Challenge to Ministry of Health sanitary order rejected for lack of valid permitsDemanda contra orden sanitaria del Ministerio de Salud rechazada por carencia de permisos

PROCEEDING OF PURE LAW Case No. 12-001044-1028-CA Plaintiff: Nombre84236 Defendants: Municipalidad de Corredores -dismissed- and the State No. 26-2014-VII SEVENTH SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A, Dirección01, at eight hours thirty minutes on the twenty-eighth of March, two thousand fourteen.

Declaratory proceeding declared of pure law filed by Nombre84236, of legal age, merchant, ID CED116634, resident of Paso Canoas, against the State, represented by the Deputy Procuradora, Guisell Jiménez Gómez, of legal age, single, attorney, ID CED116071, resident of San Antonio de Coronado, and the Municipalidad de Corredores, legal ID CED116635, represented by its Mayor Nombre105036, of legal age, married, ID CED116636. Appearing as special judicial representatives of the plaintiff are licensed attorneys Edwin Duartes Delgado and Erick Esquivel Carvajal, bar number CED116637, and as special representative of the municipal entity, licensed attorney Juan Emilio Jiménez Delgado, of legal age, in a common-law union, Municipal Attorney, ID CED116638, resident of Ciudad Neily.

WHEREAS

I.- That the plaintiff filed a complaint against the State and the Municipalidad de Corredores, petitioning the following: "1)..." (Dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing). 2) The non-conformity of sanitary order number ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 dated 10.26.2012 from the Ministry of Health, deeming it improper, with the legal system and all prior, contemporaneous, subsequent, and related acts or proceedings. 3) That the State be ordered to restore me to the full enjoyment of my rights and to nullify—as contrary to the legal system—the prior administrative resolutions. 4) That the State be ordered to refrain henceforth from adopting and executing any conduct that could harm the potential legal situations of this servant (sic). 5) That the State be ordered to pay both costs, as well as damages and losses in the abstract, which shall be enforced in the sentence execution proceeding. For which purpose the present action is estimated at the sum of ONE MILLION COLONES, derived from moral damages." The foregoing claims are the result of the dismissal made by the plaintiff of the first of them and the ratification of the remaining claims at the Preliminary Hearing. (F. 9 to 12, 163 to 165 all from the judicial file and backup on CD of said hearing).

II.- That once the legal transfer was granted, the representatives of the defendant entities answered the complaint negatively, with the State raising the exception of lack of right. (F. 95 to 109 and 121 to 124, all from the judicial file).

III.- By resolution No. 137-2013, at fifteen hours twenty minutes on the twenty-fourth of January, two thousand thirteen, the Processing Judge rejected the precautionary measure requested by the plaintiff, without any record in the proceedings that an appeal had been filed against what was thus resolved. (F. 84 to 87 and 94, all from the judicial file).

IV.- That the Preliminary Hearing established in Article 90 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code was held at 8:40 hours on November 27, 2013, the time recorded in the respective minutes being a material error, as is clear from the recording backed up on CD of said hearing. At the hearing in question, the plaintiff dismissed the first of her claims, and consequently, the Processing Judge, by resolution No. 2551-2013 at ten hours fifteen minutes, declared the complaint dismissed with respect to the Municipalidad de Corredores. It is clarified that due to a material error, the respective minutes recorded said resolution as No. 2551-2015, whereas according to the CD where the hearing recording was backed up, the correct number is heard as indicated in bold and underlined above. The remaining claims were ratified by the plaintiff at said hearing. Likewise, all facts in the complaint were declared disputed, and the documentary evidence detailed in the respective minutes was admitted. Since there was no evidence to present at trial, the Processing Judge declared this matter one of pure law and granted the parties the opportunity to present their respective conclusions, which they proceeded to issue in the order set by the Judge. (F. 163 to 165 of the judicial file. Backup on CD of the Preliminary Hearing).

V.- This matter was referred to the Seventh Section on March 24, 2014, for the issuance of the corresponding ruling, as per the record visible on folio 166 of the judicial file.

VI.- This judgment is issued after deliberation by the members of the Tribunal, within the fifteen-day period established in the second paragraph of Article 98 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code in relation to Article 82, subsection 4) of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction, without observing any grounds capable of invalidating the proceedings.

Drafted by Judge Baltodano Gómez, with the affirmative vote of Judges Jiménez Villegas and Alonso Soto.

CONSIDERING

I.- OF THE PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following is considered duly accredited: 1) That the Municipal Council of Corredores, in ordinary session No. 23 held on August 1, 1990, ordered by Agreement No. 21: "... approve the request made by Mrs. Nombre84236, in the sense that her itinerant fruit vending license in Paso Canoas be changed to a Stationary Vending license for the sale of fruit and soft drinks." (F. 70 and 132 to 133 all from the judicial file); 2) That on May 9, 1995, the Ministry of Health issued in the name of the plaintiff, with a validity of one calendar year, a Sanitary Operating Permit for the "sale of packaged products Nombre149567. ." in the section "LA FE". (F. 5 of the judicial file. The uppercase corresponds to the original); 3) That on May 8 and October 25, both in 2012, officials of the Ministry of Health conducted inspections in the sector between the Panamanian and Costa Rican Customs—Paso Canoas—in order to determine the sanitary conditions of the sodas located on public roads. (F. 7 to 10 of the administrative file Volume I); 4) That the results of the inspections indicated in the immediately preceding fact were recorded in Technical Report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 of October 25, 2012, in which, regarding the plaintiff's business, it is indicated that it lacks water, electricity, and a Sanitary Operating Permit. (F. 7 to 10 of the administrative file Volume I); 5) That on October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health issued against the plaintiff Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012, which was notified to her on the 29th of that same month and year, and by which she was ordered that within a period of three months she must "Vacate the commercial premises in its entirety...", because "IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, and in consideration of technical report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 which corresponds to an inspection visit to your premises and based on said inspection it is observed that it does not meet (sic) the conditions that this Ministry of Health requires by law, such as having the respective sanitary operating permit, being located on properties outside of public roads, having water, electricity, hygienic measures for handlers, as well as structural aspects that allow—sanitarily—the normal development of the activity, without putting the health of persons and environmental contamination at risk." (F. 1 to 3 of the judicial file. The uppercase and bold correspond to the original).

