Partial extra-procedural satisfaction after reform of municipal telecom regulationSatisfacción extraprocesal parcial por reforma al reglamento municipal de telecomunicaciones

2 EXP. 12-001719-1027-CA of COSTA PACÍFICO TORRES LIMITADA, against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE PALMARES.- Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Goicoechea Central: 2545-0003 Ÿ Fax: 2545-0033 Ÿ Correo electrónico: ...01 VOTO 06-2013.- Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Sexta. IIº Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A.- At fourteen hours on January seventeenth, two thousand thirteen.- Preferential declaratory proceeding (Proceso de conocimiento preferente) of COSTA PACÍFICO TORRES LIMITADA, represented by its general judicial agent Allan Hernández Vargas, married, resident of Santa Ana, attorney, with identity card CED110807; against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE PALMARES, represented by its Mayor Bernal Vargas Araya, married for the second time, administrator, resident of Palmares de Alajuela, with identity card CED27059. Participating as special judicial agent for the plaintiff is Dr. Nombre36865 , married, attorney, resident of Montes de Oca de San José, with identity card CED28443. All of legal age.-

RESULTANDO

1.- Based on the facts set forth and legal citations invoked, this lawsuit seeks as its object that the judgment: 1. Declare the non-conformity with the legal system and annul, with retroactive effect to the moment of their enactment, articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) and other related provisions of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones," published on February 14, 2012, in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 32, issued by the Municipalidad de Palmares. 2.- The Administration be ordered to exercise the discretion inherent in its regulatory power, in accordance with the following limits and mandates imposed by the legal system, which I request be expressly declared, such that the regulation may not: *exclude, expressly or implicitly, the possibility of constructing telecommunications towers; *apply analogously urban planning rules aimed at regulating the development of buildings, rather than mere service infrastructures; *contain provisions contrary to the unambiguous rules of science and technology; *establish rules that do not conform to the provisions of national legislation, which entrust to SUTEL and the Ministry of Health the competence to regulate access to scarce resources—infrastructure—and health respectively, as well as to SETENA in the environmental sphere. 3.- Declare the duty of the Municipalidad de Palmares to apply article 11 of Decreto No. 36195-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT: "Normas, estándares y competencias de las entidades públicas para la aprobación coordinada y expedita requerida para la instalación y ampliación de redes de telecomunicaciones," published in Gaceta No. 745 (sic), of September 8, 2010, for the granting of the necessary permits for the construction of telecommunications towers to provide the population of the municipality with cellular telephone coverage without the need to wait for the approval of new provisions replacing those annulled. 4.- Payment of both costs be ordered in favor of the plaintiff. 5.- Payment of damages (daños y perjuicios) be ordered, to be determined in the execution of judgment. In a brief filed at fifteen hours forty-nine minutes on October 11, 2012 (folios 501-502), this last point was clarified as follows: the damages consist of the sunk financial cost for lease option payments to landowners of the sites where the towers would be located, and costs to obtain authorizations such as environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), road alignments (alineamientos), and land-use designations (usos de suelo); for their part, the losses (perjuicios) consist of the income foregone by the plaintiff due to the frustration of the tower space lease contracts that it has been impossible to construct, which they estimate, on a preliminary basis as of October 11, 2012, at the sum of US$723,568.- 2.- The legal representative of the defendant municipality answered by generally admitting the facts; however, he indicates that these are decisions corresponding to the Municipal Council, which he cannot control in his capacity as Mayor, and requests that a reasonable period be granted to the Municipal Council to proceed with the modification of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones," with respect to the observations made by SUTEL in official communication CCI-20123-02 and the modification of the Construction Regulations, Chapter XIX-bis, "Instalaciones de Telecomunicaciones," and that, should the order for payment of damages be declared, it must be the Municipal Council that answers for them, and that the municipality be absolved from the payment of costs.- 3.- The legal representative of the defendant municipality filed a brief at nine hours on November 16, 2012, in which he informs that, through publication in Gaceta No. 159, the Modifications to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones" were published, complying with the observations made by SUTEL (folios 521 to 531).

4.- On December 4, 2012, at fifteen hours fifty-three minutes, the plaintiff's representation filed a brief acknowledging the Municipality's action, in the sense of having reformed the regulation under challenge, and argues that such reform satisfies part of the claims of the lawsuit, since the majority of the challenged articles are brought into conformity with the law, and therefore brings this situation to the Court's attention for the purposes of article 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, without prejudice to the fact that it maintains the points indicated in sections 2nd to 5th of the claim in the initial lawsuit, and further expands it as follows: "... that the non-conformity with the Legal System be declared and article 12 —formerly 11— of the 'Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones,' published on February 14, 2012, in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 32, issued by the Municipalidad de Palmares, and its reforms published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 159 of August 20, 2012, be annulled with retroactive effect to the moment of its enactment" (folios 538 to 543).- 5.- Following the hearing on the expansion of the lawsuit granted to the defendant entity, by means of a ruling at ten hours on December eleventh, two thousand twelve (folio 544), the latter filed a brief at fourteen hours ten minutes on December 20, 2012, indicating that the reform of the regulation was carried out with the coordination of an alternate member of the Council of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, that it fully conforms to the INVU Construction Regulations, and is in accordance with the law (folio 583).- 6.- The respective file was referred to this Section on January 11, 2013, to resolve the request for extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal), as recorded in the referral stamp visible on the back of folio 583 of the judicial file. In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that generate defenselessness. After deliberation, this resolution is issued.- Judge Villalobos Soto writes, and,

