Res. 00007-2015 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II — Municipal fine for unlicensed construction does not require prior hearing

OutcomeResultado

DeniedSin lugar

The Tribunal dismissed the lawsuit, upholding the legality of the municipal fine for unlicensed construction.El Tribunal declaró sin lugar la demanda, confirmando la legalidad de la multa municipal por construcción sin licencia.

SummaryResumen

The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal dismissed the lawsuit filed by Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. against the Municipality of Garabito, upholding the legality of a fine of ₡64,387,881 imposed for initiating construction without a permit. The company had started building a tourist condominium in Jacó without a license, reaching 3% completion when inspected. The municipality, upon later issuing the permit, included a fine equal to 1% of the total construction cost (the same as the construction tax). The Tribunal ruled that the violation under Article 89(a) of the Construction Law is established by the mere verification of works begun without a license, with no prior administrative procedure required, and that the fine amount complies with the cap set in Article 90. It rejected arguments of due process violations, disproportionality, and the legal reserve principle, imposing costs on the plaintiff.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo rechazó la demanda de Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. contra la Municipalidad de Garabito, confirmando la legalidad de una multa de ₡64.387.881 impuesta por iniciar obras sin permiso de construcción. La empresa había comenzado a construir un condominio turístico en Jacó sin licencia, alcanzando un 3% de avance al ser inspeccionada. La municipalidad, al otorgar posteriormente el permiso, incluyó una multa equivalente al 1% del costo total de la obra (mismo valor del impuesto de construcción). El Tribunal determinó que la infracción del artículo 89 inciso a) de la Ley de Construcciones se configura por la mera constatación del inicio de obras sin licencia, sin necesidad de procedimiento administrativo previo, y que el monto de la multa se ajusta al límite previsto en el artículo 90 de esa ley. Rechazó los argumentos de violación del debido proceso, desproporcionalidad de la sanción y reserva de ley, condenando en costas a la parte actora.

Key excerptExtracto clave

It suffices that works begin without the permit for the unlawful act to be deemed committed (mere verification), as indeed occurred in this case. [...] Article 90 of the Construction Law clearly establishes that the penalty may not exceed the economic harm to the Municipality resulting from the failure to collect the license fee, which amounts to 1% of the total cost of the works. That percentage is not the ceiling to be imposed but the penalty itself. [...] The execution of works without a license triggers the imposition of a single fine, which under the law is indivisible; it is therefore irrelevant whether, when the Municipality intervenes, the work is at 3% or any other percentage, since that is immaterial for finding the violation committed and imposing the sanction, which in all cases will be equal to—and not exceed—the license tax.Basta con que se inicien las obras sin el permiso, para tener por ocurrido el hecho ilícito (mera constatación), tal cual ocurrió en la especie. [...] El artículo 90 de la Ley de Construcciones, establece con claridad que la sanción no puede sobrepasar la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad, la falta de percepción del derecho de la licencia, el cual asciende al 1% del costo total de las obras. Ese porcentaje no es el máximo a imponer, sino la sanción propiamente dicha. [...] La realización de obras sin licencia genera la imposición de la multa única, que de acuerdo con la ley es indivisible, por lo que no es relevante si al momento de intervenir la Municipalidad, la obra lleva un 3% u otro porcentaje distinto, pues ello es indiferente para tener por cometida la infracción e imponer la sanción, la que en todos los casos será igual -y no más- al impuesto de la licencia.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"Basta con que se inicien las obras sin el permiso, para tener por ocurrido el hecho ilícito (mera constatación)."

"It suffices that works begin without the permit for the unlawful act to be deemed committed (mere verification)."

Considerando VII

"Basta con que se inicien las obras sin el permiso, para tener por ocurrido el hecho ilícito (mera constatación)."

Considerando VII

"La realización de obras sin licencia genera la imposición de la multa única, que de acuerdo con la ley es indivisible."

"The execution of works without a license triggers the imposition of a single fine, which under the law is indivisible."

Considerando VII

"La realización de obras sin licencia genera la imposición de la multa única, que de acuerdo con la ley es indivisible."

Considerando VII

"El artículo 90 de la Ley de Construcciones, establece con claridad que la sanción no puede sobrepasar la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad, la falta de percepción del derecho de la licencia, el cual asciende al 1% del costo total de las obras."