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: Since the case records lack evidence in this regard, the following is considered unproven: 1) That the plaintiff processed the obtaining of a new Sanitary Operating Permit with negative results, by virtue of an arbitrary rejection by the Ministry of Health. 2) That the Ministry of Health renewed for the plaintiff in the years following its expiration the Sanitary Operating Permit granted to her on May 9, 1995.

III.- OF THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.- It is worth recalling that the arguments put forth by the representation of the defendant Municipality are omitted, insofar as the complaint against it was considered dismissed. (See Whereas IV of this resolution). Having stated the foregoing, in synthesis and without prejudice to the literalness of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Tribunal, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below. Plaintiff: The plaintiff states that since 1990, the Municipalidad de Corredores granted her a business license for a business selling processed products. She adds that she carries out said activity precisely in the park of the cited locality, where the municipal entity granted her a concession for a space for such purposes. She maintains that she is up to date in the payment of the respective patent tax and has had for a long time the sanitary operating permit granted by the Ministry of Health. She indicates that on October 29, 2012, the Municipalidad de Corredores summoned her to present the sanitary operating permit, under the warning of ordering the cessation of her commercial activity and the cancellation of the license. She adds that paradoxically, the Ministry of Health does not grant her said permit, arguing that her business is on public roads. Thus, she affirms, the Municipality threatens to cancel her license for not having a sanitary operating permit, and the Ministry of Health threatens to close her business because she does not have a municipal permit to carry out her activity on public property. She concludes by indicating that by sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 dated October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health denied her the referenced permit, arguing that her business is on public roads, lacks water, electricity, and hygienic measures for handlers. A decision which, in her opinion, is arbitrary because—she affirms—she does not handle food but rather sells processed products. (F. 9 to 12 of the judicial file). State: After a section it titles "Background," the state representation points out that the plaintiff does not expressly establish what the alleged defects of the administrative act are, and this, it affirms, forces the State to guess what the reasons are for which it is sued. Thus generating a state of defenselessness to the detriment of the State. The Attorney General's office also transcribes the reasons why sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, was issued, and then adds that in the matter under study, the plaintiff's premises lack a sanitary operating permit, suffer from appropriate physical-sanitary conditions, and have no water; therefore, it is not legally possible for the Ministry to continue permitting the activity or even grant a new sanitary operating permit. Thus, it affirms, Article 216 of the General Health Law establishes that no establishment must operate without the referenced permit, and Article 363 of that normative body provides that in the absence of said permit, the immediate closure of the establishment is proper. The State goes on to state that the plaintiff presents a sanitary operating permit granted in 1995, which she necessarily had to renew on May 9, 1996, since the copy indicates it is valid for one year. The foregoing, it adds, means that the permit in question is expired, since according to Decree No. 34728—Article 16 and Transitory I—regarding food, the permit must be renewed annually. In this sense, it points out that what the State has done is organize the operation of establishments for the benefit of public health and the environment. It then partially transcribes judgments from the Constitutional Chamber where the issue of the Ministry's responsibility regarding public health is addressed, and then indicates that the reasoning contained in such rulings applies to the specific case, insofar as the inspection carried out by Ministry of Health officials resulted in a series of deficiencies in relation to technical and legal health standards that led, precisely, to the closure of the establishment. (F. 95 to 109 of the judicial file).

IV.- OF THE GROUNDS OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS TRIBUNAL: As the state representation pointed out when answering the complaint, the plaintiff does not specify the defects that, in her opinion, the administrative act she attacks has. She fundamentally limits herself to making comments in the factual section of her complaint without any evidentiary support, and in the Legal Grounds section, an absolute absence of an argumentative line is evident. The foregoing, undoubtedly, limits the possibilities of effective judicial review of legality over the formal conduct being challenged. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Tribunal that Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, is substantially in conformity with the legal system for the reasons indicated below. It has been proven—proven fact No. 2—that the plaintiff lacks a current Sanitary Operating Permit, since the only one she had dates from 1995 and is consequently expired. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that prior to the issuance of the Sanitary Order being challenged, the Ministry of Health conducted the relevant inspections and prepared the corresponding technical report. (Proven facts Nos. 3 and 4). It is also considered proven that the plaintiff's stand lacks water and electricity services, among other aspects explicitly detailed in the challenged Sanitary Order. (Proven facts Nos. 3, 4, and 5). From the foregoing, it is evident that the challenged Sanitary Order is an act issued by the competent authority, on the occasion of irregularities detected in the plaintiff's exercise of commerce, and is duly grounded, granting her a three-month period to comply with what was ordered or, as this Tribunal understands is not mutually exclusive, proceed to bring her activity into conformity with the Law. For her part, the plaintiff does not prove that she unsuccessfully—due to arbitrary rejection—processed the Sanitary Operating Permit, nor does she refute the content of the report that motivated the issuance of the Order in question, much less attack the Order itself with concrete and specific observations. Now then, Articles 1 and 196 of the General Health Law expressly state:

"Article 1 The health of the population is a public interest asset protected by the State." "Article 196 Adequate nutrition and the ingestion of food of good quality and in sanitary conditions are essential for health, and therefore, natural and legal persons engaged in activities related to food intended for the population's consumption must exercise maximum diligence and avoid omissions in compliance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions and the special orders that the health authority may issue, within its powers, in protection of health." For its part, the General Regulation for the Granting of Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health—Executive Decree No. 34728-S of May 28, 2008—establishes with absolute clarity in Article 1.38 that the Sanitary Operating Permit is the:

"... certificate issued by the Ministry of Health authorizing the operation of an establishment with agricultural, commercial, industrial, or service activity, in a determined location. For purposes of health establishments and related ones, the habilitation certificate is substituted by the sanitary operating permit certificate. (As amended by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 35145 of January 23, 2009. The bold is ours)." From the transcribed norms, it is evident with absolute clarity that for the activity carried out by the plaintiff, that is, the sale of packaged products licensed by the Ministry of Health—proven fact No. 2—it is required to have a Sanitary Operating Permit, which she in any case does not question. And, since to date she does not have said document, nor has she proven any unsuccessful processing due to arbitrary rejection in order to obtain it—unproven fact No. 1—or that the permit granted on May 9, 1995, was renewed for her in the years following its expiration—unproven fact No. 2—she evidently cannot carry out her activity. This reason is more than sufficient for the Ministry to act in the manner it did, in protection of public health. From that perspective, it is the criterion of this Chamber that the formal conduct being challenged is substantially in conformity with the legal system and must be so declared.