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Proven Facts (Hechos Probados): 1) That the Municipalidad de Palmares enacted a regulation called: "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones," published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 32, of February 14, 2012 (folio 127).- 2) That the plaintiff company has on three occasions requested land-use authorization for the installation of the tower in question from the defendant Municipality and has been denied, on two occasions due to lack of regulation, and the third due to opposition to article 11 —now 12— of the aforementioned regulation, which requires a minimum distance of eight meters fifty centimeters from all property lines (hecho 15 of the main lawsuit admitted by the defendant on folios 4 and 485).- 3) That on March 30, 2012, the present lawsuit was filed, challenging articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p); in addition to 11 (initial brief on folios 1 to 35).- 4) That on August 20, 2012, in Alcance 115 to Gaceta No. 159, the Modifications to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones" were published, approved by agreement CM-06-117-12, of the Ordinary Session 1º17 of July 24, 2012, of the Municipal Council of Palmares (folios 530 to 532 and 549 to 582).- II.- Regarding extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal). The procedural reform embodied in the Contencioso Administrativo Procedure Code (hereinafter CPCA) advocates for a more agile and efficient justice system, with shorter deadlines in the processing and resolution of matters, based on four ideological pillars, all of a constitutional basis, namely: distribution of functions, which allows the Judicial Branch to control public conduct (articles 9, 49, 153), submission of the State to the Law in the fulfillment of its functions or the exercise of its powers (article 11 —principle of legality (principio de legalidad) in its dual aspect—), universal control of the administrative function, which eliminates any possibility of areas exempt from jurisdictional control over public actions (article 49), and as a corollary of these principles, effective judicial protection (tutela judicial efectiva) (articles 41 and 49). All these maxims converge to materialize a prompt and complete justice, as a desideratum of this type of judicial proceeding, always bearing in mind that the object of this jurisdiction is to guarantee the legality of the administrative function and the protection of legal situations that may be affected within the framework of administrative legal relations. For such purposes, it establishes a common process composed of a series of stages that, in a concatenated manner, and each with a clearly established intention or ratio, seek the refinement of the process, but at the same time, the resolution of the dispute, no longer solely through the issuance of a final judgment, but through early forms of termination of the process, namely: withdrawal (desistimiento) (113), total or partial acquiescence (allanamiento) (114), extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal) (115), equivalency of an administrative resolution (116), settlement (transacción) (117), fulfillment of an omitted act (118). In this specific case, it is relevant to refer to the extra-procedural satisfaction regulated by numeral 115 of the CPCA. Pertainingly, the rule in question states that "1) If, after the proceeding has commenced, the defendant Public Administration recognizes, totally or partially, in the administrative venue, the plaintiff's claims, either party may bring this to the attention of the case management judge or the Court. 2) The case management judge or the Court, after granting a hearing to the plaintiff for a maximum period of five business days, and upon verification of what has been alleged, shall declare the process concluded in the pertinent part. 3) If what is resolved by the Public Administration infringes the legal system, the case management judge or the Court shall deny the extra-procedural satisfaction and shall continue with the process until the judgment is issued…". According to the rule, extra-procedural satisfaction occurs when, while a process is in progress, the Administration, in its own venue, recognizes, either totally or partially, what is sought by the applicant, which directly affects the former. That is, in accommodation to the body of legality and in exercise of its self-review powers (potestades de autotutela), the public entity chooses to recognize in its own venue what the plaintiff complains of and claims in the judicial venue. This involves an event (the administrative conduct that recognizes what was requested) which, although it occurs outside the process, has a direct impact on it insofar as it recognizes and satisfies, in the administrative venue, a part or the entirety of the claim. To that extent, it is evident that for the conclusion to occur, there must be correspondence between the claims outlined by the plaintiff and the action taken by the Administration. From this perspective, it is clear that this fact (the total or partial recognition of what was requested) causes a decay in the current interest, and upon that procedural prerequisite disappearing, the process must conclude. Now, from an interpretation of the provisions of ordinals 115 and 197 of the CPCA, it can be established that for this modality of process termination to occur with its respective consequences, the following conditions must be met: 1) That the Administration recognizes in its venue, totally or partially, the claims outlined by the plaintiff. At this point, it should be highlighted that our legislator chose to allow not only the total satisfaction of the petitions (which the repealed Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa already established) but also the partial one, it being that in this latter case the process must continue regarding what was not granted by the Administration. 2) That any of the parties brings the occurred extra-procedural satisfaction to the attention of the Court. 3) That it occurs before the judgment is issued. This means it can occur and be managed during the various phases of the process, provided it is before the ruling on the merits is issued. 4) That a hearing be granted to the plaintiff so that they may argue what they deem necessary in relation to the conduct voluntarily adopted by the administrative authority. 5) That the extra-procedural satisfaction is in conformity with the legal system, an aspect in which the Judge's role as guarantor of the legality of administrative conduct takes on relevance.

III.- Regarding the specific case. In this instance, the legal representative of the Municipalidad de Palmares informed the Court of the reform of the articles challenged by the plaintiff to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones"; for its part, the representation of the plaintiff company, without a hearing on said action, acknowledged being aware of it and indicated that: "These modifications satisfy, in their majority, the claim of my represented party, ... practically all of the articles challenged in the lawsuit for being non-conforming with the legal system are modified to bring them into conformity with the law. / By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with article 115 of the Contencioso Administrativo Procedure Code (...) I bring this circumstance to the attention of the Court so that it may proceed under the terms of the cited rule." Immediately thereafter, it clarifies that it maintains the claims contained in sections 2nd to 5th of the lawsuit, which have not been admitted by the defendant, and that it expands the action by challenging the current article 12 of the Regulation in question, which, in its view, is contrary to law. To determine the appropriateness or not of the extra-procedural satisfaction, it must be clear, as the plaintiff rightly notes, that in this matter two types of claims are formulated, in essence. On the one hand, the annulment of a series of regulatory provisions enacted by the defendant municipality; and on the other, to declare the Administration's liability with the consequent obligation to compensate the damages caused; additionally, the lawsuit is clarified and supplemented in the sense that one of the challenged provisions, whose numbering was modified, is alleged to still be contrary to law. Having stated the above, it must be examined whether the prerequisites that allow declaring the extra-procedural satisfaction in this case converge. As a first aspect, it must be pointed out that the defendant reported the modification or repeal of the challenged provisions, and that the plaintiff acknowledged this and admitted the partial satisfaction of its claim regarding articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones." Furthermore, it was presented before the process was ready for the issuance of judgment. It is now necessary to determine whether the formal conduct brought into the process recognizes or not the claims that have been formulated here; to this end, we find that the facts that have been accredited allow us to affirm that a partial satisfaction of the petitions formulated here has operated, as articles 7 subsection e), 22, and 27 subsection p) have been repealed, and numerals 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, and 20 have been modified; therefore, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction reaches the claim identified as the 1st of the lawsuit, so it is evident that the current interest in these annulment claims has decayed, meaning that examining the legality of these acts would lead nowhere, and, on the other hand, the Court considers that what was resolved does not evidently infringe the legal system. However, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction does not reach the petitionary points relating to the validity of article 12 of the Regulation in question according to the reform, the declaration of the obligation to apply Decreto No. 36195-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT, or the payment of damages, losses (perjuicios), and costs; aspects regarding which, without any doubt, the process must continue.