"Article 90 of the Construction Law clearly establishes that the penalty may not exceed the economic harm to the Municipality resulting from the failure to collect the license fee, which amounts to 1% of the total cost of the works."

Considerando VII

"El artículo 90 de la Ley de Construcciones, establece con claridad que la sanción no puede sobrepasar la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad, la falta de percepción del derecho de la licencia, el cual asciende al 1% del costo total de las obras."

Considerando VII

Full documentDocumento completo

PROCESO: Puro derecho ACTOR: Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

DEMANDADO: Municipalidad de Garabito Sentencia No. 07-2015-II TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA (SECCIÓN SEGUNDA). Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at thirteen hours forty-five minutes on January thirtieth, two thousand fifteen.- PROCESO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO, followed before this Tribunal by DESARROLLOS PB 29 Y 33 S.A., legal entity identification number CED60127, represented by its general agent without limit of sum Roberto Acosta Mora, of legal age, identification number CED60128; against MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO, represented by its Mayor Marvin Elizondo Cordero, of legal age, identification number CED60129;

RESULTANDO:

1.- That in its filed complaint, the plaintiff requests that the judgment declare: "1.- The present complaint granted in all its respects. 2.- The absolute nullity of the act imposing a fine on my represented party, contained in Construction Permit No. PC-265-2009-A. 3.- The absolute nullity of all acts connected and concomitant with the establishment of said pecuniary sanction, contained through Official Letters DI-634-2009, of October 29, 2009, and DI-713-2009, of December 21, 2009, both from the Department of Engineering and Constructions of the Municipalidad de Garabito; official letter DL-267-2009, of November 25, 2009, issued by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipalidad de Garabito; and Official Letter AM-2264-2009, dated December 17, 2009, issued by the Office of the Mayor of said Municipality. 4.- As a consequence of the foregoing, that the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay the damages caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment phase. 5.- That the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding". And also that: "declare the absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the fine imposed on the plaintiff for the sum of ¢64,387,881.00 (sixty-four million three hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one colones), included in construction permit No. PC-265-2009-A, of October 8, 2009; as well as the declaration of nullity of all its preparatory, connected, and derived acts" (folios 15, 16, 129, 241 vto and 242).- 2.- That the defendant answered the action negatively and raised the exceptions of lack of right and lack of standing to sue (legitimación ad causam) in its two aspects (folios 88-95 and 151-155).

3.- That in the preliminary hearing held starting at 13:55 hours on August 18, 2014, with the attendance of both parties, no adjustments to the claims were admitted, which therefore remain in the terms set forth in the complaint. The Case Management Judge also rejected the testimonial evidence proposed by the Municipalidad de Garabito and declared the proceeding pure law (puro derecho), as there was no further evidence to receive apart from the documentary evidence, in accordance with Article 98, subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), whereupon the parties orally presented their concluding arguments (hearing recorded and attached to the file on its corresponding electronic medium; minute at folios 241-243).

4.- That in the present case, no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are noted.