V.- OF THE EXCEPTION RAISED: When answering the complaint, the state representation raised the exception of lack of right. In this regard, given that the legal system does not protect the claims put forth by the plaintiff, as analyzed in the preceding Considering, the exception raised must be upheld and, consequently, the complaint declared without merit as is hereby ordered.

VI.- OF THE AWARD OF COSTS: In accordance with Article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Exemption from this award is only viable when there exists, in the Tribunal's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, this Collegiate Body finds no reason whatsoever to apply the exceptions established in the relevant regulations and to break the principle of awarding costs against the loser. Therefore, procedural and personal costs are imposed on the plaintiff.

THEREFORE

The exception of lack of right raised by the State Representation is upheld. Consequently, the complaint filed by Nombre84236 against the State is declared without merit. Procedural and personal costs are charged to the plaintiff.

Elías Baltodano Gómez Francisco Jiménez Villegas Paulo André Alonso Soto of the judicial case file. The capitalization corresponds to the original); **3)** That on May 8 and October 25, both in 2012, officials of the Ministry of Health conducted inspections in the sector between the Panamanian and Costa Rican Customs offices—Paso Canoas—in order to determine the sanitary conditions of the food stalls (sodas) located on the public thoroughfare. (Folios 7 to 10 of the administrative file, Volume I); **4)** That the results of the inspections indicated in the immediately preceding fact were recorded in Technical Report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 of October 25, 2012, in which, regarding the plaintiff's business, it is indicated: that it lacks water, electricity, and a Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento). (Folios 7 to 10 of the administrative file, Volume I); **5)** That on October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health issued Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 against the plaintiff, which was notified to her on the 29th of that same month and year, and by which she was ordered that within three months she must "Completely vacate the commercial premises...", because "IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, and in consideration of the technical report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 which corresponds to an inspection visit to your premises and based on said inspection it is observed that it does not meet (sic) the conditions required by law by this Ministry of Health, such as having the respective sanitary operating permit, being located on properties off the public thoroughfare, having water, electricity, hygienic measures for food handlers, as well as structural aspects that allow—sanitarily—the normal development of the activity, without putting people's health and environmental contamination at risk." (Folios 1 to 3 of the judicial case file. The capitalization and bold correspond to the original).

**II.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Due to the lack of evidence in the record, the following are considered unproven: **1)** That the plaintiff has applied for a new Sanitary Operating Permit with negative results, due to an arbitrary rejection by the Ministry of Health. **2)** That the Ministry of Health renewed the plaintiff's Sanitary Operating Permit granted to her on May 9, 1995, in the years following its expiration.

**III.- ON THE PARTIES' POSITIONS.-** It should be recalled that the arguments put forth by the representation of the defendant Municipality are omitted, insofar as the claim was considered withdrawn against it. (See Recital IV of this resolution). Having stated the foregoing, in summary and without prejudice to the literal text of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Court, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below. **Plaintiff:** The plaintiff states that, since 1990, the Municipality of Corredores granted her a commercial license for a business selling processed products. She adds that she conducts this activity precisely in the park of the cited locality, where the municipal entity granted her a concession for a space for such purposes. She maintains that she is up to date with the payment of the respective patent tax and has had, for a long time, the sanitary operating permit granted by the Ministry of Health. She indicates that on October 29, 2012, the Municipality of Corredores summoned her to present the sanitary operating permit, under the warning of ordering the cessation of her commercial activity and the cancellation of the license. She adds that, paradoxically, the Ministry of Health does not grant her said permit, arguing that her business is on the public thoroughfare. Thus, she affirms, the Municipality threatens to cancel her license for not having a sanitary operating permit, and the Ministry of Health threatens to close her business because she does not have a municipal permit to conduct her activity in the public area. She concludes by indicating that through sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health denied her the referenced permit, arguing that her business is on the public thoroughfare, and lacks water, electricity, and hygienic measures for food handlers. A decision that, in her opinion, is arbitrary because—she affirms—she does not handle food, but rather sells processed products. (Folios 9 to 12 of the judicial case file). **State:** After a section entitled "Background", the State's representation points out that the plaintiff does not expressly establish what the supposed defects of the administrative act are, which, it affirms, forces the State to guess the reasons for the action. Thus creating a state of defenselessness to the detriment of the State. The prosecuting body also transcribes the reasons for which sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, was issued, to then add that, in the matter under study, the plaintiff's premises do not have a sanitary operating permit, lack the appropriate physical-sanitary conditions, and have no water; therefore, it is not legally possible for the Ministry to continue allowing the activity or even to grant a new sanitary operating permit. Thus, it affirms, Article 216 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) establishes that no establishment shall operate without the referenced permit, and number 363 of that regulatory body provides that in the absence of said permit, the immediate closure of the establishment is appropriate. The State continues stating that the plaintiff presents a sanitary operating permit granted in 1995, which she necessarily had to renew on May 9, 1996, as the copy indicates that it is valid for one year. The foregoing, it adds, means that the permit in question is expired, since according to Decree No. 34728—Article 16 and transitional provision I—in matters of food, the permit must be renewed annually. In that sense, it points out that what the State has done is to organize the operation of establishments for the benefit of public health and the environment. Following this, it partially transcribes judgments of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) where the issue of said Ministry's responsibility regarding public health is addressed, to then indicate that the reasoning expressed in those rulings applies to the specific case, insofar as the inspection carried out by officials of the Ministry of Health resulted in a series of deficiencies in relation to technical and legal health standards that precisely led to the closure of the establishment. (Folios 95 to 109 of the judicial case file).

