAP.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">XIII.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> Regarding the potential breach of the right to privacy and stock market confidentiality, which originates with the application of canon 118 of the SINPE Regulation; it must be indicated that the information requested by SINPE does not entail that violation, since the data requested, namely the name, identification number, and a code to identify the activity carried out, cannot be considered sensitive, intimate, or private information for the reasons that will be analyzed below. Any data relating to ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affinity, sexual preferences, or commercial or financial development strategies of a company, among others of a similar nature for both natural and legal persons, would be. For this reason, that aspect fell outside the scope of coverage protected by the right to privacy. Article 24 of the Political Constitution enshrines the fundamental rights to privacy, to the inviolability of private documents, to the secrecy of communications, and to the right to informational self-determination or the right to have control over information that third parties hold about the person concerned. This information is comprised within matters that directly concern the personal sphere, whether because it refers to their family or private life, their beliefs, convictions or sexual preferences, commercial relations, among other aspects (developed in canon 9, subsection 1) of the Law for the Protection of the Person regarding the Processing of their Personal Data, Law No. 8968). On the other hand, there are personal data that are public or can be communicated to third parties, either because they appear in public registries, or because there is no duty of confidentiality, such as name, identification, profession, data on assets, and, in particular, the economic and financial situation of the person. Now, this latter information qualifies within what is known as private information and although it receives protection from the Constitution (Article 24, paragraph 2), its access may be authorized by law if there is a public interest at stake. In this regard, the cited Law 8968 states in precept 9 as follows: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">“2.- Restricted access personal data. Restricted access personal data are those that, even forming part of publicly accessible registries, are not of unrestricted access because they are of interest only to their holder or to the Public Administration. Their processing will be permitted only </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">for public purposes</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\"> or if the express consent of the holder is obtained… 4.- Data referring to credit behavior. Data referring to credit behavior shall be governed by the norms that regulate the National Financial System, so as to allow guaranteeing an acceptable degree of risk on the part of financial entities, without impeding the full exercise of the right to informational self-determination nor exceeding the limits of this law.</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">” But that protection does not mean that they must be framed within what doctrine, jurisprudence, and the Law know as “sensitive data.” For these reasons, it is important to distinguish between both types of data, since sensitive data have no relevance in the exercise of financial activity (regarding the prohibition on processing data relating to the intimate sphere of the citizen by entities not authorized to do so; the Constitutional Chamber has ruled in Voto no. 1176-2008 at 11 hours 21 minutes on January 25, 2008). In this way, the information on the identification of third-party accounts that the BCCR obtains on the occasion of the SAC, is not configured within the concept of sensitive data, for which reason this Chamber shares the reasons given by the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's allegation (according to the recording of the delivery of the sentence at 8 hours 35 minutes on February 22, 2010). Now, both the Organic Law of the Central Bank and Law 8204 empower the BCCR to request the information contemplated in cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation, with the sole and exclusive purpose of promoting the efficiency of the payment and clearing system, as well as to prevent money laundering; matters that are of undoubted public interest. In this way, it can be affirmed that the legal system allows the BCCR to request the information contained in precept 118 of the SINPE Regulation. Within this subject, it is true that canon 108 of Law 7732 regulates what is known as the stock market confidentiality that market participants must maintain regarding their clients. Traditionally, bank or stock market confidentiality has been conceived as one of the main duties arising from commercial relations—perfect or imperfect—between banks, financial institutions, and in this case between brokerage firms and their clients. This confidentiality obligates the entities to keep silent, that is, not to divulge or reveal that information about clients and the operations they have carried out or have been about to carry out. It tends to protect that private link between the parties, which materializes through different physical or computer files or documents, containing aspects related to client identification, the origin and destination of funds, periodic movements, profits, investments, losses, transfers, and relations with other persons or institutions. Law 8204, as of chapter four, incorporated into the legal system not only the legal tools to investigate the crime of money laundering, but also created the institutions and coordination mechanisms of the entities responsible for its supervision, execution, and investigation. This fact has generated much controversy regarding the information requested by supervisory entities (among them the Central Bank), since it has been considered that these mechanisms violate bank secrecy. A fact that does not escape the case under examination. For this reason, this Chamber considers it essential to highlight three aspects regarding Article 118 of the SINPE Regulation. First, the information provided or that may be provided by the BCCR to the Institute for the Control of Drugs (ICD), the Judicial Investigation Agency, and the Public Ministry, falls within the powers recognized by the Organic Law of the Central Bank, Law 8204, and recently by the Law for the Strengthening of Legislation against Terrorism (Law No. 8719 of March 4, 2009), by virtue of the supervisory and oversight role of the Central Bank. Second, said information is not used for the benefit of third parties nor for its disclosure; on the contrary, this must be understood as preventive information, which, if required, conforms to the purposes of cardinal one of the Law on Registration, Seizure and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications. Third, related to the above, the Central Bank as operator of the SAC and SINPE is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the information it obtains, as is inferred from precepts 119, subsection c), 166 of Law 7732; 13 final paragraph of Law 7558; 44, 133 of the SINPE Regulation; 12 of the Regulation on Book-Entry Systems; 339 of the Penal Code, 10 and 11 of Law 8968. In national legislation, then, it is expressly established that such interference as well as access to private documentation are not violative of the rights of intimacy and privacy of persons, but rather respond to a substantive task of public order (the Constitutional Chamber has expressed itself along these lines in Voto no. 5275-03 at 14 hours 53 minutes on June 18, 2003). The regulatory and oversight functions carried out by the BCCR are necessary for the due control of financial transactions in the country and its work is aimed at ensuring that the operations taking place in the transfer of funds and securities are lawful, an end that justifies the recognition of the information requested by cardinal 118 of the SINPE Regulation. The aim is thereby to maintain the solvency, stability, and liquidity of the national financial system, within an environment of legality, protecting the investor themselves; reasons that are, moreover, of public interest. Motives that are clearly defined both in the Organic Law of the BCCR, the Securities Market Regulatory Law, and Law 8204. Therefore, the appellants are not correct when they affirm that Articles 11, 24, 28, 121 of the Political Constitution, 19 of the LGAP, and 108 of the Securities Market Regulatory Law are violated. Hence, the reproach is not admissible to quash the challenged ruling.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">XIV.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> By virtue of the foregoing, it shall be ordered to declare the appeal without merit, and to impose the costs generated by its filing on the appellant in accordance with precept 150, subsection 3) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">POR TANTO</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">The appeal is declared without merit, with costs to be borne by the appellant. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Anabelle León Feoli</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Luis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> Román Solís Zelaya</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Name11387</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> Name32003</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:200%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101\">Telephones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, electronic mail ...36</span></p>

*090006261027CA* Res. 001247-F-S1-2011 SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las trece horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintiséis de setiembre de dos mil once.

Proceso de conocimiento, establecido en el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda por CÁMARA DE INTERMEDIARIOS BURSÁTILES Y AFINIES (CAMBOLSA), representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma Nombre223270 , divorciado, corredor de bolsa, vecino de Alajuela; contra el BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA, actualmente representado por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, Nombre127978 , economista. Figuran además, como apoderados especiales judiciales, de la parte actora los licenciados Guillermo Solórzano Marín, vecino de Heredia, Marco Antonio López Volio, Fabián Volio Echeverría, no indica estado civil y domicilio, y las licenciadas Ana Elena Carro Aguilar, soltera, de domicilio no indicado y Nombre223271 . , y por parte del demandado las licenciadas Eliana Fonseca Rojas, soltera, y Marianne Kott Salas. Las personas físicas son mayores de edad y con las salvedades hechas, casados, abogados y vecinos de San José.

RESULTANDO

1.- Con base en los hechos que expuso y disposiciones legales que citó, la parte actora formuló demanda a fin de que en sentencia se declare, según petitoria de folio 8 y su aclaración en la audiencia preliminar visible a folio 170: Con lugar la demanda y se anule el artículo 113 del Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos Electrónicos aprobado por la Junta Directiva del Banco Central de Costa Rica de la sesión no. 5416-2009 del 11 de marzo del 2009 publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta no. 61 del 27 de marzo del 2009.

2.- La entidad demandada contestó negativamente y opuso las excepciones de falta de derecho, interés actual y de legitimación.

3.- La parte demandada expresó su negativa a conciliar por lo que se tuvo por fracasada dicha etapa procesal (f231-f232).

4.- La audiencia preliminar se efectuó a las 9 horas 15 minutos del 17 de diciembre de 2009, oportunidad en que hicieron uso de la palabra los representantes de las partes.

5.- El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Cuarta, integrado por las juezas Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, Sandra Quesada Vargas y el juez David Fallas Redondo, en sentencia oral no. 590-2010 de las 8 horas 7 minutos del 22 de febrero de 2010, resolvió: "Se rechaza (sic) las excepciones de falta de legitimación y falta de interés actual interpuesta (sic) por el Banco demandado. Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho y consecuentemente se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda intentada. Son ambas costas de esta acción a cargo de la parte actora.” 6.- Los apoderados de la parte actora formulan recurso de casación.