IV.- Therefore, extra-procedural satisfaction must be partially declared regarding point 1st of the petition of the lawsuit, with respect to which the process must be concluded. Taking into account that the process continues, the matter concerning the imposition of costs is deferred to the judgment; as it is an aspect specific to that procedural stage.-

POR TANTO.

Given that it has been recognized in the administrative venue, extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal) is declared for the following claim formulated by the plaintiff: "1. Declare the non-conformity with the legal system and annul, with retroactive effect to the moment of their enactment, articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) and other related provisions of the 'Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones,' published on February 14, 2012, in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 32, issued by the Municipalidad de Palmares." The process is hereby concluded with respect to this claim. The trial shall continue regarding the remaining petitions of the lawsuit on which no satisfaction has operated.- Joaquín Villalobos Soto Nombre136069 Nombre136022 .- In a brief filed at fifteen hours forty-nine minutes on October 11, 2012 (folios 501-502), this last point was clarified as follows: the damages consist of the sunk financial cost of payments for lease options to owners of the land where the towers would be located, and costs to obtain authorizations such as environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), alignments, and land uses; for their part, the losses consist of the income the plaintiff failed to receive because the lease contracts for space on the towers that could not be built were frustrated, which they estimate tentatively as of October 11, 2012, at the sum of US$723,568.

**2.-** The legal representative of the defendant municipality answered, generally admitting the facts; however, he indicates that these are decisions that correspond to the Municipal Council (Consejo Municipal), which he cannot control in his capacity as Mayor and requests that the Municipal Council be given a reasonable period to proceed with the amendment of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", regarding the observations made by SUTEL in official communication CCI-20123-02, and the amendment of the Construction Regulations, Chapter XIX-bis, "Telecommunications Installations", and that if a judgment for the payment of damages and losses is declared, it should be the Municipal Council that must answer for the same, and he should be absolved from the payment of costs.

**3.-** The legal representative of the defendant municipality submitted a brief at nine hours on November 16, 2012, in which he reports that, through publication in La Gaceta No. 159, the Amendments to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones" were published, complying with the observations made by SUTEL (folios 521 to 531).

**4.-** On December 4, 2012, at fifteen hours fifty-three minutes, the plaintiff's representation filed a brief in which it acknowledges the Municipality's action, in the sense that it has reformed the regulation being challenged and alleges that such reform satisfies part of the claims of the lawsuit, since most of the challenged articles are brought into conformity with the law; therefore, it brings the situation to the attention for the purposes of Article 115 of the Código Procesal Civil, without prejudice to the fact that it maintains the points indicated in sections 2nd to 5th of the claim of the initial lawsuit, and that it also expands it as follows: "... that the non-conformity with the Legal Order be declared and that Article 12 —formerly 11— of the 'Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones' published on February 14, 2012, in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 3, issued by the Municipalidad de Palmares and its amendments published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 159 of August 20, 2012, be annulled with retroactive effect to the moment of its promulgation." (folios 538 to 543).

**5.-** Following the hearing on the expansion of the lawsuit granted to the defendant entity, by means of an order of ten hours on December eleven, two thousand twelve (folio 544), the latter filed a brief at fourteen hours ten minutes on December 20, 2012, in which it indicates that the amendment to the regulation was carried out in coordination with an alternate member of the Council of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, that it fully conforms to the Construction Regulations of the INVU, and is in accordance with the law (folio 583).

**6.-** The respective case file was sent to this Section on January 11, 2013, to resolve the request for extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal), as recorded in the routing stamp visible on folio 583 verso of the judicial case file. In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness. After deliberation, this resolution is issued.

Drafted by Judge Villalobos Soto and;

CONSIDERING

**I.- Proven Facts**: **1)** That the Municipalidad de Palmares enacted regulations titled: "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones", published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 32, of February 14, 2012 (folio 127). **2)** That the plaintiff company has on three occasions requested land-use authorization from the defendant Municipality for the installation of the tower in question and has been denied, on two occasions due to lack of regulations and the third due to opposition to Article 11 —now 12— of the regulation referred to above, which requires a minimum distance of eight meters fifty centimeters from all boundaries (fact 15 of the main lawsuit admitted by the defendant at folios 4 and 485). **3)** That on March 30, 2012, this lawsuit was filed, in which Articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) are challenged; in addition to 11 (initial filing at folios 1 to 35). **4)** That on August 20, 2012, in Supplement 115 to La Gaceta No. 159, the Amendments to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones" were published, approved by agreement CM-06-117-12, of Ordinary Session 1º17 of July 24, 2012, of the Municipal Council of Palmares (folios 530 to 532 and 549 to 582).