**IV.- ON THE GROUNDS OF THE CLAIM AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS COURT:** Just as the State's representation pointed out when answering the claim, the plaintiff does not specify the defects that, in her opinion, the administrative act she attacks contains. She fundamentally limits herself to making comments in the factual section of her claim without any evidentiary support, and in the section on Legal Grounds, an absolute absence of argumentative line is evident. The foregoing, undoubtedly, limits the possibilities of effective legality control over the formal conduct being challenged. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Court that Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, is substantially in conformity with the legal system for the reasons indicated below. It has been proven—proven fact No. 2—that the plaintiff lacks a current Sanitary Operating Permit, as the only one she had dates from 1995 and, consequently, is expired. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that prior to the issuance of the Sanitary Order being challenged, the Ministry of Health carried out the requisite inspections and prepared the corresponding technical report. (Proven facts Nos. 3 and 4). It is also considered proven that the plaintiff's stall lacks water and electricity services, among other aspects expressly detailed in the challenged Sanitary Order. (Proven facts Nos. 3, 4, and 5). With the foregoing, it is evident that the challenged Sanitary Order is an act issued by a competent authority, on the occasion of irregularities detected in the conduct of commerce by the plaintiff, and is duly substantiated, granting her a three-month period to comply with the order or, because this Court understands it is not mutually exclusive, to proceed to adjust her activity to the Law. For her part, the plaintiff does not prove that she fruitlessly applied—due to arbitrary rejection—for the Sanitary Operating Permit, nor does she refute the content of the report that motivated the issuance of the Order in question, much less does she attack the Order itself with specific and precise observations. Now, Articles 1 and 196 of the General Health Law expressly state:

"Artículo 1 The health of the population is a public interest asset protected by the State." "Artículo 196 Adequate nutrition and the ingestion of good quality food under sanitary conditions are essential for health, and therefore, natural and legal persons engaged in activities related to food intended for public consumption must exercise maximum diligence and avoid omissions in compliance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions and the special orders that the health authority may issue, within its powers, to safeguard health." For its part, the General Regulation for the Issuance of Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health (Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud)—Executive Decree No. 34728-S of May 28, 2008—establishes with absolute clarity in its section 1.38, that the Sanitary Operating Permit is the:

"... certificate issued by the Ministry of Health authorizing the operation of an establishment engaged in agricultural, commercial, industrial, or service activity, at a specific location. For purposes of health establishments and related facilities, the habilitation certificate is replaced by the sanitary operating permit certificate. (The foregoing subsection was amended by Article 1° of executive decree No. 35145 of January 23, 2009. Emphasis added)." From the transcribed norms, it is evident with absolute clarity that the activity carried out by the plaintiff, that is, the sale of packaged products licensed by the Ministry of Health—proven fact No. 2—requires a Sanitary Operating Permit, which in any case she does not question. And, given that she currently does not have said document, nor has she proven any unsuccessful application due to arbitrary rejection to obtain it—unproven fact No. 1—or that the permit granted on May 9, 1995, was renewed in the years following its expiration—unproven fact No. 2—she evidently cannot conduct her activity. The foregoing reason is more than sufficient for the Ministry to act in the manner it did, in protection of public health. From this perspective, it is the opinion of this Chamber that the formal conduct being challenged is substantially in conformity with the legal system and must be declared as such.

**V.- ON THE OBJECTION RAISED:** When answering the claim, the State's representation raised the objection of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho). In this regard, being that the legal system does not support the claims made by the plaintiff, as analyzed in the preceding Recital, the objection raised must be upheld and, consequently, the claim declared without merit, as is effectively ordered.

**VI.- ON THE AWARD OF COSTS:** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Waiver of this award is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is issued based on evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In this case, this Collegiate Body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the relevant regulations and break the principle of condemning the losing party. Therefore, the award of procedural and personal costs against the plaintiff is imposed.

**POR TANTO** The objection of lack of right raised by the State's Representation is upheld. Consequently, the claim filed by Nombre84236 against the State is declared without merit. Procedural and personal costs are borne by the plaintiff.