7.- En los procedimientos ante esta Sala se han observado las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta la Magistrada León Feoli

CONSIDERANDO

I.- La Junta Directiva del Banco Central de Costa Rica (en lo sucesivo BCCR) mediante artículo 11 del acta de la sesión 5416-2009 celebrada el 11 de marzo de 2009, aprobó el Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos Electrónicos (Reglamento del SINPE en adelante). El artículo 113 de ese cuerpo normativo, establece el deber de identificar las cuentas de terceros con el nombre del titular de la cuenta, su número de identidad y el código correspondiente al número de inversión realizada. En este proceso, la Cámara de Intermediarios Bursátiles y Afines (Cambolsa), pretende se decrete la nulidad absoluta de dicho artículo, porque en su criterio, el BCCR excedió los límites formales y sustanciales del ordenamiento jurídico para el ejercicio de la potestad reglamentaria; y además, impuso a los puestos de bolsa, el deber de suministrar la información personal y los datos de sus clientes, los cuales, a su entender, se encuentran protegidos por el principio de confidencialidad, el derecho a la intimidad y el secreto bursátil. Los puestos de bolsa como participantes del mercado de valores, señaló el representante legal de la Cámara demandante, no pueden brindar los datos relacionados con la identidad de sus clientes, puesto que el BCCR no tiene competencia legal para requerir esa información. Afirmó, tratándose de materias propias del derecho de la intimidad y manejo de datos personales, la regulación debe darse por ley, dado que solamente mediante una ley formal, es posible regular y restringir los derechos fundamentales, según los preceptos 11, 28, 121 de la Carta Magna, y 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (en próximas referencias se utilizará LGAP). Agregó, el Banco Central también vulneró el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad pues, a su entender, no existe norma legal que sirva de fundamento para que dicha entidad pudiese promulgar el artículo cuestionado del Reglamento del SINPE. Manifestó, las reglas sobre la estructura y el funcionamiento de los registros de valores y sus sistemas de identificación, corresponde al Consejo Nacional de Supervisón del Sistema Financiero (Conassif en lo sucesivo) y a la Superintendencia General de Valores (de ahora en adelante Sugeval), por lo cual el BCCR carece de competencia en esta materia de conformidad con lo establecido en la norma 116 de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. Aseveró, la disposición impugnada coloca en manos del BCCR, quien a su vez es emisor del mercado de valores, información que no es de carácter público y que puede ser utilizada en beneficio del propio Banco por ser participante del mercado. Aseguró, el deber legal de identificación solo aplica para entidades reguladas y no para el BCCR por lo que el cardinal 113 del Reglamento impugnado no se puede sustentar en dicha normativa. El representante de la entidad demandada contestó de forma negativa y opuso las defensas de falta de derecho, de interés actual y de legitimación. El Tribunal rechazó las dos últimas. Acogió la falta de derecho. Declaró sin lugar la demanda e impuso las costas a la actora. Inconforme, los apoderados de la parte vencida, establecen recurso de casación, que fue admitido por esta Sala en auto de las 13 horas del 1 de agosto de 2011.

II.- Los casacionistas enlistan tres agravios sustantivos. Los dos primeros por violación directa de ley, el tercero por quebranto del régimen de regulación de los derechos fundamentales. Primero: Reclaman, la sentencia impugnada incurre en una interpretación indebida que resulta contraria al ordenamiento jurídico, ya que justifica la competencia del BCCR para promulgar la norma reglamentaria cuestionada en los cardinales 2, 3 y 69 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica (Ley no. 7558). Aducen, para el Tribunal estas normas resultan suficientes al considerar que el BCCR tiene competencia de exigir la identidad de los titulares de cuentas valores, en los términos que lo regula el canon 113 impugnado del Reglamento del SINPE. No obstante, advierten, con posterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 7558, se promulgó la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores (Ley no. 7732), la cual introdujo una serie de cambios en las competencias asignadas al BCCR. En este sentido, explican, todas las competencias en materia de orden y funcionamiento de los registros de valores y sus sistemas de identificación le fueron asignadas a la Sugeval, ya que en su criterio, se presentó una desconcentración máxima en virtud del precepto 3 de la Ley 7732. Manifiestan, aún cuando el BCCR tiene funciones crediticias, de control monetario, cambiarias; lo cierto es que las materias relacionadas con el funcionamiento de los sistemas de los mercados de valores fueron trasladadas a la Sugeval. El artículo 116 de la Ley 7732, apuntan, es una norma posterior a la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, por esta razón, en su juicio, esta norma debía prevalecer, en virtud de una correcta hermenéutica jurídica y atendiendo tanto a criterios cronológicos como especiales. Aseguran, los numerales 2 y 3 de la Ley 7558 son normas sumamente generales, y se refieren a la estabilidad y eficiencia en la intermediación financiera; pero por el otro lado, insiste, la Ley 7732 contiene una serie de principios cuyo control ha sido trasladado a la Sugeval coincidiendo, aseveran, con los objetivos de eficiencia en la intermediación financiera y monetaria que cita la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central. En virtud de esa desconcentración máxima, insisten, el BCCR no puede intervenir en estas materias, puesto que mantendría una duplicidad de funciones con la Sugeval, órgano que a su entender, se debe manejar de forma independiente de las funciones del Banco. Enfatizan, con la tesis esbozada en la sentencia, se podría concluir que el BCCR podría intervenir prácticamente en todas las materias que son competencia de la Sugeval, puesto que estas podrían encasillarse también dentro de los objetivos generales de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central; hecho que iría en contra de los principios que informan la desconcentración máxima contenidos en el precepto 83 LGAP. Nombre144, al transferirse la competencia a la Sugeval, el BCCR resulta incompetente para emitir los actos relativos a la materia desconcentrada. Mencionan, la desconcentración máxima constituye el mayor límite a la relación de jerarquía, en cuanto impide al jerarca el ejercicio de los poderes de mando y de control, y alternativamente el de revisar o avocar. Nombre6026, en la desconcentración máxima la regla es la interpretación extensiva, en tanto que la desconcentración mínima se interpreta en forma restrictiva. Sostienen que no niegan la competencia que tiene el BCCR para reglamentar el sistema de pagos de conformidad con la norma 69 de la Ley 7558; no obstante, reiteran, este reglamento debe resultar consistente con las normas legales posteriores que fueron introducidas en la Ley 7732. Censuran la interpretación que el Tribunal le otorga al cardinal 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central. En este tanto, afirman, el artículo 113 del Reglamento del SINPE se refiere al deber de los puestos de bolsa de entregar información directamente al BCCR, en cambio el canon 40 considerado por los jueces, comentan, no tiene relevancia alguna, ya que se refiere al deber de colaboración de los entes y órganos públicos, y no de los sujetos de derecho privado. Arguyen, no se trata de datos que la Sugeval ostenta y está proporcionando al Banco, sino que el BCCR está exigiendo directamente a los puestos de bolsa. El deber de auxilio por parte de la Sugeval, aseguran, debe interpretarse en conjunto con todas las normas del ordenamiento jurídico, ya que si este órgano ostenta la información sobre la identidad de los clientes, debe analizar antes de entregarla al BCCR, si en efecto sirve para el cumplimiento del fin público, o si por el contrario puede poner en peligro los principios de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. Por estas razones afirman, se tiene que el citado artículo 113 reglamentario es absolutamente nulo, por quebrantar el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad en el ámbito de la potestad reglamentaria, dado que el BCCR no tenía competencia para regular los registros y sistemas de identificación relacionados con los mercados de valores. Finalmente reprochan, la norma impugnada coloca en manos del BCCR, quien a su vez es emisor del mercado de valores costarricense, datos que no son de carácter público y que incluso, pueden ser utilizados para su propio beneficio en su condición de participante del mercado. Agregan, el Banco Central compite con los Puestos de Bolsa en el mercado, y a través del mecanismo de identificación que prevé el Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos, recriminan, se impone el conocimiento de los clientes de sus competidores, lo que genera desigualdad.