**II.- On extra-procedural satisfaction.** The procedural reform embodied through the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (hereinafter CPCA) advocates for a more agile and efficient justice system, with shorter timeframes in the processing and resolution of matters, relying for this on four ideological pillars, all with a constitutional basis, namely: **distribution of functions**, which allows the Judicial Branch to control public conduct (Articles 9, 49, 153), **subjection of the State to the Law** in the fulfillment of its functions or the exercise of its powers (Article 11 —principle of legality in its dual vision—), **universal control of the administrative function**, which eliminates any possibility of areas exempt from jurisdictional control of public proceedings (Article 49), and as a corollary of these statements, **effective judicial protection** (Articles 41 and 49). All these maxims converge to achieve prompt and complete justice, as a desideratum of this type of judicial process, always bearing in mind that the object of this jurisdiction is to guarantee the legality of the administrative function and the protection of legal situations that may be affected within the framework of legal-administrative relations. For such purposes, it establishes a common process composed of a series of stages that, in a concatenated manner, and each with a clearly established purpose or ratio, seek the refinement of the process, but at the same time, the resolution of the dispute, not only through the issuance of a final judgment, but also through early forms of termination of the process, namely: withdrawal (113), total or partial acquiescence (114), extra-procedural satisfaction (115), equivalence of administrative resolution (116), settlement (117), fulfillment of omitted conduct (118). In this specific case, it is pertinent to refer to the extra-procedural satisfaction regulated by numeral 115 of the CPCA. In relevant part, the standard in question states that "*1) If, after the process has been initiated, the defendant Public Administration recognizes, totally or partially, in an administrative proceeding, the plaintiff's claims, either party may bring it to the attention of the processing judge or the court. 2) The processing judge or the Court, after granting a hearing to the plaintiff for a maximum period of five business days, and upon verification of what is alleged, shall declare the process terminated in the pertinent part. 3) If what is resolved by the Public Administration infringes the legal order, the processing judge or Court shall deny the extra-procedural satisfaction and shall continue with the process until the judgment is issued...*". According to the standard, extra-procedural satisfaction occurs when, while a process is ongoing, the Administration in its own venue recognizes, whether totally or partially, what was sought by the applicant, which directly affects the former. That is, in accommodation to the block of legality and the exercise of its self-protection powers, the public entity chooses to recognize in its own venue what the complaining party accuses and claims in the judicial venue. This is an event (the administrative conduct that recognizes what was requested) that, although it occurs outside the process, has a direct impact on it insofar as it recognizes and satisfies, in the administrative venue, part or all of the claim. To that extent, it is evident that for termination to occur, there must be correspondence between the claims outlined by the plaintiff and what was done by the Administration. From this perspective, it is clear that this fact (the total or partial recognition of what was requested) causes a decay of the current interest, and upon the disappearance of that procedural prerequisite, the process must conclude. Now, from an interpretation of the provisions in ordinals 115 and 197 of the CPCA, it can be established that for this modality of process termination to occur with its respective consequences, the fulfillment of the following conditions is required: **1)** That the Administration recognizes in its venue, totally or partially, the claims outlined by the plaintiff. On this point, it should be noted that our legislator chose to allow not only the total satisfaction of the requests (which was already established by the repealed Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) but also partial, with the understanding that in this latter case, the process must continue regarding what was not granted by the Administration. **2)** That either party brings the procedural satisfaction that has occurred to the attention of the Court. **3)** That it occurs before the judgment is issued. This means it can occur and be processed during the various phases of the process as long as it is prior to the issuance of the ruling on the merits. **4)** That a hearing be granted to the plaintiff so that they may argue whatever they deem necessary in relation to the conduct voluntarily adopted by the administrative authority. **5)** That the extra-procedural satisfaction be in conformity with the legal order, an aspect in which the role of the Judge as guarantor of the legality of administrative conduct becomes relevant.

**III.- On the specific case.** In this case, the legal representative of the Municipalidad de Palmares informed the court of the amendment of the articles challenged by the plaintiff in the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones"; for its part, the representation of the plaintiff company, without a hearing on said action, acknowledged it and indicated that: "*These amendments satisfy, for the most part, the claim of my represented party, ... practically all of the articles challenged in the lawsuit for being non-conforming with the legal order are amended to conform to the law. / By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 115 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (...) I bring such circumstance to the attention of the Court so that it may proceed under the terms of the cited standard.*" Immediately after, it clarifies that it maintains the claims contained in sections 2nd to 5th of the lawsuit, which have not been admitted by the defendant, and that it expands the action by challenging the current Article 12 of the Regulation in question, which, in its judgment, is contrary to law. To determine the appropriateness or not of the extra-procedural satisfaction, it must be clear, as the plaintiff rightly points out, that in this matter, fundamentally, two types of claims are made. On the one hand, the annulment of a series of regulatory norms enacted by the defendant municipality; and on the other, to declare the Administration's liability with the consequent obligation to compensate the damages and losses caused; additionally, the lawsuit is clarified and supplemented in the sense that one of the challenged norms, whose numbering was modified, is accused of still being contrary to law. Given the foregoing, it is necessary to examine whether the prerequisites that allow for the declaration of procedural satisfaction in this case converge. As a first aspect, it must be pointed out that the defendant reported the amendment or repeal of the challenged norms, and the plaintiff acknowledged and admitted the partial satisfaction of its claim regarding Articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones". Additionally, it was presented before the process was ready for the issuance of the judgment. It is now appropriate to determine whether the formal conduct brought to the process recognizes or not the claims that have been formulated here. To this end, the facts that have been deemed accredited allow us to affirm that a partial satisfaction of the requests formulated here has occurred, given that Articles 7 subsection e), 22, and 27 subsection p) have been repealed, and numerals 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended; therefore, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction extends to the claim identified as 1st of the lawsuit. Consequently, it is evident that the current interest in these annulment claims has decayed, such that examining the legality of these conducts would lead nowhere, and, on the other hand, the Court considers that what was resolved does not evidently infringe the legal order. However, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction does not extend to the petitionary points relating to the validity of Article 12 of the Regulation in question according to the amendment, to the declaration of the obligation to apply Decreto 236159-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT, or to the payment of damages, losses, and costs; aspects on which, without any doubt, the process must continue.

**IV.-** For the foregoing, the extra-procedural satisfaction must be partially declared as to point 1st of the petition of the lawsuit, regarding which the process must be deemed terminated. Considering that the process continues, the matter of the imposition of costs is deferred to the judgment, as it is an aspect specific to that procedural moment.

THEREFORE.