**Elías Baltodano Gómez** **Francisco Jiménez Villegas** **Paulo André Alonso Soto** 70 and 132 to 133 all of the judicial file); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2) </span><span>That on May 9, 1995, the Ministry of Health issued, in the name of the plaintiff and with a validity of one calendar year, a Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) for the "</span><span style="font-style:italic">sale of packaged products Nombre149567. ." </span><span>in the section</span><span style="font-style:italic"> "LA FE". </span><span>(F. 5 of the judicial file. The capital letter corresponds to the original); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3) </span><span>That on May 8 and October 25, both in 2012, officials of the Ministry of Health carried out inspections in the sector between the Panamanian Customs and the Costa Rican Customs -Paso Canoas-, in order to determine the sanitary conditions of the sodas located on the public thoroughfare. (F. 7 to 10 of the administrative file Volume I); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4) </span><span>That the results of the inspections indicated in the immediately preceding fact were recorded in Technical Report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 of October 25, 2012, which, regarding the plaintiff's business, indicates: that it lacks water, electricity, and a Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento). (F. 7 to 10 of the administrative file Volume I); </span><span style="font-weight:bold">5) </span><span>That on October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health issued against the plaintiff, Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012, which was notified to her on the 29th of that same month and year and by which she was ordered that within a period of three months she must </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">"Vacate the commercial premises in their entirety... </span><span>", because "</span><span style="font-style:italic">IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, and in attention to technical report ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 which corresponds to an inspection visit to your premises and based on said inspection it is observed that these do not meet (sic) the conditions that this Ministry of Health requires by law, such as having the respective sanitary operating permit, being located on properties outside the public thoroughfare, having water, electricity, hygienic measures for handlers, as well as structural aspects that allow -sanitarily- the normal development of the activity, without putting people's health and environmental contamination at risk.</span><span>" (F. 1 to 3 of the judicial file. The capital letters and bold correspond to the original).</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: </span><span>As the case record is devoid of evidence in this regard, the following is taken as unproven: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> That the plaintiff has undertaken the procurement of a new Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) with negative results, by virtue of an arbitrary rejection by the Ministry of Health. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2) </span><span>That the Ministry of Health renewed for the plaintiff, in the years following its expiration, the Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) granted to her on May 9, 1995. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">III.- REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.- </span><span>It is worth recalling that the arguments put forth by the representation of the sued Municipality are omitted, insofar as, regarding the same, the complaint was deemed withdrawn. (See Resultando IV of this resolution). Having stated the foregoing, in summary and without prejudice to the literal content of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Court, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below.</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> Plaintiff: </span><span>The plaintiff states that since 1990, the Municipality of Corredores granted her a commercial license for a business selling processed products. She adds that she carries out said activity specifically in the park of the aforementioned locality, where the municipal entity granted her a concession for a space for such purposes.</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> She maintains that she is up to date in the payment of the respective patent tax and has long had the sanitary operating permit, granted by the Ministry of Health. She indicates that on October 29, 2012, the Municipality of Corredores summoned her to present the sanitary operating permit, under the warning of ordering the cessation of her commercial activity and the cancellation of the license. She adds that paradoxically, the Ministry of Health does not grant her said permit, arguing that her business is on the public thoroughfare. Thus, she affirms, the Municipality threatens to cancel her license for not having a sanitary operating permit and the Ministry of Health threatens to close her business because she does not have a municipal permit to carry out her activity in the public area. She concludes by indicating that through sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 dated October 26, 2012, the Ministry of Health denied her the referenced permit, arguing that her business is on the public thoroughfare, lacks water, electricity, and hygienic measures for handlers. A decision which, in her opinion, is arbitrary because - she affirms - she does not handle food, but rather sells processed products. (F. 9 to 12 of the judicial file). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">State: </span><span>After a section titled "Antecedents", the state representation points out that the plaintiff does not expressly establish what the supposed defects of the administrative act are and that, it affirms, forces the State to guess what the reasons are for which action is being taken. Thus generating a state of defenselessness to the detriment of the principal entity. The prosecuting body also transcribes the reasons why sanitary order ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, was issued, then adds that in the matter under study, the plaintiff's premises do not have a sanitary operating permit, suffer from a lack of appropriate physical-sanitary conditions, and do not have water; therefore, it is not legally possible for the Ministry to continue allowing the activity or even grant her a new sanitary operating permit. Thus, it affirms, Article 216 of the General Health Law establishes that no establishment may operate without the referenced permit and numeral 363 of that regulatory body provides that in the absence of said permit, the immediate closure of the establishment is what is appropriate. The State continues stating that the plaintiff presents a sanitary operating permit granted in 1995, which necessarily had to be renewed on May 9, 1996, since the copy indicates that it is valid for one year. The foregoing, it adds, means that the permit in question is expired, since according to Decree No. 34728 -Article 16 and Transitory I-, in matters of food, the permit must be renewed annually. In this sense, it indicates that what the State has done is organize the operation of establishments for the benefit of public health and the environment. Immediately thereafter, it partially transcribes judgments of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) addressing the topic of the responsibility of said Ministry in matters of public health, to then indicate that the reasoning set forth in such rulings applies to the specific case, in that the inspection carried out by officials of the Ministry of Health resulted in a series of deficiencies in relation to technical and legal health standards that gave rise, precisely, to the closure of the establishment. (F. 95 to 109 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">IV.- REGARDING THE BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS COURT: </span><span>As the state representation pointed out when answering the complaint, the plaintiff does not specify the defects that, in her opinion, the administrative act she attacks has. She fundamentally limits herself to making comments in the factual section of her complaint without any evidentiary support, and in the Legal Grounds section, an absolute absence of an argumentative line is evident. The foregoing, undoubtedly, limits the possibilities of an effective control of legality over the formal conduct being challenged. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that Sanitary Order No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 of October 26, 2012, is substantially in conformity with the legal system for the reasons indicated below. It has been accredited - proven fact No. 2 - that the plaintiff lacks a current Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento), since the only one she had dates from 1995 and, consequently, is expired. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that prior to the issuance of the Sanitary Order being attacked, the Ministry of Health carried out the rigorous inspections and prepared the corresponding technical report. (Proven facts Nos. 3 and 4). It is also taken as accredited that the plaintiff's stand lacks water and electricity services, among other aspects that are expressly detailed in the attacked Sanitary Order. (Proven facts Nos. 3, 4, and 5). With the foregoing, it is evident that the attacked Sanitary Order is an act issued by a competent authority, on the occasion of irregularities detected in the exercise of commerce by the plaintiff and duly grounded, granting her a period of three months in order to comply with what was ordered or, because this Court understands that it is not exclusive, to proceed to bring her activity into conformity with the Law. For her part, the plaintiff does not prove that she has fruitlessly undertaken - due to arbitrary rejection - the procurement of the Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento), nor does she refute the content of the report that motivated the issuance of the Order in question, and much less does she attack the Order itself with concrete and specific observations. Now then, Articles 1 and 196 of the General Health Law expressly state:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>"</span><span style="font-style:italic">Article 1</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">The health of the population is a public interest good protected by the State."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>"</span><span style="font-style:italic">Article 196</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Adequate nutrition and the ingestion of good quality food under sanitary conditions are essential for health, and therefore, natural and legal persons engaged in activities related to food, intended for consumption by the population, must exercise the utmost diligence and avoid omissions in the fulfillment of the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions and of the special orders that the health authority may issue, within its powers, in safeguarding health."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>For its part, the </span><span style="color:#010101">General Regulation for the Granting of Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health -Executive Decree No. 34728-S of May 28, 2008-, establishes with absolute clarity in its numeral 1.38, that the Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento) is the:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt"><span style="color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">... </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">certificate issued by the Ministry of Health authorizing the operation of an establishment with agricultural, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">commercial</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">, industrial, or service activity, in a determined location. For purposes of health establishments and related ones, the habilitation certificate is substituted by the sanitary operating permit certificate. (Thus amended the preceding subsection by Article 1 of executive decree No. 35145 of January 23, 2009. The bold is our own).</span><span style="color:#010101">"</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%; font-size:14pt"><span style="color:#010101">From the transcribed norms, it is evidenced with absolute clarity that the activity carried out by the plaintiff, that is, the sale of packaged products with a license from the Ministry of Health - proven fact No. 2 - requires having a Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento), which in any case she does not question. And, given that as of the date she does not have said document, nor has she accredited</span><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="color:#010101"> any fruitless proceeding due to arbitrary rejection in order to obtain it - unproven fact No. 1 - or that the one granted on May 9, 1995, was </span><span>renewed in the years following its expiration - unproven fact No. 2 -</span><span style="color:#010101">, evidently she cannot carry out her activity. More than sufficient reason, the foregoing, for the Ministry to act in the manner it did, in safeguarding public health. From that perspective, it is the criterion of this Chamber that the formal conduct being challenged is substantially in conformity with the legal system and must be so declared.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">V.- REGARDING THE OPPOSED DEFENSE: </span><span>When answering the complaint, the state representation opposed the defense of lack of right. In this regard, given that the legal system does not support the claims put forth by the plaintiff, as analyzed in the preceding Considerando, the opposed defense must be accepted and, consequently, the complaint declared without merit as is hereby ordered.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">VI.- REGARDING THE AWARD OF COSTS: </span><span>In accordance with numeral 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the fact of being so. The exemption from this award is only viable when there was, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the specific case, this Collegiate Body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth by the relevant regulations for the case and to break the principle of imposing the award on the losing party. Therefore, the award of procedural and personal costs against the plaintiff is imposed.</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">POR TANTO</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>The defense of lack of right opposed by the State Representation is accepted. Consequently, the complaint filed by Nombre84236</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>against the State is declared without merit. Procedural and personal costs shall be borne by the plaintiff. </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">Elías Baltodano Gómez</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">Francisco Jiménez Villegas </span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">Paulo André Alonso Soto</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>