III.- Sobre el ámbito competencial de los órganos de supervisión. Previo a ingresar en el análisis de la potestad reglamentaria, y su ejercicio en el caso concreto, conviene referirse, en forma general sobre la estructura competencial establecida en el ordenamiento jurídico en materia de supervisión, concepto que se encuentra integrado por la fiscalización y la regulación. En el desarrollo que ha sufrido la banca central, no se discute que parte importante de ese poder director, supervisor y de vigilancia ha pasado a otros organismos públicos. De esta forma, el legislador optó por distribuir las distintas competencias que conforman estas potestades en una serie de órganos adscritos al Banco Central de Costa Rica. Para efectos de fiscalizar determinadas actividades, debido a su importancia en la sociedad, creó cuatro superintendencias, en la figura de órganos de desconcentración máxima, a saber, la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (Sugef), la Superintendencia General de Valores (Sugeval), la Superintendencia de Pensiones (Supen) y, recientemente, la Superintendencia General de Seguros (Sugese). De estas, las dos últimas tienen personalidad jurídica instrumental. Desde el punto de vista orgánico, cada una de ellas cuenta con un superintendente, que actúa como jerarca en materia administrativa. Les corresponde, según la materia, verificar el cumplimiento por parte de las entidades fiscalizadas, de las disposiciones que integran los respectivos subsistemas normativos, así como la estabilidad del sistema, en lo que les corresponde según su ámbito competencial. Junto con las superintendencias, mediante la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores se creó, además, un órgano denominado Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero. A éste se le asigna, principalmente, la tarea de regular el sistema y a la vez actúa como jerarca impropio monofásico de las superintendencias para efectos impugnaticios (artículo 171 de la Ley 7732). De relevancia para el presente recurso, resulta importante acotar, que la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores también creó la Sugeval como un órgano de “máxima desconcentración del Banco Central de Costa Rica” (artículo 3). Su función primordial consiste en velar por la transparencia de los mercados de valores, la formación correcta de los precios de esos mercados, la protección de los inversionistas y la difusión de la información necesaria para asegurar el logro de estos fines. Competencia que, de conformidad con el canon 3 ibídem, se ejerce sobre todos los mercados de valores, la actividad de las personas físicas o jurídicas que intervengan directa o indirectamente en ellos y los actos o contratos relacionados con ellos, según lo dispuesto en la ley. Esta competencia general sobre el mercado de valores, está dirigida a garantizar la estabilidad del mercado en procurara de su desarrollo, así como la protección del inversionista. Los órganos supervisores, incluida la Sugeval, son órganos de desconcentración máxima del BCCR que participan en la supervisión del cumplimiento de las políticas monetarias emitidas por este, incluida aquella dirigida a promover la eficiencia y el normal funcionamiento del sistema de pagos internos y externos.

IV.- Sobre la potestad reglamentaria. El objeto principal de la presente litis, desarrollado con mayor abundamiento en el primer reparo del recurso de la Cámara actora, se circunscribe a determinar si la norma impugnada (artículo 113 del Reglamento SINPE) se encuentra dentro del ámbito competencial que, en materia de emisión de normas infralegales, le asigna el ordenamiento jurídico al BCCR. En este tanto, resulta esencial referirse brevemente al contenido de la potestad reglamentaria y sobre los diferentes tipos de reglamentos que puede emitir la Administración Pública. Tradicionalmente, se ha indicado que estos se pueden clasificar en dos grandes grupos, para lo cual, puede consultarse el voto de esta Sala no. 749-F-04 de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 10 de setiembre de 2004, y de la Sala Constitucional, entre otros, los fallos no. 2005-14286 de las 14 horas con 45 minutos del 19 de octubre de 2005 y 2007-02063 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 14 de febrero de 2007. El primero de ellos, regulado en el numeral 140 incisos 3) y 18) de la Constitución Política, es el ejecutivo, mediante el cual se desarrollan los contenidos de una norma de rango legal. Se trata de una disposición complementaria, que sirve para precisar el contenido o para facilitar la implementación de lo preceptuado en la ley. En este sentido, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha indicado que este tipo de normas pueden provenir únicamente del Poder Ejecutivo. Sobre este particular, la Sala Constitucional ha indicado que no es “…posible intentar hacer una interpretación extensiva a favor de las otras dependencias públicas…” (voto no. 17599 -2006 de las 15 horas del 6 de diciembre de 2006). Cabe agregar, se trata de una potestad autónoma, cuya habilitación está dada en forma genérica en la Carta Magna, de forma que el Poder Ejecutivo se encuentra facultado para reglamentar, motu propio, cualquier ley de la República. Dicho de otra manera, carece de interés la existencia o no de una habilitación en la ley, en la medida en que la competencia está dada a nivel constitucional y se puede ejercer respecto de todas las leyes emitidas, sea que éstas lo prevean o no. Esto, claro está, sin perjuicio de que una norma legal convierta esta facultad en un deber, situación que, en todo caso, no varía su naturaleza. La segunda tipología de reglamentos es la de los autónomos, los cuales tienen por objeto regular la organización de las dependencias administrativas (en cuyo caso se denominan “autónomos de organización”), o bien, el funcionamiento de los servicios públicos que prestan (referidos en forma genérica como “autónomos de servicio”). Estos pueden dimanar tanto de la Administración Central como de la descentralizada. En el caso de la primera, en virtud del texto expreso contenido en el inciso 18) del cardinal 140 constitucional, y para la segunda, como una derivación lógica y necesaria de la potestad de auto-organización implícita en el grado de autonomía administrativa o de primer grado que se les otorga al momento de su creación (consideraciones apuntadas con mayor abundamiento, mediante resolución de esta Sala no. 001000-F-S1-2010 de las 9 horas 35 minutos del 26 de agosto de 2010).

V.- En este caso concreto, es importante aclarar dos aspectos de trascendental importancia, de previo a conocer el fondo del recurso. En primer lugar, hay que dejar claro que la pretensión de nulidad de la actora está referida únicamente al artículo 113 del Reglamento del SINPE y no a la totalidad de ese cuerpo normativo. En segundo lugar, es necesario ilustrar que después del dictado de la sentencia impugnada, el Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos (aprobado por la Junta Directiva del Banco Central de Costa Rica, mediante artículo 11 del acta de la sesión 5416-2009, celebrada el 11 de marzo del 2009) fue modificado, por lo que el artículo 113 originalmente cuestionado cambió su numeración, y actualmente corresponde al precepto 118 ibídem. No obstante, el artículo analizado mantiene su redacción original, el cual literalmente establece: “Identificación de las cuentas de terceros. Las cuentas de terceros se identifican con el nombre y el número de identificación de sus titulares, así como con un código por tipo de inversionista”. A efectos de este recurso, se seguirá mencionando a partir de ahora como el canon 118 del Reglamento SINPE. El BCCR es una institución autónoma de derecho público, con personalidad jurídica y patrimonio propio, y que además forma parte del Sistema Bancario Nacional (artículo 1 de su Ley Orgánica). A dicha entidad le corresponde como objetivo principal mantener la estabilidad interna y externa de la moneda nacional y asegurar su convertibilidad. Asimismo, la Ley 7558 le impuso al BCCR una serie de objetivos subsidiarios, entre otros, la obligación de promover la eficiencia del sistema de pagos internos y externos y mantener su normal funcionamiento (canon 2 inciso c) ibídem). En línea con lo anterior, ese cuerpo normativo estableció que para el debido cumplimiento de sus fines, el Banco debía tener funciones esenciales como el establecimiento, la operación y la vigilancia de sistemas de compensación; y erigir las regulaciones para la creación, el funcionamiento y el control de las entidades financieras (precepto 3 incisos i), j) de la Ley 7558). Aunado a lo anterior, el artículo 69 del cuerpo normativo analizado dispone categóricamente: “…La Junta Directiva del Banco Central de Costa Rica organizará y reglamentará el funcionamiento del sistema de pagos…”. De esta forma se puede establecer, que el BCCR tiene asignados por su Ley Orgánica, varios cometidos. Conviene resaltar la obligación de promover la eficiencia del sistema de pagos internos y externos y mantener su normal funcionamiento; labor que en la actualidad resulta fundamental, por cuanto la existencia de un sistema de pagos seguro, eficaz y eficiente, resulta de vital importancia para el normal desempeño de la economía, tanto para las operaciones internas como externas. Un sistema de pagos está constituido por un conjunto de instrumentos, procedimientos bancarios y sistemas de transferencia de fondos y valores que aseguran su circulación en los mercados financieros y bursátiles respectivamente. Son mecanismos utilizados para el movimiento de fondos, dinero y valores; asimismo coadyuvan en el desarrollo de pagos entre entidades financieras, interna y externamente. Como se observa de los artículos citados, el legislador optó por encomendar al Banco Central, la promoción y el buen funcionamiento del sistema de pagos, ya que a través de este, podría regular los mercados de dinero. De manera tal, que lleva razón el Tribunal al considerar que del análisis de esos conceptos jurídicos, se infiere la posibilidad del Banco Central de establecer por vía reglamentaria, el Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos, y todo lo atinente a su regulación, funcionamiento y control. En este contexto, los jueces estimaron que: “(…) En el caso concreto que nos ocupa, puntualmente la Ley 7558 (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica) en sus numerales 2, 3 y 69, confiere expresamente la potestad reglamentaria al Banco Central para reglamentar todo lo relativo al funcionamiento del SINPE (…) Queda claro para este Tribunal a partir de la normativa citada, que los entes autónomos o autárquicos, entre ellos, el Banco Central de Costa Rica poseen la potestad de emitir disposiciones normativas de alcance general. Sin embargo, valga aquí acotar que dichas disposiciones normativas, a diferencia del caso del Poder Ejecutivo, en principio no deben contemplar la posibilidad de emitir aspectos jurídicos con carácter de vinculación erga omnes para todos los habitantes de la República, como ocurre en el caso de los decretos ejecutivos que reglamentan las normas con rango de ley en sentido formal y material emanadas del legislativo. Sino que se limita únicamente a disposiciones propias de la organización, el servicio y dentro de las relaciones jurídicas particulares con el ente, o bien dentro del ámbito de una relación de especial sujeción, cual acontece sin duda alguna en este asunto en relación con los usuarios del sistema. Y es este último aspecto, el que se establece en los artículos transcritos de la Ley 7558 y sus reformas, donde el legislador expresamente le atribuye al Banco, la regulación de los aspectos propios del funcionamiento eficiente del SINPE, mediante la emisión de normas jurídicas de rango infralegal y alcance general vía reglamento autónomo. Lo anterior en clara sujeción al principio de legalidad plasmado en los artículos 11 de la Ley 6227 y 11 de la Constitución vigente (...)” (dictado de la sentencia a partir de las 8 horas con 20 minutos del 22 de febrero de 2010). Nótese que fue mediante su propia ley de creación, que se le otorgó al BCCR este objetivo, el cual está íntimamente ligado al resto de tareas asignadas, especialmente en lo que respecta al mantenimiento de un sistema financiero y de compensación estable y eficiente.