Because it has been recognized in the administrative venue, the extra-procedural satisfaction is declared for the following claim made by the plaintiff: "*1. To declare non-conformity with the legal order and annul with retroactive effect to the moment of their promulgation, Articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) and other related norms of the 'Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones', published on February 14, 2012, in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 32, issued by the Municipalidad de Palmares*". Regarding which the process is hereby terminated.

Continue the proceedings with respect to the remaining claims of the lawsuit upon which no satisfaction has operated.- </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Joaquín Villalobos Soto</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Nombre136069</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Nombre136022</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span></p> The procedural reform embodied in the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, hereinafter CPCA) advocates for a more agile and efficient justice, with shorter deadlines in the processing and resolution of matters, based for that purpose on four ideological pillars, all of them with a constitutional basis, namely: distribution of functions, which allows the Judicial Branch to control public conduct (articles 9, 49, 153), submission of the State to the Law in the fulfillment of its functions or the exercise of its powers (article 11 —principle of legality in its double aspect—), universal control of the administrative function, which eliminates any possibility of exempt enclaves from jurisdictional control of public action (article 49), and as a corollary of those statements, effective judicial protection (articles 41 and 49). All of these maxims converge to achieve prompt and complete justice, as the desideratum of this type of judicial process, always bearing in mind that the object of this jurisdiction is to guarantee the legality of the administrative function and the protection of legal situations that may be affected within the framework of legal-administrative relations. For these purposes, it establishes a common process composed of a series of stages that, in a concatenated manner, and each with a clearly established intentionality or ratio, seek the refinement of the process, but at the same time, the resolution of the controversy, not only through the issuance of a final judgment, but also through early forms of termination of the process, namely: withdrawal (desistimiento) (113), total or partial acquiescence (allanamiento) (114), extra-procedural satisfaction (satisfacción extraprocesal) (115), equivalency of administrative resolution (116), settlement (transacción) (117), fulfillment of omitted conduct (118). In the specific case, it is relevant to refer to the extra-procedural satisfaction regulated by numeral 115 of the CPCA. As pertinent, the rule in question states that "1) If, having commenced the process, the sued Public Administration recognizes, totally or partially, in the administrative venue, the claims of the plaintiff, either party may bring this to the attention of the processing judge or the court. 2) The processing judge or the Court, after granting a hearing to the plaintiff for a maximum period of five business days, and after verification of what is alleged, shall declare the process terminated to the extent applicable. 3) If the decision by the Public Administration infringes the legal system, the processing judge or Court shall deny the extra-procedural satisfaction and shall continue with the process until the judgment is rendered…". According to the rule, extra-procedural satisfaction occurs when, while a process is underway, the Administration, in its own venue, recognizes, either totally or partially, what was sought by the applicant, which directly affects that process. That is, in accordance with the legal framework and the exercise of its self-revisory powers (potestades de autotutela), the public entity chooses to recognize, in its own venue, what the plaintiff alleges and claims in the judicial route. It is an event (the administrative conduct that acknowledges what was requested) that, although it occurs outside the process, has a direct impact on it insofar as it recognizes and satisfies, in the administrative venue, part or all of the claim. In that regard, it is evident that for the conclusion to occur, there must be a correspondence between the claims outlined by the plaintiff and what was acted upon by the Administration. From this perspective, it is clear that that fact (the total or partial recognition of what was requested) causes a decay of the current interest, and upon the disappearance of that procedural prerequisite, the process must conclude. Now, from an interpretation of the provisions of ordinals 115 and 197 of the CPCA, it can be established that for this modality of process termination to occur with its respective consequences, the fulfillment of the following conditions is required: 1) That the Administration recognizes in its own venue, totally or partially, the claims outlined by the plaintiff. At this point, it must be highlighted that our legislator chose to allow not only the total satisfaction of the petitions (which the repealed Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction already established) but also the partial satisfaction, with the understanding that in this latter case, the process must continue regarding what was not granted by the Administration. 2) That either party brings the occurred procedural satisfaction to the attention of the Court. 3) That it occurs before the judgment is rendered. This means it can occur and be processed during the various phases of the process, provided it is before the decision on the merits is rendered. 4) That a hearing be granted to the plaintiff so that they may argue whatever they deem necessary in relation to the conduct voluntarily adopted by the administrative authority. 5) That the extra-procedural satisfaction conforms to the legal system, an aspect in which the Judge's role as guarantor of the legality of administrative conduct becomes relevant.

III.- On the specific case. In this instance, the legal representative of the Municipality of Palmares informed the court of the reform of the articles challenged by the plaintiff to the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones"; for its part, the representation of the plaintiff company, without a hearing on said petition, acknowledged receipt of the same and indicated that: "These modifications satisfy, for the most part, the claim of my represented party, ... they modify, to conform with the law, practically the totality of the articles challenged in the complaint for being inconsistent with the legal system. / By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with article 115 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (...) I bring such circumstance to the attention of the Court so that it may proceed in the terms of the cited rule." Immediately thereafter, it clarifies that it maintains the claims contained in paragraphs 2nd to 5th of the complaint, which have not been admitted by the defendant, and that it expands the action by challenging current article 12 of the Regulation in question, which, in its view, is contrary to law. To determine the appropriateness or not of the extra-procedural satisfaction, it must be clear, as the plaintiff rightly notes, that in this matter, two types of claims are formulated at the core. On one hand, the annulment of a series of regulatory norms enacted by the sued municipality; and on the other, to declare the liability of the Administration with the consequent obligation to compensate the damages and losses caused; furthermore, the complaint is clarified and supplemented to the effect that one of the challenged norms, whose numbering was modified, is accused of still being contrary to law. Having stated the above, it must be examined whether the prerequisites converge that allow for the procedural satisfaction to be declared in this case. As a first aspect, it must be noted that the defendant reported the modification or repeal of the challenged norms, and that the plaintiff acknowledged receipt and admitted the partial satisfaction of its claim regarding articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones". In addition, it was submitted before the process was ready for the judgment to be rendered. It is now necessary to determine whether the formal conduct brought to the process recognizes or not the claims that have been formulated herein; to that end, the facts that have been deemed accredited allow us to affirm that a partial satisfaction of the petitions formulated herein has occurred, as articles 7 subsection e), 22, and 27 subsection p) have been repealed, and numerals 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, and 20 modified; therefore, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction extends to the claim identified as 1st of the complaint, and it is thus evident that the current interest in these annulment claims has decayed, such that examining the legality of these conducts would lead nowhere, and, on the other hand, the Court considers that the decision does not evidently infringe the legal system. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the extra-procedural satisfaction does not extend to the petitionary extremes relating to the validity of article 12 of the Regulation in question according to the reform, to the declaration of the obligation to apply Decree 236159-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT, nor to the payment of damages, losses, and costs; aspects regarding which, without any doubt, the process must continue.