PROCESO DE PURO DERECHO Actora: Nombre84236 Demandados: Municipalidad de Corredores -desistida- y el Estado No. 26-2014-VII SECCIÓN SÉTIMA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Dirección01 , a las ocho horas treinta minutos del veintiocho de marzo de dos mil catorce.

Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho interpuesto por Nombre84236 , mayor, comerciante, cédula CED116634 vecina de Paso Canoas contra el Estado, representado por la Procuradora Adjunta, Guisell Jiménez Gómez, mayor, soltera, abogada, cédula CED116071, vecina de San Antonio de Coronado y la Municipalidad de Corredores, cédula jurídica CED116635, representada por su Alcaldesa Nombre105036 , mayor, casada, cédula CED116636 Figuran como apoderados especiales judiciales de la actora, los licenciados Edwin Duartes Delgado y Erick Esquivel Carvajal, carnet CED116637 y como apoderado especial de la entidad municipal, el licenciado Juan Emilio Jiménez Delgado, mayor, en unión libre, Abogado municipal, cédula CED116638 vecino de Ciudad Neily.

RESULTANDO

I.- Que la parte actora formuló demanda contra el Estado y la Municipalidad de Corredores, peticionando lo siguiente: "1)..." (Desistida en la Audiencia Preliminar). 2) La disconformidad de la orden sanitaria número ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 de fecha 26.10.2012 del Ministerio de Salud al estimarla improcedente, con el ordenamiento jurídico y de todos los actos o las actuaciones anteriores, coetáneos, posteriores y conexas. 3) Que se condene al Estado restablecerme en el pleno goce de mis derechos y dejar sin efecto -por contraria al ordenamiento jurídico-, las resoluciones administrativas anteriores. 4) Que se ordene al Estado abstenerse en lo sucesivo de adoptar y ejecutar cualquier conducta que pueda lesionar las situaciones jurídicas potenciales de este servidor (sic). 5) Que se condene al Estado al pago de ambas costas, daños y perjuicios en abstracto, los cuales se ejecutarán en la vía de ejecución de sentencia. Para lo cual se estima la presente en la suma de UN MILLÓN DE COLONES , derivado del daño moral." Las anteriores pretensiones, son el resultado del desistimiento que hiciera la parte actora de la primera de ellas y la ratificación de las restantes en la Audiencia Preliminar. (F. 9 a 12, 163 a 165 todos del expediente judicial y respaldo en Cd de la referida audiencia).

II.- Que otorgado el traslado de ley, las representaciones de los entes demandados contestaron negativamente la demanda, oponiendo el Estado la la excepción de falta de derecho. (F. 95 a 109 y 121 a 124, todos del expediente judicial).

III.- Mediante resolución No. 137-2013, de las quince horas veinte minutos del veinticuatro de enero de dos mil trece, el Juez Tramitador rechazó la medida cautelar solicitada por la actora, sin que conste autos que se haya interpuesto recurso de apelación contra lo así resuelto. (F. 84 a 87 y 94, todos del expediente judicial).

IV.- Que la Audiencia Preliminar establecida en el ordinal 90 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, fue celebrada a las 8:40 horas del 27 de noviembre de 2013, siendo un error material, la hora que se consigna en la minuta respectiva, según se desprende de la grabación respaldada en Cd de dicha audiencia. En audiencia de comentario, la actora desistió de la primera de sus pretensiones y en consecuencia, el Juez de Trámite, mediante resolución No. 2551-2013 de las diez horas quince minutos, declaró desistida la demanda respecto de la Municipalidad de Corredores. Se aclara que por error material, en la minuta respectiva se consignó que la resolución dicha es la No. 2551-2015, cuando conforme al Cd donde se respaldó la grabación de la audiencia, se escucha el número correcto de la misma como se indicó en negrita y subrayado líneas atrás. Las restantes pretensiones, fueron ratificadas por la accionante en la referida audiencia. Igualmente, se declararon controvertidos todos los hechos de la demanda y se admitió la prueba documental que se detalla en la minuta respectiva. Al no existir prueba que evacuar en juicio, el Juez Tramitador declaró este asunto de puro derecho y concedió a las partes la oportunidad para rendir las respectivas conclusiones, quienes procedieron a emitir las mismas en el orden fijado por el Juzgador. (F. 163 a 165 del expediente judicial. Respaldo en Cd de la Audiencia Preliminar).

V.- El presente asunto fue remitido a la Sección Sétima el pasado 24 de marzo de 2014, para el dictado del fallo correspondiente, según constancia visible a folio 166 del expediente judicial.

VI.- Se dicta esta sentencia, previa deliberación de los integrantes del Tribunal, dentro del plazo de quince días establecido en el párrafo segundo del artículo 98 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo en relación con el numeral 82 inciso 4) del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción, sin que se observen causales capaces de invalidar lo actuado.

Redacta el Juez Baltodano Gómez , con el voto afirmativo de los juzgadores Jiménez Villegas y Alonso Soto.