VI.- Los casacionistas también advierten dentro de su primera censura, que después de entrar a regir la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, se promulgó la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, la cual introdujo una serie de cambios en las competencias asignadas al BCCR. En este sentido, explican, todas las competencias en materia de organización y funcionamiento de los registros de valores y sus sistemas de identificación le fueron asignadas a la Sugeval, por lo que en su criterio, se presentó una desconcentración máxima en virtud del precepto 3 de la Ley 7732. El artículo 116 ibídem, apuntan, es una norma posterior a la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica, por esta razón, en su juicio, esta norma debía prevalecer sobre la Ley 7558, en virtud de una correcta hermenéutica jurídica y atendiendo tanto a criterios cronológicos como especiales. Esta Sala debe indicar, la desconcentración efectivamente se presenta como una técnica para distribuir competencias entre distintos órganos de un mismo ente u órgano superior; y que tiene por objeto encomendar a un órgano especializado dentro de una estructura administrativa, el ejercicio de determinadas competencias con el fin de lograr mayor eficiencia. La desconcentración se encuentra contemplada en la norma 83 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública al establecer que: “Todo órgano distinto del jerarca estará plenamente subordinado a éste y al superior jerárquico inmediato, salvo desconcentración operada por ley o por reglamento…”. En este precepto normativo, se establecen dos modalidades, la mínima y la máxima. La mínima, informa que el superior no puede avocar las competencias del inferior ni revisar o sustituir la conducta del inferior, de oficio o a instancia de parte. En la máxima, además de lo anterior, el superior no puede darle órdenes, instrucciones o circulares al inferior. Hasta este punto llevan razón los representantes de Nombre223272. No obstante, no hay que olvidar que la asignación del ámbito de competencias del órgano desconcentrado tiene origen, normalmente, en la norma que lo crea y regula. En caso de contener potestades de imperio tal norma deberá ser de rango legal. Pero, si las atribuciones no involucran potestades de imperio, la atribución podrá hacerse por medio de normas reglamentarias. La finalidad de la desconcentración es trasladar competencias, y establecer el grado de independencia con que estas funciones pueden ser ejercidas. No se trata de simples atribuciones, lo que su busca es la especialización de ciertos órganos en materias específicas, en procura de satisfacer las tareas encomendadas al ente máximo (fin público). Pero esto no significa que se desliguen orgánicamente tales competencias de la estructura originaria. Por este motivo, resulta esencial acudir a la norma que creó la desconcentración, ya que ésta será la que establezca el tipo y ámbito de desconcentración y qué poderes conserva el jerarca respecto de lo desconcentrado. No se discute aquí los alcances de una desconcentración máxima en los términos del artículo 83 ibídem, por el contrario, al transferirse la competencia es claro que el superior jerárquico resulta incompetente para emitir los actos relativos a la materia desconcentrada. Lo que sí debe dejarse definido, es que el jerarca mantiene su competencia en los ámbitos no cubiertos por la desconcentración. El órgano desconcentrado, queda entonces, sujeto a jerarquía en dichos ámbitos. Por eso se insiste, resulta fundamental respetar el principio de legalidad para determinar el ámbito competencial del ente o del órgano superior o mayor. En el caso de examen, según se indicó líneas atrás, la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores creó la Superintendencia General de Valores como un órgano de “máxima desconcentración del Banco Central de Costa Rica” (artículo 3). Su cometido primordial consiste en velar por la transparencia de los mercados de valores, la formación correcta de los precios en ellos, la protección de los inversionistas y la difusión de la información necesaria para asegurar el logro de estos fines. En este sentido, es cierto que el artículo 116 de la Ley 7732 le otorgó a la Sugeval, la potestad de reglamentar la organización y el funcionamiento de los registros, los sistemas de identificación y el control de los valores representados por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta, así como las relaciones y comunicaciones de las entidades encargadas de tales registros con los emisores y las bolsas de valores. Sin embargo, el BCCR sigue manteniendo su condición de ente director y, por ende, regulador último del sistema financiero, monetario y crediticio; puesto que le corresponde dirigir la política monetaria, crediticia, financiera y garantizar el funcionamiento fluido del sistema financiero (según el artículo 3 de su Ley Orgánica). En este tanto, el deber de promover la eficiencia del sistema de pagos internos y externos, y mantener su normal funcionamiento (canon 2 inciso c) ibídem), no es una función que haya sido desconcentrada en la Sugeval; por el contrario, este es uno de los objetivos que el Banco Central debe procurar constantemente, inclusive debe ser calificado como “esencial”. Basta recordar que fue la propia Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores la que vino a confirmar lo dicho, cuando a través de su artículo 188 inciso d), modificó expresamente el precepto 69 de la Ley Orgánica del BCCR. Con esta reforma, el legislador reafirmó el deber de la Junta Directiva del BCCR de organizar y reglamentar el funcionamiento del sistema de pagos (antes llamado únicamente Cámara de Compensación). En este sentido, el legislador consideró que la participación del Banco Central en la materia de sistema de pagos le era inherente por resultar esencial con su cometido prioritario, y que la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central así se lo manda. Debe resaltarse en este extremo, que el término engloba establecer, regular, operar y fiscalizar el sistema. La Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores por su lado, no determina que las funciones de la Sugeval en relación con el sistema de pagos y al servicio que conlleva la administración del registro de los valores anotados en cuenta, hayan sido asignadas a ese órgano de forma exclusiva; por el contrario, de la relación de los artículos 188, inciso d) de Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores y 2, 3, 69 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central se colige que el Sistema Nacional de Pagos (creación y funcionamiento) debe estar en manos del BCCR. Por ende, estas tareas en torno al sistema, son competencia de la Junta Directiva del Banco (así se deriva a la vez de los incisos c, h, l del artículo 28 de su Ley Orgánica). Con el artículo 116 de la Ley 7732 se previó que la Sugeval pudiera reglamentar la organización y el funcionamiento de los registros, los sistemas de identificación y el control de los valores representados por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta; empero, esto se hizo de forma genérica y no especial, puesto que el legislador siempre consideró mantener esta labor en manos de la Banca Central. En realidad nunca se eliminó el deber que mantenía el BCCR al respecto, ya que resultaría incompatible con la independencia del Banco Central, el establecimiento de factores institucionales que tiendan a sujetarlo a instrucciones, autorizaciones, suspensiones y peor aún, a restringir su competencia respecto de las decisiones relacionadas con la política monetaria y el resto de sus objetivos subsidiarios (entre ellos el mantenimiento del SINPE). La existencia de un permiso o prohibición para ejercer un determinado instrumento monetario, implicaría un límite a la citada independencia y competencias, puesto que la Banca Central vería limitada sus facultades para establecer la estrategia tendiente a concretar los objetivos definidos en el artículo 2 de la Ley 7558. Tampoco el tema se agota en la independencia institucional (definir los objetivos de la política monetaria) sino que se trata además de independencia funcional para decidir la aplicación de los instrumentos de política monetaria que el legislador estableció, entendido esto como la escogencia de cuál es el instrumento que debe ser empleado y cómo debe hacerse; tal y como sucede con el Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta (el cual se verá con mayor detenimiento en el considerando siguiente) y el SINPE. Dentro de este esquema, no puede una entidad supervisora, asumir la definición de aspectos organizativos de un sistema que se encuentra administrado por la Autoridad Monetaria, toda vez que se afectaría su independencia y en consecuencia también podría arriesgarse la eficacia del sistema financiero. En el sub júdice, el BCCR reglamentó un servicio que su Ley Orgánica le encomendó, por lo que no es cierto que se le estén reconociendo al Banco competencias que son propias de la Sugeval (según lo definido en el cardinal 3 de su Ley Reguladora) o que esta reglamentación no resulte consistente con las normas legales posteriores que fueron introducidas en la Ley 7732.