IV.- For the above reasons, the extra-procedural satisfaction shall be declared partially with respect to the 1st extreme of the petition of the complaint, regarding which the process must be deemed terminated. Considering that the process continues, the decision regarding the imposition of costs is deferred to the judgment; as it is an aspect typical of that procedural moment.-

THEREFORE.

For having been recognized in the administrative venue, the extra-procedural satisfaction is declared for the following claim formulated by the plaintiff: "1. Declare the non-conformity with the legal system and annul with retroactive effect to the moment of their enactment, articles 7 subsection e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 subsection p) and other related norms of the "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", published on February 14, 2012, in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 32, issued by the Municipality of Palmares". Regarding which, the process is deemed terminated. Let the trial continue with respect to the remaining petitions of the complaint upon which no satisfaction whatsoever has occurred.- Joaquín Villalobos Soto Nombre136069 Nombre136022.-

2 EXP. 12-001719-1027-CA de COSTA PACÍFICO TORRES LIMITADA, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE PALMARES.- Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Goicoechea Central: 2545-0003 Ÿ Fax: 2545-0033 Ÿ Correo electrónico: ...01 VOTO 06-2013.- Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Sexta. IIº Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A.- A las catorce horas del diecisiete de enero del dos mil trece.- Proceso de conocimiento preferente de COSTA PACÍFICO TORRES LIMITADA, representada por su apoderado general judicial Allan Hernández Vargas, casado, vecino de Santa Ana, abogado, con cédula de identidad CED110807; contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE PALMARES, representada por su señor Alcalde Bernal Vargas Araya, casado por segunda vez, administrador, vecino de Palmares de Alajuela, con cédula CED27059. Participa como apoderado especial judicial de la parte demandante el doctor Nombre36865 , casado, abogado, vecino de Montes de Oca de San José, con cédula CED28443. Todos mayores.-

RESULTANDO

1.- Con fundamento en los hechos expuestos y citas legales invocadas, esta demanda tiene por objeto que en sentencia: 1. Declarar la disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico y se anulen con efecto retroactivo al momento de su promulgación, los artículos 7 inciso e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 inciso p) y demás normas conexas del "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", publicado el 14 de febrero de 2012 en el Diario Oficial La gaceta No. 32, emitido por la Municipalidad de Palmares. 2.- Se condene a la Administración a ejercitar la discrecionalidad propia de la potestad reglamentaria, conforme a los siguientes límites y mandatos impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico y que solicito declarar de modo expreso, de modo tal que el reglamento no podrá: *excluir, expresa o implícitamente, la posibilidad de construir torres de telecomunicaciones; *aplicar análogamente reglas urbanísticas dirigidas a regular el desarrollo de edificaciones, no así, meras infraestructuras para servicios; *contener disposiciones contrarias a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica; *disponer reglas que no se sujeten a lo dispuesto por la legislación nacional, las cuales atribuyen a la SUTEL y al Ministerio de Salud la competencia de regular el acceso a los recursos escasos —infraestructura— y la salud respectivamente, así como a la SETENA en el ámbito ambiental. 3.- Declarar el deber de la Municipalidad de Palmares, de aplicar el artículo 11 del Decreto No. 36195-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT: "Normas, estándares y competencias de las entidades públicas para la aprobación coordinada y expedita requerida para la instalación y ampliación de redes de telecomunicaciones", publicado en la Gaceta No. 745 (sic), del 8 de setiembre de 2010, para el otorgamiento de los permisos necesarios para la construcción de las torres de telecomunicación para proveer a la población de la municipalidad con la cobertura de telefonía celular sin que sea necesario esperara a que se aprueben nuevas normas que sustituyan las anuladas. 4.- Se condene al pago de ambas costas a favor de la actora. 5.- Se condene al pago de los daños y perjuicios que se determinarán en ejecución de sentencia. En escrito presentado alas quince horas cuarenta y nueve minutos del 11 de octubre de 2012 (folios 501-502) se aclaró este último extremo así: los daños consisten en el costo financiero hundido por los pagos por opciones de arrendamiento a propietarios de los terrenos en que se ubicarían las torres, costos para obtener autorizaciones tales como viabilidad ambiental, alineamientos y usos de suelo; por su parte los perjuicios consisten n los ingresos dejados de percibir por la actora al verse frustrados los contratos de arrendamiento de espacio en las torres que no ha sido posible construir, los que estiman en forma pudencial al 11 de octubre de 2012 en la suma de US$723,568.- 2.- El representante legal del municipio demandado contestó admitiendo en general los hechos, no obstante, indica que se trata de decisiones que corresponden al Consejo Municipal, que no puede controlar en su carácter de Alcalde y solicita que se le dé un plazo prudencial al Consejo Municipal para que proceda con la modificación del "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", en lo referente a las observaciones hechas por la SUTEL en el oficio CCI-20123-02 y la modificación del Reglamento de Construcciones, Capítulo XIX-bis, "Intalaciones de Telecomunicaciones", que de declararse la condena al pago de daños y perjuicios que debe responder por los mimos sea el Concejo Municipal y se absuelva en el pago de las costas.- 3.- El representante legal de la municipalidad demandada preento escrito a las nueve horas del 16 de noviembre de 2012, en el que informa que, mediante publicación en la Gaceta No. 159, se publicaron las Modificaciones al "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", cumpliendo con las observaciones realizadas por SUTEL (folios 521 a 531) 4.- El 4 de diciembre de 2012, a las quince horas cincuenta y tres minutos, la representación del actor presentó un escrito en el que se da por enterada de la gestión de la Municipalidad, en el sentido de haber reformado el reglamento que se impugna y alega que tal reforma satisface parte de las pretensiones de la demanda, pues se ponen a derecho la mayoría de los artículos impugnados, por lo que pone en conocimiento la situación para los efectos del artículo 115 del Código Procesal Civil, sin perjuicio de que mantiene vigentes los extremos indicados en los apartados 2º a 5º de la pretensión de la demanda inicial, y que además la amplía de la siguiente forma: "... que se declare la disconformidad con el Ordenamiento Jurídico y se anule con efecto retroactivo al momento de su promulgación, del artículo 12 -antes11- del "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones" publicado el 14 de febrero de 2012, en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta Nº 3, emitido por la Municipalidad de Palmares y sus reformas publicadas en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta nº 159 del 20 de agosto de 2012" (folios 538 a 543).- 5.- Ante la audiencia a la ampliación de la demanda que se le dio a la entidad demandada, por medio de auto de diez horas del once de diciembre del dos mil doce (folio 544), ésta presentó escrito a las catorce horas diez minutos del 20 de diciembre de 2012, en el que indica que la reforma al reglamento se realizó con la coordinación de un miembro suplente del Consejo de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, que se ajusta en un todo al Reglamento de Construcciones del INVU y es conforme a derecho (folio 583).- 6.- El expediente respectivo fue remitido a esta Sección el 11 de enero de 2013 para resolver la solicitud de satisfacción extraprocesal, según consta en sello de pase visible al folio 583 vuelto del expediente judicial. En los procedimientos ante este Tribunal no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión. Previa deliberación, se dicta esta resolución.- Redacta el juez Villalobos Soto y,