Drafted by Judge Núñez Castrillo, with the affirmative vote of Judge Suárez Baltodano and Judge Mesén García; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: Of relevance for the resolution of this matter, the following facts are held as such: 1). That the plaintiff company Desarrollos PB 29 y 33, S.A. has planned the construction in the Cantón de Garabito, Distrito Jacó, in front of Bahía Herradura, of a Mixed Residential, Tourist Condominium, called Punta Bocana (1 to 563 of the administrative file). 2).- That on August 24, 2009, the Department of Inspections of the Municipalidad de Garabito, through record No. 3144, appeared at the Project indicated in the preceding fact and verified the existence of works without municipal license, for the erection of 8 buildings and 1 villa and ordered: "Construction stoppage was ordered as a precautionary measure for not having municipal permits and until such permits are obtained. Work progress 10% general foundation process and placement of metal beams building structure. Pre-cast elements and structures of 8 buildings and 1 Villa were verified on site" (folios 134-139 of the administrative file). 3).- That on August 26, 2009, the company PB 29 y 33 S.A., filed before the Municipalidad de Garabito, construction permit application No. 3708, for the construction of eight buildings, a work valued at ¢6,438,788,100.00 (folios 144-146 of the administrative file). 4).- That by means of official letter No. DI-521-2009, of August 27, 2009, addressed to the Municipal Mayor, the Technical Head of the Department of Constructions of Garabito, stated that after an on-site inspection, it was determined that the actual progress of the works was 3% (folio 141 of the administrative file). 5).- That on October 8, 2009, the Department of Engineering and Construction granted to Banco de Costa Rica (trustee) and Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., construction permit No. PC-265-2009-A, for two four-story buildings with four subsidiaries each and eight two-story buildings with one subsidiary. In the same act, the following was indicated: "Estimated total cost of the work: ¢6,438,788,100.00; Construction tax (1.00%), ¢64,387,881.00; Fine 100%, ¢64,387,881.00; Total to pay: ¢128,775,762.00" (folio 224 of the administrative file). 6).- That on December 22, 2009, the plaintiff company paid to the Municipality the sum of ¢64,387,881.00 for the construction tax (receipt No. 0178222, folio 281 of the administrative file). 7).- That by means of a writing dated November 16, 2009, the plaintiff company filed before the Department of Engineering and Constructions, a motion to reconsider and a subsidiary appeal, against the fine of ¢64,387,881.00, for having started the works without a permit (folios 236-240 of the administrative file). 8).- That the motion to reconsider was rejected through official letter DI-713-2009 of December 21, 2009, based on legal opinion DL-267-2009-H (folios 242-254 and 272 of the administrative file). 9).- That the Municipal Mayor, through resolution AM-1580-2010, at 10:30 hours on August 12, 2010, dismissed the appeal (folios 406-412 of the administrative file). 10).- That by writing of August 27, 2010, the plaintiff company filed an appeal against act AM-1580-2010, which was referred to this Tribunal to be heard in a condition of improper administrative hierarchy (folios 427-431 of the administrative file). 11).- That through resolution No. 33-2011 at 14:35 hours on February 3, 2011, the Third Section of this Tribunal, in a condition of improper administrative hierarchy, confirmed what was resolved by the Municipalidad de Garabito in resolution AM-1580-2010 and deemed the administrative channel exhausted (folios 565-580 of the administrative file).

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: None are considered of special relevance for this matter.

III.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING: According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff, the object of this matter consists of declaring the absolute nullity of the act imposing the fine contained in Construction Permit PC-265-2009-A, as well as all acts connected and concomitant with the establishment of said pecuniary sanction, contained through Official Letters DI-634-2009, of October 29, 2009, and DI-713-2009, of December 21, 2009, both from the Department of Engineering and Constructions of the Municipalidad de Garabito, official letter DL-267-2009, of November 25, 2009, issued by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipalidad de Garabito, and Official Letter AM-2264-2009, dated December 17, 2009, issued by the Office of the Mayor of said Municipality. Accessorily to that nullity, it requests that the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay the damages caused, the liquidation of which is reserved for the execution of judgment phase.

IV.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF: In summary, the plaintiff alleges that its represented party initiated administrative procedures to obtain a construction license for the development of a tourist project on a property it owns, Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real 71440, cadastral plan P-1301196-2008, located in the cantón de Garabito, distrito Jacó. That simultaneously, it began land conditioning works, which were executed in good faith and with the knowledge of the municipal authorities. That while the obtaining of construction permits was being processed, some earthworks (movimientos de tierra) began and later, foundations of a building. That the Head of the Department of Constructions of the Municipalidad de Garabito, issued official letter DI-521-2009 of August 27, 2009, in which he indicated that in an inspection carried out that same day, the actual progress of the works being performed reached 3% of the totality of the project and expressed his consent for its continuation regarding slope stabilization and welding of pieces not yet secured, under the warning that the company had to complete the missing documentation for the construction permit application. That on October 8, 2009, the defendant entity issued construction permit PC-265-2009-A, through which it was indicated the necessary payment of the construction tax, a sum set at ¢64,387,881.00. That in that same construction permit, it was recorded that its represented party also owed, as a fine (sanction), an amount equivalent to 100% of the construction permit tax (¢64,387,881.00) for having started the works without the respective permit. It considers that what was done by the Municipalidad de Garabito regarding the imposition of the fine is arbitrary and illegal and therefore vitiated by nullity, for two aspects: firstly, since to apply said sanction, an administrative proceeding should have been followed to determine the existence of the infraction, thereby violating the fundamental right to due process. That although subsection a) of Article 89 of the Ley de Construcciones establishes as an infraction the execution of works without a prior license, it does not mean that whoever commits said fault becomes deserving of a fine ipso facto. That Article 93 of the same Ley de Construcciones sets the rules of due process, by providing a 30-day period in favor of the offender to correct their acts and manage to remedy the infraction, also granting a second opportunity in case they do not comply with all requirements during the first period. That this is applicable for those situations in which the buildings or constructions are finalized, which is not applicable to its represented party since it only performed preparatory acts that reached 3% progress. Secondly, because the Municipalidad de Garabito applied an automatic formula to impose the fine without analyzing the reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction. That the fine for constructions that do not have a construction permit was agreed upon by the Concejo Municipal de Garabito, which violates numeral 39 of the Constitución Política by not having been set by law.