VII.- Una vez analizada la potestad reglamentaria con que cuenta el Banco Central para dictar el Reglamento del SINPE, de seguido, es necesario referirse al Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta (SAC en adelante); toda vez que el artículo endilgado por la actora, se encuentra dentro del Libro del Reglamento que se denomina “Anotación en Cuenta”. Los sistemas de anotación y liquidación están basados en la representación de valores mediante anotaciones en cuenta. Es un sistema computarizado para crear y registrar valores representativos de capital mediante el método de anotación en cuenta. El valor se constituye, deposita y se transfiere como anotación en cuenta, actos jurídicos que no se materializan. Esta es la tendencia seguida por la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. Así, el artículo 115 de ese cuerpo normativo establece: “…Las emisiones de valores inscritas en el Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios, podrán representarse por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta o mediante títulos…”. El Sistema de compensación y liquidación de valores deberá procurar, dice la Ley 7732 en su cardinal 129, la generalización del sistema de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta, salvo las excepciones que autorice la Superintendencia en virtud de las circunstancias del mercado o la naturaleza particular de ciertos valores. Los valores representados por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta se constituirán y transmitirán en virtud de su inscripción en el correspondiente registro contable (artículos 122 y 123 ibídem). Los sistemas de compensación y liquidación de valores modernos tienden a desmaterializar los valores, lo cual se logra mediante la representación por anotaciones en cuenta. Según la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores la anotación en cuenta puede estar a cargo del Banco Central de Costa Rica o de centrales de valores (precepto 117). Este registro contable de los valores representados por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuenta, pregona el canon 117 de la Ley 7732, será llevado por un sistema de dos niveles: a) el primer nivel está conformado por el BCCR (que le corresponde administrar el registro de las emisiones del Estado y las instituciones públicas) y por las centrales de valores autorizadas por la Superintendencia (serán las responsables de administrar el registro de las emisiones de los emisores privados); b) el segundo nivel lo forman las entidades adheridas al SAC, que podrán ser todas las autorizadas para prestar servicios de custodia y los miembros liquidadores del Sistema Nacional de Compensación y Liquidación de Valores. Dentro de estas últimas entidades, eminentemente se encuentran los puestos de bolsa. El Reglamento del Sistema de Anotación en Cuenta (acuerdo adoptado por el Consejo Nacional de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero, mediante artículo 10, del acta de la sesión 606-2006, celebrada el 28 de setiembre del 2006) regula con mayor detenimiento la organización y el funcionamiento de los registros, los sistemas de identificación y el control de los valores representados por medio de anotaciones electrónicas en cuentas. Este Reglamento, dispone que el Banco Central es el responsable de administrar el registro contable de valores mediante anotación electrónica en cuenta de las emisiones del Estado y las instituciones públicas, pudiendo delegar esa función en una central de valores (canon 19). Asimismo, menciona que únicamente pueden prestar los servicios de administración del registro contable de valores, mediante anotación electrónica en cuenta de emisiones de emisores privados, las entidades miembros del Sistema Nacional de Registro de Anotaciones en Cuenta que se constituyan como centrales de valores, autorizadas para tal fin por la Superintendencia (artículo 21). Esa es la forma cómo se administran los registros de los valores en Costa Rica según su emisor. Ahora bien, en la práctica el SAC funciona como un servicio que presta el BCCR, el cual fue agregado a la plataforma del SINPE por las facilidades y seguridad que este último sistema brindaba en el país para la transferencia de fondos; lo que implicó aprovechar la herramienta que se disponía, agregándole un servicio más (la transferencia de valores). El SAC posee cuatro servicios específicos claramente delimitados: 1. el servicio de registro de emisiones que funciona como un registro donde el BCCR y el Ministerio de Hacienda registran las emisiones que la Sugeval les autoriza para colocarlas en el mercado de valores; 2. cuentas de valores, es el servicio encargado de llevar un control y mantenimiento de las cuentas; 3. liquidación de mercados, le permite a la Bolsa Nacional de Valores conectarse con el SINPE para enviar a liquidar tanto el mercado primario como secundario de bolsa; y finalmente prevé 4. un servicio de traspaso de valores para el manejo de aquellos movimientos de valores que no tienen naturaleza onerosa (sobre este tema, el testigo del BCCR, el señor Nombre223273 se refirió ampliamente durante el juicio oral y público a partir de las 10 horas 6 minutos del 15 de febrero de 2010). Aunque la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central no contiene un artículo que haga referencia a la participación del Banco en la creación de un sistema de anotación en cuenta, del análisis detallado de los cardinales 2 y 3 de esa Ley, sí se desprende que los sistemas de anotación en cuenta se encuentran en la esfera de competencias del Banco; dado que el BCCR para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos macroeconómicos, insoslayablemente debe dotar a la economía nacional de un sistema financiero ágil, moderno, eficiente y seguro. Además, hay que señalar que al Banco Central le corresponde “establecer, operar y vigilar los sistemas de compensación”, y aunque el legislador no fue preciso en este tema concreto, se trata sin embargo de todo el sistema de compensación, relativo al sistema financiero en su conjunto; por ende, tanto la compensación de fondos como la compensación de valores. Si bien el artículo 68 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central no contiene regulaciones detalladas como las existentes en el artículo 69 ibídem para el sistema de pagos, lo cierto es que allí está prevista la compensación entre fondos y valores; basta con que se trate de valores compensables. Entonces del análisis de la Ley 7558 se concluye que el Banco Central tiene entre sus funciones, desarrollar un sistema de compensación de valores. En este entendido, el SAC juega un papel muy importante como componente del sistema financiero, por lo cual, el Banco en cumplimiento del objetivo de lograr estabilidad financiera y monetaria, debe promover, impulsar y supervisar su desarrollo, atendiendo a la letra el artículo 3 ibídem; de ahí que la emisión del artículo criticado resulte acorde con el ordenamiento jurídico.

VIII.- Los recurrentes cuestionan la valoración que hacen los juzgadores del canon 40 párrafos segundo, tercero, cuarto de la Ley 7558, para justificar la información de carácter general del cliente, que el numeral 118 del Reglamento de Pagos Electrónicos, exige se consigne por parte de los puestos de bolsa en el SINPE. La norma 40 considerada por el Tribunal, comentan, no tiene relevancia alguna, ya que se refiere al deber de asistencia de los entes y órganos públicos, y no de los sujetos de derecho privado. Arguyen, no se trata de información que la Sugeval ostenta y está proporcionando al Banco, sino que el BCCR está exigiendo directamente a los puestos de bolsa. Sobre el alegato expuesto, el Tribunal consideró: “(…) El artículo 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica en sus párrafos segundo, tercero y cuarto, establece de manera expresa la obligación legal que pesa sobre toda dependencia y oficina pública, así como también sobre toda entidad autónoma; conceptos que engloba los órganos desconcentrados con un agrado de desconcentración mínima o máxima a ella inscritos, de prestar su asistencia al Banco para el cumplimiento de sus funciones, lo cual implica según se deriva de la literalidad de la norma legal de cita, el proporcionar a la mayor brevedad los datos, informes y estudios que se soliciten. Es dentro del concepto de datos, y en general del concepto de información previsto en la norma, donde sin mayor esfuerzo se concluye que esté incluida la información de carácter general del cliente que el numeral 113 del Reglamento de Pagos Electrónicos exige se consigne por parte de los puestos de bolsa en el SINPE (…)” (consideraciones expuestas por los jueces durante el dictado de la sentencia, al ser las 8 horas con 31 minutos del 22 de febrero de 2010). El artículo 40 de la Ley 7558 engloba el deber que pesa sobre las oficinas y dependencias del Estado, y de las instituciones autónomas, de prestar asistencia y otorgar información de carácter general a los departamentos del BCCR, con el objeto de que el Banco pueda cumplir eficientemente con sus funciones. Este deber, atendiendo la literalidad de la norma, se desprende que recae en oficinas y dependencias públicas; empero, en el caso concreto, resulta factible reconocer una integración analógica para el supuesto que se analiza, puesto que no hay una norma en la Ley 7558 que imponga este deber a los entes privados, a pesar de que el BCCR utiliza estos datos para el cumplimiento exclusivo de uno de sus objetivos. No obstante, hay que indicar que el Tribunal no solamente justificó la potestad del BCCR para solicitar la información cuestionada con base en el artículo 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, puesto que también realizó un análisis de las facultades del BCCR para solicitar los datos criticados, en relación con las potestades que se les otorga a las entidades supervisoras en la Ley sobre Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso no Autorizado, Actividades Conexas, Legitimación de Capitales y Financiamiento al Terrorismo (en lo sucesivo Ley no. Placa5173). Esto porque los datos que menciona el cardinal 118 del Reglamento SINPE resultan de vital importancia para combatir y prevenir la legitimación de capitales y actividades conexas mediante la transferencia de valores. Aspecto que se analizará con mayor detenimiento en el siguiente agravio. De esta forma, no se encuentra violación directa de la norma analizada por parte de los jueces, ya que la información que se solicita guarda relación con uno de los servicios que esa entidad presta en forma directa a las entidades adheridas al SINPE y al SAC, entre estas últimas los puestos de bolsa. La solicitud de la información que contempla el canon 118 del Reglamento SINPE, se realiza con el objeto de que el BCCR pueda cumplir con uno de sus objetivos básicos (mantener un sistema de pagos y de compensación eficientes), tal y como lo establecen los cardinales 2, 3, 24, 69 en relación con el canon 40 todos de la Ley 7558. En relación con este argumento, también acusan, es nulo absolutamente el artículo 118 del Reglamento SINPE, por quebrantar el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad en el ámbito de la potestad reglamentaria, dado que el BCCR no tenía competencia para regular los registros y sistemas de identificación relacionados con los mercados de valores. A través del mecanismo de identificación que prevé el Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos, recriminan, puede imponerse el conocimiento de los clientes de sus competidores, lo que generaría desigualdad. La Sala Constitucional ha dicho sobre el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad lo siguiente: “… Un aspecto de primer orden en todo acto administrativo es la proporcionalidad en sentido estricto entre los medios empleados por la administración pública respectiva y los fines que se pretenden lograr con éste, así como la idoneidad o necesidad de su contenido y, desde luego, cuando resulta aflictivo o de gravamen, la ponderación de su intervención o impacto mínimo. Precisamente por lo anterior, ha surgido en el Derecho Constitucional contemporáneo, como uno de los principios rectores de la función administrativa el de la interdicción de la arbitrariedad, de acuerdo con el cual la conducta administrativa debe ser suficientemente coherente y razonablemente sustentada en el bloque de legalidad, de modo que se baste y explique por sí misma. En nuestro ordenamiento jurídico constitucional tal principio dimana de lo establecido en la primera parte del artículo 11 de la Constitución Política…” (resolución no. 2004-14421 de las 11 horas del 17 de diciembre de 2004). El objetivo fundamental es evitar arbitrariedades del agente público, entendida como la falta de sustento o fundamento jurídico objetivo de una conducta administrativa, vulnerando en consecuencia el bloque de legalidad existente. En materia reglamentaria, este principio juega un papel relevante dentro del ordenamiento jurídico. En el sub lite, como se indicó líneas atrás, el Banco Central estaba facultado legalmente para emitir el Reglamento SINPE y por ende el artículo cuestionado. Del análisis de los numerales 2, 3 y 69 de su Ley Orgánica, se infiere como el legislador le encomendó esta función, por lo cual se remite a las consideraciones expuestas en el considerando quinto. Debido al mandamiento expreso que realizó la Ley 7558 al BCCR para crear, legalizar y controlar el Sistema de Pagos, este Órgano Colegiado considera que no existe el alegado conflicto de competencias entre las potestades normativas de la SUGEVAL en relación con las conferidas al BCCR, por lo cual el agravio debe ser desestimado.