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Hechos Probados: 1) Que la Municipalidad de Palmares promulgó una normativa denominada: "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones", publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta No. 32, del 14 de febrero de 2012 (folio 127).- 2) Que la empresa actora ha solicitado en tres ocasiones autorización de uso de suelo para la instalación de la torre en cuestión a la Municipalidad demandada y se le ha negado, en dos ocasiones por falta de reglamento y la tercera por oposición al artículo 11 -ahora 12- del reglamento referido supra, que requiere una distancia mínima de ocho metros cincuenta centímetros de todas las colindancias (hecho 15 de la demanda principal admitido por la accionada a folios 4 y 485).- 3) Que el 30 de marzo de 2012 se interpuso la presente demanda, en la que se impugnan los artículos 7 inciso e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 inciso p); además del 11 (escrito inicial a fs. 1 a 35).- 4) Que el 20 de agosto de 2012, en el Alcance 115 a la Gaceta No. 159, se publicaron las Modificaciones al "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", aprobadas mediante acuerdo CM-06-117-12, de la Sesión Ordinaria 1º17 del 24 de julio de 2012, del Consejo Municipal de Palmares (fs. 530 a 532 y 549 a 582).- II.- Sobre la satisfacción extraprocesal. La reforma procesal plasmada a través del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (en adelante CPCA) propugna por una justicia más ágil y eficiente, con plazos más cortos en el trámite y resolución de asuntos, sustentándose para ello en cuatro pilares ideológicos, todos ellos, de base constitucional, a saber: distribución de funciones, que permite al Poder Judicial controlar las conductas públicas (artículos 9, 49, 153), sometimiento del Estado al Derecho en el cumplimiento de sus funciones o el ejercicio de sus competencias (artículo 11 -principio de legalidad en su doble visión-), control universal de la función administrativa, que elimina cualquier posibilidad de reductos exentos del control jurisdiccional del proceder público (artículo 49) y como corolario de esos enunciados, la tutela judicial efectiva (artículos 41 y 49). Todas esas máximas convergen para concretar una justicia pronta y cumplida, como desideratum de este tipo de procesos judiciales, siempre teniendo en cuenta que el objeto de esta jurisdicción es garantizar la legalidad de la función administrativa y la tutela de las situaciones jurídicas que puedan verse afectadas en el marco de las relaciones jurídico-administrativas. Para tales efectos establece un proceso común compuesto por una serie de etapas que de manera concatenada, y cada una con una intencionalidad o ratio claramente establecida, buscan la depuración del proceso, pero a su vez, la solución de la controversia, ya no solo por la emisión de una sentencia final, sino por formas anticipadas de terminación del proceso, a saber: desistimiento (113), allanamiento total o parcial (114), satisfacción extraprocesal (115), equiparación de resolución administrativa (116), transacción (117), cumplimiento de conducta omitida (118). En el caso concreto, interesa referirse a la satisfacción extraprocesal que regula el numeral 115 del CPCA. En lo atinente, señala la norma en cuestión que “1) Si, habiéndose incoado el proceso, la Administración Pública demandada reconoce, total o parcialmente, en vía administrativa las pretensiones del demandante, cualquiera de las partes podrá ponerlo en conocimiento del juez tramitador o del tribunal. 2) El juez tramitador o el Tribunal, luego de concedida audiencia al demandante por un plazo máximo de cinco días hábiles, y previa comprobación de lo alegado, declarará terminado el proceso en lo conducente. 3) Si lo resuelto por la Administración Pública infringe el ordenamiento jurídico, el juez tramitador o Tribunal denegará la satisfacción extraprocesal y continuará con el proceso hasta el dictado de la sentencia…”. Conforme a la norma, la satisfacción extraprocesal se produce cuando estando en curso un proceso, la Administración en su sede reconoce, sea total o parcialmente lo pretendido por el gestionante, lo cual incide directamente en aquél. Esto es, en acomodo al bloque de legalidad y ejercicio de sus potestades de autotutela, el ente público opta por reconocer en su propia sede, lo que la parte demandante acusa y reclama en la vía judicial. Se trata de un evento (la conducta administrativa que reconoce lo pedido) que si bien sucede fuera del proceso, tiene incidencia directa en éste en tanto reconoce y satisface en la vía administrativa una parte o la totalidad de la pretensión. En ese tanto, es evidente que para que se produzca la culminación debe haber correspondencia entre las pretensiones esbozadas por la parte actora y lo actuado por la Administración. Desde esta perspectiva, es claro que ese hecho (el reconocimiento total o parcial de lo pedido) provoca un decaimiento del interés actual y al desaparecer ese presupuesto procesal, el proceso debe concluir. Ahora bien, de una interpretación de lo dispuesto en los ordinales 115 y 197 del CPCA, puede establecerse que para que se produzca esa modalidad de terminación del proceso con sus respectivas consecuencias, se requiere el cumplimiento de las siguientes condiciones: 1) Que la Administración reconozca en su sede total o parcialmente las pretensiones esbozadas por la parte demandante. En este punto debe resaltarse que nuestro legislador optó por permitir no solo la satisfacción total de los pedimentos (que ya establecía la derogada Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) sino también la parcial, siendo que en este último supuesto el proceso debe continuar en lo no concedido por la Administración. 2) Que cualquiera de las partes ponga en conocimiento del Tribunal la satisfacción procesal acaecida. 3) Que ocurra antes del dictado de la sentencia. Esto significa que puede ocurrir y gestionarse durante las diversas fases del proceso siempre que sea con anterioridad al dictado del fallo sobre el fondo. 4) Que se otorgue audiencia al demandante para que alegue lo que estime necesario en relación con la conducta adoptada en forma voluntaria por la autoridad administrativa. 5) Que la satisfacción extraprocesal sea conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico, aspecto en el cual toma relevancia la función del Juez como garante de la legalidad de la conducta administrativa.