CONSIDERANDO

I.-DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tiene como debidamente acreditado lo siguiente: 1) Que el Concejo Municipal de Corredores, en sesión ordinaria No. 23 celebrada en fecha 1 de agosto de 1990, dispuso mediante acuerdo No. 21: "... aprobar solicitud que hace la señora Nombre84236 , en el sentido de que su patente de venta ambulante de frutas en Paso Canoas, se le cambie a patente de Venta Estacionaria de venta de frutas y refrescos." (F. 70 y 132 a 133 todos del expediente judicial); 2) Que en fecha 9 de mayo de 1995, el Ministerio de Salud, emitió a nombre de la accionante y con una vigencia de un año calendario, Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento para la "venta de productos empacados Nombre149567. ." en el tramo "LA FE". (F. 5 del expediente judicial. La mayúscula, corresponde al original); 3) Que en fechas 8 de mayo y 25 de octubre, ambas de 2012, servidores del Ministerio de Salud, realizaron inspecciones en el sector comprendido entre la Aduana Panameña y la Costarricense -Paso Canoas-, a efecto de determinar las condiciones sanitarias en que se encontraban las sodas ubicadas en la vía pública. (F. 7 a 10 del expediente administrativo Tomo I); 4) Que los resultados de las inspecciones señaladas en el hecho inmediato anterior, se consignaron en el Informe Técnico ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 del 25 de octubre de 2012, mismo en el cual, respecto del negocio de la actora se indica: que carece de agua, luz y Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento. (F. 7 a 10 del expediente administrativo Tomo I); 5) Que en fecha 26 de octubre de 2012, el Ministerio de Salud emitió en contra de la accionante, la Orden Sanitaria No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012, misma que le fue notificada el día 29 de ese mismo mes y año y mediante la cual, se le ordenó que en el plazo de tres meses debía "Desalojar el local comercial en su totalidad...", por cuanto "CON EL FIN DE PROTEGER LA SALUD PÚBLICA Y EL AMBIENTE, y en atención del informe técnico ITER-ARSC-RGA-036-2012 el cual corresponde a visita de inspección a su local y con fundamento en dicha inspección se observa que este no reúnen (sic) las condiciones que por medio de la ley exige este Ministerio de Salud, como lo son contar con el respectivo permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, ubicarse en propiedades fuera de la vía pública, contar con agua, electricidad, medidas higiénicas de los manipuladores, así como aspectos estructurales que permitan -sanitariamente- el desarrollo normal de la actividad, sin poner en riesgo la salud de las personas y la contaminación ambiental." (F. 1 a 3 del expediente judicial. La mayúscula y negrita, corresponden al original).

II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: Por encontrarse ayunos los autos de pruebas al respecto, se tiene por indemostrado: 1) Que la actora haya gestionado la obtención de un nuevo Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento con resultados negativos, en virtud de un rechazo arbitrario por parte del Ministerio de Salud. 2) Que el Ministerio de Salud le haya renovado a la accionante en los años siguientes a su vencimiento, el Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento a ella otorgado en fecha 9 de mayo de 1995.

III.- DE LA POSICIÓN DE LAS PARTES.- Valga recordar, que se omiten las argumentaciones esgrimidas por la representación de la Municipalidad demandada, en el tanto respecto de la misma, la demanda se tuvo por desistida. (Ver Resultando IV de esta resolución). Señalado lo anterior, en síntesis y sin perjuicio de la literalidad de sus argumentaciones, las cuales han sido estudiadas en su totalidad por este Tribunal, cada una de las partes alegan lo que seguidamente se detalla. Actora: Manifiesta la accionante, que desde 1990, la Municipalidad de Corredores le otorgó una licencia comercial, para un negocio de venta de productos procesados. Añade, que dicha actividad la realiza propiamente en el parque de la citada localidad, donde el ente municipal le concesionó un espacio para tales efectos. Sostiene, que se encuentra al día en el pago del impuesto de patente respectivo y cuenta desde hace mucho tiempo con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, otorgado por el Ministerio de Salud. Indica, que en fecha 29 de octubre de 2012, la Municipalidad de Corredores la emplazó a efecto de que presentara el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, bajo el apercibimiento de ordenar el cese de su actividad comercial y la cancelación de la licencia. Agrega, que paradójicamente el Ministerio de Salud no le otorga el permiso dicho, aduciendo que su negocio se encuentra en la vía pública. Así, afirma, la Municipalidad la amenaza con cancelarle la licencia por no contar con permiso sanitario de funcionamiento y el Ministerio de Salud con clausurar su negocio, porque no tiene permiso municipal para desarrollar su actividad en el área pública. Culmina indicando, que mediante orden sanitaria ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 de fecha 26 de octubre de 2012, el Ministerio de Salud le denegó el permiso referido, aduciendo que su negocio se encuentra en la vía pública, carece de agua, electricidad y de medidas higiénicas de los manipuladores. Decisión que en su criterio, es arbitrario por cuanto -afirma- no manipula alimentos, sino que vende productos procesados. (F. 9 a 12 del expediente judicial). Estado: Luego de un apartado que titula "Antecedentes", la representación estatal señala, que la actora no establece de manera expresa cuáles son los supuestos vicios del acto administrativo y ello, afirma, obliga al Estado a adivinar cuáles son las razones, por las que se acciona. Generándose así, un estado de indefensión en perjuicio del ente mayor. Transcribe además el órgano procurador, las razones por cuales se giró la orden sanitaria ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 del 26 de octubre de 2012, para luego agregar, que en el asunto bajo estudio, el local de la actora no tiene permiso sanitario de funcionamiento, adolece de las condiciones físico-sanitarias apropiadas y no tiene agua; por lo que, no es legalmente posible que el Ministerio continúe permitiendo la actividad e incluso otorgarle un nuevo permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. Así, afirma, el artículo 216 de la Ley General de Salud establece que ningún establecimiento debe funcionar sin el referido permiso y el numeral 363 de ese cuerpo normativo, dispone que ante la ausencia del permiso dicho, lo que procede es clausura inmediata del establecimiento. Continúa manifestando el Estado, que la accionante presenta un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento otorgado en el año 1995, que necesariamente debía renovar el 9 de mayo de 1996, pues en la copia se indica que el mismo es válido por un año. Lo anterior, agrega, significa que el permiso en mención está vencido, pues conforme al Decreto No. 34728 -artículo 16 y transitorio I-, en materia de alimentos, el permiso debe renovarse de manera anual. En tal sentido, señala, que lo hecho por el Estado es organizar el funcionamiento de los establecimientos en beneficio de la salud pública y el ambiente. Acto seguido, transcribe parcialmente sentencias de la Sala Constitucional donde se aborda el tema de la responsabilidad del Ministerio dicho en tema de salud pública, para luego indicar, que los razonamientos vertidos en tales fallos, se aplican al caso concreto, en el tanto, la inspección realizada por funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, arrojó como resultado una serie de deficiencias en relación con normas técnicas y legales en materia de salud que dieron lugar, precisamente, a la clausura del establecimiento. (F. 95 a 109 del expediente judicial).