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT: In summary, the representation of the Municipalidad de Garabito indicates that the plaintiff company began the procedures to obtain the construction permit when the works were shut down for lacking said permit. That the fine imposed for ¢64,387,881.00 was for starting the works without a permit, so it is covered by law. Based on this, it raised the exceptions of lack of right and lack of active and passive standing and requests that the present complaint be dismissed in all its respects.

VI.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONING POWER IN URBAN PLANNING MATTERS: In its historical development, the administrative sanctioning power was linked to the police power as just another expression of it; however, this power has evolved to become a distinct sphere of state activity. Thus, through the police power, an entire administrative regulatory framework is constructed, compliance with which is necessary for the administration in order to guarantee the protection of the environmental public function. This task is intended to be achieved through recourse to the sanctioning power of the administration, which is but another manifestation of the "ius puniendi" of the State, that is, that power to impose burdens on the administered individuals by reason of the harm caused by their behavior to the detriment of the legal interest protected by the regulatory framework, a power which, in urban planning matters, is provided for in Articles 82 and 88 of the Ley de Construcciones and 57 and 58 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana. Faced with the need to make public order prevail, the Local Governments are invested with the authority to monitor and determine whether the exercise of the right to private property conforms or not to the urban planning regulations, so that once non-compliance is detected, it can set in motion the sanctioning power established at the legal level. Said powers, which are legally provided for in Articles 88, 89, 90, and 91 of the construction law, are those exercised by the administration after the "mere verification" of the state of illegality of the administered party, or through the corresponding legal proceeding, as the case may be. Regarding the first -mere verification-, the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional has indicated the following:

"III.- On the merits. In reiterated jurisprudence, the Chamber has indicated that the appropriateness of shutting down a construction for lacking the respective permits, without the need for any prior administrative proceeding, is not necessary since, in the case of verifying the lack of such authorizations for the activity, the opening of such an administrative proceeding is not applicable. For situations like the one described, the administration simply verifies whether one has the respective permits for the exercise of a particular activity that requires them, and if it verifies in its archives that the party does not have it, it proceeds immediately to its closure or shutdown and is materially concretized by the placement of seals, the violation of which may be subject to criminal sanctions.” (Emphasis is not from the original) (Resolution 2006-04429 of March 29, 2006).

VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER: Having analyzed what was raised, this Tribunal considers that the complaint filed cannot be granted, for the reasons developed below. The plaintiff bases its annulment claim basically on two arguments. First, that its fundamental right to due process was violated because no administrative proceeding was held prior to the imposition of the fine of ¢64,387,881.00 for starting a construction work without a municipal license, and second, because the amount of the fine is not motivated by criteria of reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction, and that it was agreed upon by an administrative decision of the Concejo Municipal de Garabito and not by law, which violates the principle of legal reserve contained in numeral 39 of the Constitución Política. Now then, as has been demonstrated from the evidence in the record -see list of proven facts- and from the very statements of the parties, the plaintiff company Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., started without a municipal construction permit a tourist condominium project in the cantón de Garabito, distrito Jacó. Said construction works were estimated at six billion four hundred thirty-eight million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand one hundred colones (¢6,438,788,100.00) and the construction permit (No. PC-265-2009-A) was granted only on October 8, 2009. The construction tax was assessed at 1% of the indicated sum, that is, exactly sixty-four million three hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one colones (¢64,387,881.00), a sum that was paid on December 22 of that same year. In the inspection record made on August 24, 2009, by officials of the Department of Inspections of the Municipalidad de Garabito, that is, a month and a half before the license date, the existence of pre-cast elements and structures of eight buildings and one villa was verified on site, works that were later determined to constitute progress at that time of 3% of the total planned for construction. Based on that situation, in the same construction permit, the plaintiff company was imposed a fine corresponding to 1% of the total cost of the work, that is, for ¢64,387,881.00. On that particular, Article 89, subsection a), of the Ley de Construcciones, provides:

"Article 89. Infractions. In addition to those indicated in the Chapters of this Regulation, the following shall be considered infractions: a) Executing, without prior license, works for which this law and its regulation require a license..." For its part, numeral 90 of that same regulatory body establishes the following:

"Article 90. Fines. The amount of the fine shall in no case exceed the economic injury implied for the Municipality by the failure to collect the fee for the license corresponding to the violated concept." This last norm must be related -as appropriate- with Article 70 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which regulates the amount to be paid to the municipalities on the value of the constructions and urbanizations carried out within their territorial jurisdiction, according to the following rule: "The municipalities are authorized to establish taxes, for the purposes of this law, of up to 1% on the value of constructions and urbanizations carried out in the future, and to receive special contributions for specific urban works or improvements (...) " As can be observed from the foregoing legal norms, the infraction consists of executing, without prior license, works for which the law requires it, and the consequent sanction is represented by the economic injury implied for the Municipality by the failure to collect the fee for said license, and said injury corresponds to 1% of the total value of the construction. In the present case, it is clear that the infraction was committed, since it is demonstrated in the record that Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. started the construction of the buildings without a prior municipal license, works that, at the time of the inspection carried out by the Municipalidad de Garabito on August 24, 2009, reached 3% of the total projected. Such infraction generates, by provision of law, the imposition of the fine as a sanction. Note that the regulations set forth do not exclude the existence of the infraction under any circumstance, nor do they condition the existence of the fault on a minimum percentage of construction works without a license. It is sufficient that the works are started without the permit for the illicit act to be deemed to have occurred (mere verification), exactly as happened in the present case. For its part, the claim that the due process and defense rights of the plaintiff company were violated because no administrative proceeding was held prior to the imposition of the fine is not admissible. In this case, the Municipality carried out a prior inspection of the site and verified the existence of the works erected without a permit, determined the percentage of progress in relation to the total (3%), and set the amount of the fine, which was communicated to the plaintiff company, which had ample opportunities to appeal the imposed sanction through its challenges both at the municipal level and before this Tribunal in an improper hierarchical capacity, so due process was indeed fulfilled. Carrying out works without a municipal license is a matter of mere verification, and due process was respected. Article 93 of the Ley de Construcciones invoked by the plaintiff is not applicable in the matter specifically discussed, since the period set by that norm (30 days) is only for the offender to bring the construction into compliance with the law regarding the obtaining of the construction permit, but not for the imposition of the fine, which, as stated, is appropriate as soon as the start of construction without a permit is verified. Regarding the amount of the sanction (fine), this Tribunal does not consider that a disproportionate or unreasonable application was incurred, nor that the principle of legal reserve was violated, since the Municipalidad de Garabito adhered to what is established in the applicable legislation. Article 90 of the Ley de Construcciones clearly establishes that the sanction cannot exceed the economic injury implied for the Municipality by the failure to collect the fee for the license, which amounts to 1% of the total cost of the works. That percentage is not the maximum to be imposed, but the sanction itself. The norm does not provide for the possibility of graduating that sanction, and the only thing it does is indicate that said percentage cannot be exceeded. The principles of legality and specificity of sanctions would prevent the defendant municipality from deciding, according to its criteria, the fine to be set. In any case, the Municipalidad de Garabito did not discretionarily impose the amount, but rather limited itself to applying the indicated legal percentage. Nor is the argument admissible to the effect that, since only 3% of the works were advanced without a permit, the sanction should have been limited to that same percentage of the amount of tax payable for the license. That assertion is not supported by any of the legal provisions regulating the matter, and therefore it is unfounded. Carrying out works without a license generates the imposition of a single fine, which according to the law is indivisible; therefore, it is not relevant if at the time of the Municipality's intervention, the work is at 3% or another different percentage, as this is irrelevant for considering the infraction committed and imposing the sanction, which in all cases will be equal to -and not more than- the license tax. The Ley de Construcciones indicates that the fine is equivalent to the injury caused by the non-payment of the tax, just as occurred in this matter. Due to the foregoing, and as no defect is found in the administrative acts being challenged, the annulment claim must be rejected in its entirety, and consequently, being accessory, also the claim for damages, which obliges the dismissal of the complaint in all its respects.