IX.- Dentro del primer reparo, finalmente reprochan, la norma impugnada coloca en manos del BCCR, quien a su vez es emisor el mercado de valores costarricense, información que no es de carácter público y que incluso, puede ser utilizada para su propio beneficio en su condición de participante del mercado. Agregan, el Banco Central actúa como competidor de los Puestos de Bolsa en el mercado, y a través del mecanismo de identificación que prevé el Reglamento del Sistema de Pagos, recriminan, se impone el conocimiento de los clientes de sus competidores, lo que genera desigualdad. Esta Cámara debe indicar, que la participación del BCCR en la creación de un sistema de anotación en cuenta que contemple no sólo la deuda pública sino también la privada, se fundó en la autoridad del Banco respecto del sector financiero. Al ser el proceso de compensación y liquidación, incluido los registros de anotación en cuenta, procesos de naturaleza financiera, económica y jurídica, son de interés y competencia de la banca central. En este tanto, la regulación del sistema, debe guardar una estrecha correspondencia con el resto del ordenamiento jurídico, entre ellos con la Ley 8204, mediante el establecimiento de normas transparentes y no discriminatorias, basadas en criterios objetivos en relación con los servicios que se pueden acceder. Por ese motivo, una de las principales razones por las que el Banco Central exige la información aquí discutida es para darle fiel cumplimiento a los mandamientos contenidos en la Ley 8204 y no para competir como alegan los recurrentes. Asimismo, el BCCR cuando emite operaciones de mercado abierto lo hace como un instrumento de política financiera, con el fin de mantener una estabilidad en el mercado, no lo realiza con ánimo de lucro ni para provecho propio. Por su posición institucional, recuérdese, el BCCR tiene un papel trascendente en la vigilancia del normal funcionamiento de los sistemas de compensación. Esta competencia puede estar unida a una tarea de supervisión, dirigida a mantener la estabilidad del sistema financiero, evitando la presencia de efecto dominó en caso de problemas de liquidez o crédito por parte de algún agente financiero. El correcto funcionamiento de los sistemas de compensación y de pago, así como la estabilidad del sistema financiero es fundamental para la adecuada ejecución de la política monetaria; sin perjuicio de reconocer además, la necesidad de mantener la confianza en la seguridad y fiabilidad de los sistemas, con el fin de preservar la eficiencia de los mercados y la seguridad de la inversión. El rol del Banco, se restringe al deber de dirección y de supervisión propia y necesaria para lograr la estabilidad del sistema y la concreción de su política monetaria. En consecuencia, no es cierto que los datos que obtiene el Banco Central a través del canon 118 del Reglamento del SINPE, sean utilizados para su provecho o para competir en el mercado dado que esa no es su función; hecho que además no fue demostrado por la Cámara actora a lo largo del proceso. De esta forma el primer motivo debe ser desestimado en todos sus extremos.

X.- En el segundo de los agravios aducen errores de interpretación del Tribunal en torno a la Ley sobre Estupefacientes, Sustancias Psicotrópicas, Drogas de Uso no Autorizado, Actividades Conexas, Legitimación de Capitales y Financiamiento al Terrorismo (Ley no. 8204). Comentan, la sentencia cuestionada estima que el Sistema Nacional de Pagos Electrónicos es un medio electrónico de transferencia de capitales para evitar comisiones de actos ilícitos y lograr una efectiva labor de fiscalización según la Ley 8204. A criterio del Tribunal, dicen, esa sujeción a la norma indicada implica que conforme al artículo 16 ibídem, los sujetos descritos en el canon 14 de ese cuerpo normativo, deben mantener la identidad de las personas que abren cuentas o efectúan transacciones y que el BCCR como supervisor debe también velar por el cumplimiento de la Ley. Aseguran, no es cierto que el cardinal 113 del Reglamento de Pagos del SINPE se requiera para dar cumplimiento efectivo a la Ley 8204. Lo anterior por cuanto, en su criterio, esa Ley es clara al conferirle a la Sugeval competencia para actuar en la determinación del origen y procedencia de dineros que puedan estar vinculados a actividades ilícitas. Estiman, si bien existe una función accesoria del BCCR referente a su deber de colaborar con la Ley 8204, lo cierto es que también esa Ley, es clara al establecer competencias propias y específicas de la Sugeval en materia de registro, control y emisión de valores; y a su vez al establecer deberes de los puestos de bolsa de informar a la Sugeval respecto de sus clientes e inversiones. Transcriben los numerales 14, 16 y 22 ibídem, los cuales considera erróneamente aplicados. De esta forma, consideran, la Sugeval es quien resulta competente en materia de valores, de velar por el cumplimiento de la Ley 8204 siendo responsabilidad de cada puesto de bolsa de informar a la Sugeval y no al BCCR. Aseguran, no es cierto que se requiera que el BCCR intervenga en temas de identificación de cuentas valores para poder cumplir con la Ley no. 8204. Advierten, las entidades reguladas como los puestos de bolsa están sujetas a rigorosas normas de control para el ejercicio de sus actividades y se encuentran también obligadas a cumplir con las disposiciones relativas a la Ley 8204; por lo que en su juicio, la identificación plena de los titulares tampoco se justifica desde una perspectiva en que pueda considerarse como un aporte a la confiabilidad de los registros. Alegan, este deber legal de identificación solo aplica a las entidades reguladas y no al BCCR, por lo que el artículo impugnado no se puede sustentar en dicha normativa.