IV.- DEL FUNDAMENTO DE LA DEMANDA Y SU VALORACIÓN POR PARTE DE ÉSTE TRIBUNAL: Tal y como al contestar la demanda, lo señaló la representación estatal, la parte actora no puntualiza acerca de los vicios que en su criterio, tiene el acto administrativo que ataca. Se limita fundamentalmente, a realizar comentarios en el apartado fáctico de su demanda sin ningún sustento probatorio y en el acápite de Fundamentos de Derecho, se evidencia una absoluta ausencia de línea argumentativa. Lo anterior, a no dudarlo, limita las posibilidades de un efectivo control de legalidad sobre la conducta formal que se impugna. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, es criterio de éste Tribunal, que la Orden Sanitaria No. ARSCO-RGA-049-2012 del 26 de octubre de 2012, es sustancialmente conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico por las razones que seguidamente se indican. Ha sido acreditado -hecho probado No. 2-, que la accionante carece de Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento vigente, pues el único con el que contaba, data de 1995 y en consecuencia, se encuentra vencido. Igualmente, ha sido demostrado que previo a la emisión de la Orden Sanitaria que se ataca, el Ministerio de Salud realizó las inspecciones de rigor y elaboró el informe técnico correspondiente. (Hechos probados Nos. 3 y 4). También se tiene por acreditado, que el puesto de la accionante carece de los servicios de agua y luz, entre otros aspectos que se detallan en forma expresa en la Orden Sanitaria atacada. (Hechos probados Nos. 3, 4 y 5). Con lo anterior, se evidencia que la Orden Sanitaria atacada, es un acto dictado por autoridad competente, con ocasión de irregularidades detectadas en el ejercicio del comercio por parte de la demandante y debidamente fundamentado, concediéndole el plazo de tres meses a efecto de acate lo ordenado o bien, porque entiende éste Tribunal que no resulta excluyente, proceda a ajustar a Derecho su actividad. Por su parte, la actora no prueba que haya gestionado infructuosamente -por rechazo arbitrario- el Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento, tampoco desvirtúa el contenido del informe que motivó la emisión de la Orden de comentario y mucho menos, ataca con observaciones concretas y puntuales, la Orden misma. Ahora bien, los artículos 1 y 196 de la Ley General de Salud, expresamente señalan:

"Artículo 1 La salud de la población es un bien de interés público tutelado por el Estado." "Artículo 196 La nutrición adecuada y la ingestión de alimentos de buena calidad y en condiciones sanitarias, son esenciales para la salud y por lo tanto, las personas naturales y jurídicas que se ocupen en actividades relacionadas con alimentos, destinados al consumo de la población, deberán poner el máximo de su diligencia y evitar omisiones en el cumplimiento de las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes y de las órdenes especiales que la autoridad de salud pueda dictar, dentro de sus facultades, en resguardo de la salud." Por su parte, el Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud -Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34728-S del 28 de mayo de 2008-, establece con absoluta claridad en su numeral 1.38, que el Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento, es el:

"... certificado que emite el Ministerio de Salud autorizando el funcionamiento de un establecimiento con actividad agrícola, comercial, industrial o de servicios, en una ubicación determinada. Para efectos de establecimientos de salud y afines, el certificado de habilitación es sustituido por el certificado de permiso sanitario de funcionamiento. (Así reformado el inciso anterior por el artículo 1° del decreto ejecutivo N° 35145 del 23 de enero de 2009. La negrita es propia)." De las normas transcritas, se evidencia con absoluta claridad, que para la actividad desarrollada por la actora, sea, la venta de productos empacados con licencia del Ministerio de Salud -hecho probado No. 2- se requiere contar con Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento, lo cual en todo caso ella no cuestiona. Y, siendo que a la fecha ella no cuenta con dicho documento, ni ha acreditado gestión infructuosa alguna por rechazo arbitrario a efecto de obtenerlo -hecho indemostrado No. 1- o que el concedido en fecha 9 de mayo de 1995 le haya sido renovado en los años siguientes a su vencimiento -hecho no probado No. 2-, evidentemente no puede desarrollar su actividad. Razón, la anterior, más que suficiente para que el Ministerio actúe en la forma en que lo hizo, en resguardo de la salud pública. Desde esa perspectiva, es criterio de esta Cámara, que la conducta formal que se impugna, resulta sustancialmente conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico y así debe declararse.

V.- DE LA EXCEPCIÓN OPUESTA: Al contestar la demanda, la representación estatal opuso la excepción de falta de derecho. Al respecto, siendo que el ordenamiento jurídico no ampara las pretensiones esgrimidas por la actora, según se analizó en el Considerando precedente, la excepción opuesta debe acogerse y consecuentemente, declararse sin lugar la demanda como en efecto se dispone.

VI.- DE LA CONDENATORIA EN COSTAS: De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de ésta condena sólo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encuentra este Órgano Colegiado motivo alguno para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa atinente al caso y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido. Por ende, se impone la condenatoria en costas procesales y personales a la parte actora.

POR TANTO

Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la Representación Estatal. En consecuencia, se declara sin lugar la demanda incoada por Nombre84236 contra el Estado. Son las costas procesales y personales a cargo de la parte actora.

Elías Baltodano Gómez Francisco Jiménez Villegas Paulo André Alonso Soto