III.- Sobre el caso concreto. En la especie, el representante legal de la Municipalidad de Palmares informó al tribunal de la reforma de los artículos impugnados por el actor al "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones"; por su parte, la representación de la empresa accionante, sin audiencia de la gestión dicha, se dio por enterada de la misma e indicó que: "Estas modificaciones satisfacen, en su mayoría, la pretensión de mi representada, ... se modifican, para ajustar a derecho, prácticamente la totalidad de los artículos que impugnados en la demanda por ser disconformes con el ordenamiento jurídico. / En virtud de lo señalado, de conformidad con el artículo 115 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (...) pongo en concomiendo del Tribunal tal circunstancia a efecto de que proceda en los términos de la citada norma." Acto seguido aclara que mantiene las pretensiones contenidas en los apartados 2º a 5º de la demanda, que no han sido admitidos por la demandada y que amplía la acción impungnando el actual artículo 12 del Reglamento en cuestión, que, a su juicio, resulta contrario a derecho. Para determinar la procedencia o no de la satisfacción extraprocesal debe tenerse claro, como bien lo advierte la parte actora, que en este asunto se formulan, en lo medular, dos tipos de pretensiones. Por una parte, la anulación de una serie de normas reglamentarias promulgadas por el municipio accionado; y por otra, declarar la responsabilidad de la Administración con la consecuente obligación de indemnizar los daños y perjuicios ocasionados, además, se aclara y adiciona la demanda en el sentido de que que una de las normas impugnadas, cuya numeración se modificó, se acusa de ser aún contraria a derecho. Expuesto lo anterior, debe examinarse si convergen los presupuestos que permiten declarar la satisfacción procesal en este caso. Como primer aspecto, ha de señalarse que la accionada informó de la modificación o derogación de las normas impugnadas y que la parte actora se dio por enterada y admitió la satisfacción parcial de su pretensión en cuanto a los artículos 7 inciso e), 10, 10 Bis, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 inciso p) del "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la Ubicación y Construcción de Infraestructura de Telecomunicaciones". Además, se presentó antes de que el proceso esté listo para el dictado de la sentencia. Corresponde ahora determinar si la conducta formal traída al proceso reconoce o no las pretensiones que aquí se han formulado, a tal fin tenemos que los hechos que se han tenido por acreditados permiten afirmar que ha operado una satisfacción parcial de los pedimentos que aquí se formulan, al haberse derogado los artículos 7 inciso e), 22 y 27 inciso p) y modificado los numerales 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19 y 20; por lo que estima el Tribunal que la satisfacción extraprocesal alcanza a la pretensión identificada como 1º de la demanda, por lo que es evidente que ha decaído el interés actual sobre estas pretensiones anulatorias de manera que a nada llevaría examinar la legalidad de estas conductas y, por otra parte, estima el Tribunal que lo resuelto no infringe de manera evidente el ordenamiento jurídico. Sin embargo, estima el Tribunal que la satisfacción extraprocesal no alcanza a los extremos petitorios relativos a la validez del artículo 12 del Reglamento en cuestión según la reforma, a la declaratoria de la obligación de aplicar el Decreto 236159-MINAET-S-MEIC-MOPT ni al pago de daños, perjuicios y costas; aspectos sobre los cuales, sin ninguna duda, deberá continuarse con el proceso.

IV.- Por lo expuesto, deberá declararse parcialmente la satisfacción extraprocesal en cuanto al extremo 1º de la petición de la demanda, respecto del cual se debe dar por terminado el proceso. Tomando en cuenta que el proceso continúa, se difiere para la sentencia lo referido a la imposición de las costas; por tratarse de un aspecto propio de ese momento procesal.-

POR TANTO.

Por haber sido reconocida en la vía administrativa, se declara la satisfacción extraprocesal de la siguiente pretensión formulada por el actor: "1. Declarar la disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico y se anulen con efecto retroactivo al momento de su promulgación, los artículos 7 inciso e), 10, 10 Bis, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27 inciso p) y demás normas conexas del "Reglamento de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la ubicación y construcción de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones", publicado el 14 de febrero de 2012 en el Diario Oficial La gaceta No. 32, emitido por la Municipalidad de Palmares". Respecto de la cual se da por terminado el proceso. Continúese el juicio respecto de los restantes pedimentos de la demanda sobre los cuales no ha operado satisfacción alguna.- Joaquín Villalobos Soto Nombre136069 Nombre136022 .-