XI.- Entre los objetivos de la Ley 8204, sobresalen regular y sancionar las actividades financieras, con el fin de evitar la legitimación de capitales y las acciones que puedan servir para financiar actividades terroristas (artículo 1º). Este régimen de prevención tiene como fin regular las obligaciones, las actuaciones y los procedimientos para prevenir e impedir que se utilice el sistema financiero, así como otros sectores de actividad económica, para el blanqueo de capitales procedentes de cualquier tipo de participación delictiva. A tal efecto, la Ley establece una serie de obligaciones que deben cumplir determinados sujetos. El artículo 14 de la Ley 8204 considera entidades sujetas a las obligaciones de la Ley, aquellas que regulan, supervisan y fiscalizan a saber: la Sugef, la Sugeval, la Supen y la Sugese. Asimismo, las obligaciones de la Ley son aplicables a todas las entidades o empresas integrantes de los grupos financieros supervisados por los órganos anteriores, incluidas las transacciones financieras que realicen los bancos o las entidades financieras domiciliadas en el extranjero, por medio de una entidad financiera domiciliada en Costa Rica. La Ley le otorga especial atención a operaciones sistemáticas o sustanciales de canje de dinero y de fondos, realizadas por cualquier medio y que en criterio de esta Sala, podrían realizarse a través de la plataforma del SINPE. Debido a este motivo, los órganos descritos en el numeral 14 ibídem, deben velar por que no operen, en el territorio costarricense, personas físicas o jurídicas, cualquiera que sea su domicilio legal o lugar de operación que, de manera habitual y por cualquier título, realicen sin autorización aquellas actividades. Resulta oportuno aclarar que estas operaciones, aunque sean realizadas por personas autorizadas pueden resultar sospechosas, de ahí que el control debe ser permanente. Resultan sospechosas aquellas actividades financieras desarrolladas por clientes de entidades supervisadas que por su magnitud, falta de habitualidad, velocidad de rotación o condiciones de complejidad injustificadas, parecen que no tienen sentido económico u objeto lícito. El artículo 24 de la Ley 8204 las define como “…las que se efectúen fuera de los patrones de transacción habituales y las que no sean significativas pero sí periódicas, sin fundamento económico o legal evidente…”. A la vez, pregonan los numerales 16 al 23 del cuerpo legislativo analizado, condiciones básicas que deben cumplir las entidades fiscalizadas para reducir los riesgos que la actividad financiera provoca dentro del paradigma del lavador. Entre otras sobresalen: 1. la identificación precisa de los clientes; 2. mantenimiento de cuentas nominativas; 3. prohibición de apertura de cuentas anónimas o bajo nombres ficticios; 4. verificar, con medios documentales fiables, de la identidad, representación, domicilio, ocupación u objeto social de los clientes; 5. mantenimiento de registros documentales durante la vigencia de la operación y al menos por cinco años después de finalizado el vínculo comercial; 6. registro de toda operación en efectivo en moneda nacional o extranjera igual o superior a $10.000; 7. atención especial a actividades financieras atípicas, como las que se efectúan fuera de los patrones habituales o carezcan de fundamento económico; y 8. deber de comunicar las operaciones financieras sospechosas a los órganos de supervisión y fiscalización. Según estas obligaciones, cualquier persona física o jurídica que su actividad económica esté comprendida en el supuesto de las normas, debe ser fiscalizada por cualquiera de las superintendencias encargadas de regular y controlar en materia de cumplimiento de normas antilavado o por el Banco Central según corresponda. Esta acción se justifica no solo ante la necesidad de implementar mecanismos que prevengan el ingreso de capitales ilegales, sino también por constituir acciones financieras vulnerables al ingreso de activos ilícitos. Estos programas de cumplimiento de la normativa dirigida a prevenir el ingreso de capitales “sucios” al sistema financiero y bursátil, se engarzan con compromisos y recomendaciones internacionalmente asumidas que exigen al sistema financiero nacional, elaborar y cumplir programas de tal naturaleza. Por ejemplo, el Grupo de Acción Financiera del Caribe (GAFIC), al que pertenece Costa Rica, evalúa el cumplimiento de varias recomendaciones dirigidas a evitar, entre otros aspectos, la penetración de capitales provenientes de acciones delictivas al sistema financiero nacional. También se encuentra a nivel bancario, la Declaración de Principios del Comité de Basilea, que busca impedir que los bancos y otras instituciones financieras sean utilizados para transferencias o depósitos de fondos de procedencia ilícita. Dentro de este análisis normativo, resulta de capital importancia la norma 28 de la Ley 8204, que le otorga a los órganos dotados de potestades de fiscalización y supervisión ciertas obligaciones en relación con el cumplimiento de la misma norma, tales como vigilar el cumplimiento efectivo de las obligaciones de registro y notificación que la Ley señala, pero principalmente cooperar con las autoridades competentes y brindarles asistencia técnica, en el marco de las investigaciones y los procesos referentes a los delitos tipificados en la Ley. Este último precepto, incuestionablemente refleja que entre los órganos dotados de potestades de supervisión y fiscalización se encuentra el Banco Central. Por este motivo, el BCCR incorporó el artículo 118 al Reglamento del SINPE, para disponer en sus registros, de toda la información requerida a fin de identificar las personas físicas o jurídicas quienes realizaron transacciones de valores en el SINPE, puesto que en cualquier momento las autoridades competentes podrían requerir esa información como lo dispone la Ley 8204 y la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones (Ley no. Placa42033). De esta forma, el Tribunal precisa correctamente que: “(…) La legislación de cita surge evidentemente como un bastión legal concomitantemente con la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central para sustentar la emisión del artículo 113 de Reglamento de Pagos del SINPE; y si se analiza desde esta perspectiva, dicho artículo más bien resulta demasiado tímido con respecto a la información que debe incluirse en materia de transferencias financieras y bursátiles. El solicitar se identifique a un sujeto con su nombre, número de documento de identidad y con la asignación de un código para la actividad que despliega, evidentemente no resultan contrarios al derecho a la intimidad pues en todo caso se encuentra de por medio un bien jurídico tutelado de altísimo interés público e inmensurable valor, cual resulta ser la seguridad de la Nación y de los habitantes de la República. El cual se puede ver evidentemente afectado en caso de que el Estado incurra en una omisión al ejercer su competencia fiscalizadora en aras de transigir y sancionar la comisión de actos ilícitos tales como la legitimación de capitales provenientes de actividades delictivas o destinados a la realización de dichas actividades ilícitas (…)” (grabación de la sentencia al ser las 8 horas 29 minutos). Esta Cámara también considera que la información que se solicita a los puestos de bolsa a través del artículo 118 del Reglamento del SINPE, resulta exigua si se analiza a profundidad la naturaleza y filosofía de la Ley 8204. Y es que no cabe duda, que la legitimación de capitales, es una figura de encubrimiento (artículo 69 de la Ley 8204), cuyo bien jurídico protegido es la administración de justicia y la seguridad pública, toda vez que las acciones dirigidas a revelar el vínculo entre el delito precedente y los bienes originados como consecuencia de él, lesionan la correcta administración de justicia, por obstaculizar la respectiva investigación; de ahí la importancia de contar con un sistema financiero firme y seguro, desde su cúspide que incuestionablemente está en manos del Banco Central. Este, no solamente debe reglamentar y controlar el SINPE, sino que también ha de ser un garante en la correcta aplicación de los postulados de la Ley 8204, al igual que las entidades supervisoras (entre ellas la Sugeval) y cada una de las entidades supervisadas (como los puestos de bolsa). Con ocasión de la transferencia de valores, la Ley 8204 debe ser aplicada por todos los participantes en el mercado de valores ya sean estos entidades supervisoras o entidades adheridas al SAC, con el objetivo de crear un sistema contra el blanqueo de capitales y actividades conexas. Nótese que si en razón de hechos o ilícitos contemplados en la Ley, se inicia una indagatoria por parte de las autoridades competentes (judiciales o administrativas), toda entidad financiera o que forme parte de un grupo financiero, tendrá la obligación de resguardar la información, los documentos, valores y dineros que puedan ser utilizados como evidencia o pruebas dentro de la investigación o en un proceso judicial. Inclusive, la ley establece el deber de estas oficinas, de que los dineros o valores que se mantengan depositados o en custodia, sean congelados o depositados en el Banco Central de Costa Rica informando a las autoridades de las acciones realizadas (artículo 86). En mérito de las razones dilucidadas, procede rechazar el agravio y el fallo, en este punto, ha de ser confirmado.

XII.- En tercer y último cargo, cuestionan que la sentencia recurrida no considerara la violación al derecho a la intimidad que se incurre con la información suministrada mediante el Reglamento del SINPE. Expresan, si bien los nombres y el número de identidad de las cédulas de una persona consisten en datos de carácter público, la revelación de la titularidad de una determinada cuenta de valores, que se realiza mediante el nexo de dicho nombre e identificación a una determinada cuenta de valores sí consiste un hecho sensible. Arguyen, se están revelando los nombres de personas quienes tienen inversiones y cuentas de valores con cada puesto de bolsa, y esa información, manifiestan, sí reviste un carácter sensible. Lo anterior, acusan, resulta una intromisión a la vida privada que además de irrazonable, vacía el contenido esencial del secreto bursátil y resulta inconstitucional. En este sentido aducen, el Reglamento del SINPE obliga a los puestos de bolsa a suministrarle al BCCR información personal y los datos de sus clientes que se encuentran protegidos por el principio de confidencialidad, el derecho a la intimidad y el secreto bursátil, puesto que está revelando la identidad de las personas que tienen cuentas de valores. Invocan los preceptos 24 de la Constitución Política y 108 de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores en sustento de su agravio. Sobre el artículo 108 ibídem, señalan, regula lo que se conoce como el secreto bursátil o “sigilo bursátil”; el cual existe en razón de la protección de la transparencia en la formación de precios de los mercados de valores. En apoyo de su censura, mencionan jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional sobre el derecho a la intimidad y el secreto bancario, así como doctrina nacional sobre el tema. Por último enfatizan, tratándose del derecho a la intimidad la regulación debería estar sustentada en una ley, ya que solo así es posible regular y en su caso restringir los derechos fundamentales, conforme los artículos 11, 28, 121 de la Carta Magna y 19 de la LGAP.

XIII.- Sobre el eventual quebranto del derecho a la intimidad y al secreto bursátil, que se origina con la aplicación del canon 118 del Reglamento del SINPE; debe indicarse que la información solicitada por el SINPE no conlleva esa violación, puesto que los datos solicitados, a saber el nombre, número de cédula y un código para identificar la actividad desplegada, no puede ser considerada información sensible, íntima o de carácter privado por las razones que de seguido se analizarán. Sí lo sería cualquier dato relativo a la etnia, creencias religiosas, la afinidad política, las preferencias sexuales o estrategias propias del desarrollo comercial o financiero de una empresa, entre otras de similar carácter tanto de las personas físicas como jurídicas. Por tal motivo, ese aspecto quedaba por fuera del ámbito de cobertura que protege el derecho a la intimidad. El artículo 24 de la Constitución Política consagra los derechos fundamentales a la intimidad, a la inviolabilidad de los documentos privados, el secreto de las comunicaciones y el derecho a la autodeterminación informativa o derecho a tener control sobre las informaciones que terceros ostenten sobre la persona de quien se trate. Esta información está comprendida dentro de cuestiones que conciernen directamente a la esfera de la persona, sea porque esté referida a su vida familiar o privada, sus creencias, convicciones o preferencias sexuales, relaciones comerciales, entre otros aspectos (desarrollados en el canon 9 inciso 1) de la Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales, Ley no. 8968). Por el otro sector, existen datos personales que son públicos o pueden ser comunicados a terceros, ya sea por constar en registros públicos, o porque no existe un deber de confidencialidad, tales como el nombre, la identificación, profesión, datos sobre el patrimonio y, en particular, la situación económica y financiera de la persona. Ahora, esta última información califica dentro de lo que se conoce como información privada y si bien recibe protección de la Constitución (artículo 24 párrafo 2), su acceso puede ser autorizado mediante la ley si existe de por medio un interés público. En este tanto, la Ley 8968 citada, expresa en el precepto 9 lo siguiente: “2.- Datos personales de acceso restringido. Datos personales de acceso restringido son los que, aun formando parte de registros de acceso al público, no son de acceso irrestricto por ser de interés solo para su titular o para la Administración Pública. Su tratamiento será permitido únicamente para fines públicos o si se cuenta con el consentimiento expreso del titular… 4.- Datos referentes al comportamiento crediticio. Los datos referentes al comportamiento crediticio se regirán por las normas que regulan el Sistema Financiero Nacional, de modo que permitan garantizar un grado de riesgo aceptable por parte de las entidades financieras, sin impedir el pleno ejercicio del derecho a la autodeterminación informativa ni exceder los límites de esta ley.” Pero esa protección, no significa que deban ser enmarcados en lo que la doctrina, jurisprudencia y la Ley conoce como “datos sensibles”. Por estos motivos, resulta de importancia realizar la distinción entre ambos tipos de datos, toda vez que los datos sensibles no tienen relevancia en el ejercicio de la actividad financiera (sobre la prohibición del procesamiento de datos relativos a la esfera íntima del ciudadano por parte de entidades no autorizadas para ello; la Sala Constitucional se ha pronunciado en el Voto no. 1176-2008 de 11 horas 21 minutos del 25 de enero de 2008). De esta forma, la información sobre la identificación de las cuentas de terceros que obtiene el BCCR con ocasión del SAC, no se configura dentro del concepto de datos sensibles, por lo que esta Sala comparte las razones dadas por el Tribunal para desestimar el alegato de la actora (según grabación del dictado de la sentencia a las 8 horas 35 minutos del 22 de febrero de 2010). Ahora, tanto la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central como la Ley 8204 facultan al BCCR a solicitar la información contemplada en el cardinal 118 del Reglamento SINPE, con la única y exclusiva finalidad de promover la eficiencia del sistema de pagos y compensación, así como para prevenir la legitimación de capitales; cuestiones que resultan de indudable interés público. De esta forma, se puede afirmar que el ordenamiento jurídico permite al BCCR, solicitar la información contenida en el precepto 118 del Reglamento SINPE. Dentro de este tema, es cierto que el canon 108 de la Ley 7732 regula lo que se conoce como el secreto bursátil que deben guardar los participantes en el mercado respecto a sus clientes. Tradicionalmente se ha concebido al secreto bancario o bursátil, como uno de los principales deberes que surgen de las relaciones comerciales -perfectas o imperfectas- entre los bancos, instituciones financieras, y en este caso entre los puestos de bolsas y sus clientes. Este secreto, obliga a las entidades a guardar silencio, es decir, a no divulgar o revelar aquella información sobre los clientes y las operaciones que han realizado o han estado a punto de realizar. Se tiende a tutelar ese vínculo privado entre las partes, el cual se materializa a través de diferentes archivos o documentos físicos o informáticos, que contienen aspectos relativos a la identificación de los clientes, el origen y destino de fondos, movimientos periódicos, ganancias, inversiones, pérdidas, transferencias y relaciones con otras personas o instituciones. La Ley 8204 a partir del capítulo cuarto, incorporó al ordenamiento jurídico, no sólo las herramientas jurídicas para investigar el delito de legitimación de capitales, sino que además creó las instituciones y los mecanismos de coordinación de las entidades encargadas de su supervisión, ejecución e investigación. Este hecho ha generado mucha polémica respecto a la información que solicitan las entidades supervisoras (entre ellas el Banco Central), puesto que se ha considerado que con estos mecanismos se vulnera el secreto bancario. Hecho que no escapa del caso en examen. Por tal razón, esta Sala considera indispensable resaltar tres aspectos alrededor del artículo 118 del Reglamento SINPE. Primero, la información brindada o que pueda brindar el BCCR al Instituto de Control de Drogas (ICD), al Organismo de Investigación Judicial y al Ministerio Público, se enmarca dentro de las facultades reconocidas por la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, la Ley 8204 y recientemente por la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Legislación contra el Terrorismo (Ley no. 8719 de 4 de marzo de 2009), en virtud del rol supervisor y fiscalizador del Banco Central. Segundo, dicha información no es utilizada ni para el provecho de terceros ni para su divulgación, por el contrario, esta debe entenderse como información preventiva, que en caso de ser requerida, se ajuste a los fines del cardinal primero de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones. Tercero, relacionado con el anterior, el Banco Central como operador del SAC y del SINPE está obligado a mantener la confidencialidad de la información que obtiene, según se desprende de los preceptos 119 inciso c), 166 de la Ley 7732; 13 párrafo final de la Ley 7558; 44, 133 del Reglamento SINPE; 12 del Reglamento sobre los Sistemas de Anotación en Cuenta; 339 del Código Penal, 10 y 11 de la Ley 8968. En la legislación nacional entonces, se establece expresamente que tal ingerencia así como el acceso a la documentación privada no son violatorios a los derechos de intimidad y privacidad de las personas, sino que obedece a una labor sustantiva de orden público (en esta línea se ha manifestado la Sala Constitucional en el Voto no. 5275-03 de las 14 horas con 53 minutos del 18 de junio de 2003). Las funciones de regulación y fiscalización que realiza el BCCR, son necesarias para el debido control de las transacciones financieras en el país y su labor va dirigida a velar porque las operaciones que se den en la transferencia de fondos y valores sean lícitas, fin que justifica el reconocimiento de la información que solicita el cardinal 118 del Reglamento SINPE. Se busca con ello, mantener la solvencia, estabilidad y liquidez del sistema financiero nacional, dentro de un ambiente de legalidad, protegiendo al mismo inversionista; razones que además son de interés público. Motivos que se encuentran claramente definidos tanto en la Ley Orgánica del BCCR, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores y la Ley 8204. Por lo que no llevan razón los recurrentes cuando afirman que se vulneran los artículos 11, 24, 28, 121 de la Constitución Política, 19 de la LGAP y 108 de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores. De ahí que el reproche no sea de recibo para casar el fallo cuestionado.

XIV.- En mérito de lo expuesto, procederá declarar sin lugar el recurso, e imponer las costas generadas con su ejercicio a la parte recurrente conforme al precepto 150 inciso 3) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

POR TANTO

Se declara sin lugar el recurso, con las costas a cargo de la parte recurrente.

Anabelle León Feoli Luis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga Román Solís Zelaya Nombre11387 Nombre32003