VIII.- ON THE EXCEPTIONS RAISED: The defendant municipality only raised those of lack of right and lack of standing to sue (legitimación ad causam) in its two aspects (active and passive). The lack of right must be granted for the reasons set forth in the preceding considerando. Regarding lack of standing (active and passive), it must be rejected since the author of the administrative conduct subject to this proceeding is the Municipalidad de Garabito (Article 12, 1) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), while the direct incidence of said conduct is in relation to the interests and rights of the plaintiff company (Article 10, 1) a) ibidem).

IX.- ON COSTS. Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a pronouncement that must be made even ex officio, pursuant to what is provided in that same norm, in conjunction with numeral 119.2 ibidem. The exemption from this condemnation is only viable when there was, in the Tribunal's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party. In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set by the applicable regulations and break the rule of condemning the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

POR TANTO:

The exception of lack of active and passive standing raised by the Municipalidad de Garabito is rejected, and the lack of right exception is granted. The complaint filed by Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. against the Municipalidad de Garabito is DISMISSED in all its respects. Both costs of this action are to be borne by Desarrollos PB 29 Nombre14711 33 S.A. Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo Karla Suárez Baltodano Luis Eduardo Mesén García Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at thirteen hours and forty-five minutes on January thirtieth, two thousand fifteen.- CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING DECLARED PURELY OF LAW, followed before this Court by DESARROLLOS PB 29 Y 33 S.A., legal entity identification number CED60127, represented by its unlimited general agent Roberto Acosta Mora, of legal age, identity card number CED60128; against MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO, represented by its Mayor Marvin Elizondo Cordero, of legal age, identity card number CED60129;

WHEREAS:

1.- That in its filed complaint, the plaintiff requests that the judgment declare: "1.- The present complaint is granted in all its respects. 2.- The absolute nullity of the act imposing a fine on my represented party, contained in Construction Permit No. PC-265-2009-A. 3.- The absolute nullity of all acts connected and concomitant to the establishment of said pecuniary sanction, contained through Official Letters DI-634-2009, of October 29, 2009, and DI-713-2009, of December 21, 2009, both from the Department of Engineering and Construction of the Municipalidad de Garabito; official letter DL-267-2009, of November 25, 2009, issued by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipalidad de Garabito; and Official Letter AM-2264-2009, dated December 17, 2009, issued by the Office of the Mayor of said Municipality. 4.- As a consequence of the foregoing, that the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay the damages caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment phase. 5.- That the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding". And also that: "it declare the absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the fine imposed on the plaintiff in the amount of ¢64,387,881.00 (sixty-four million three hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one colones), included in construction permit No. PC-265-2009-A, of October 8, 2009; as well as the declaration of nullity of all its preparatory, connected, and derived acts" (folios 15, 16, 129, 241 vto and 242).- 2.- That the defendant answered the action negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of standing ad causam in both its aspects (folios 88-95 and 151-155).

3.- That in the preliminary hearing held starting at 13:55 hours on August 18, 2014, with the attendance of both parties, no adjustments to the claims were admitted, which therefore remain in the terms established in the complaint. The Procedural Judge also rejected the testimonial evidence proposed by the Municipalidad de Garabito and declared the proceeding purely of law, there being no further evidence to receive apart from the documentary evidence, in accordance with article 98 subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), whereupon the parties orally presented their conclusions (hearing recorded and attached to the case file in its corresponding electronic medium; minutes at folios 241-243).

4.- That in this particular case, no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are noted.

Judge Núñez Castrillo writes, with the affirmative vote of Judge Suárez Baltodano and Judge Mesén García; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: Of relevance for the resolution of this matter, the following facts are deemed as such: 1). That the plaintiff company Desarrollos PB 29 y 33, S.A. has planned the construction in the Cantón de Garabito, Distrito Jacó, facing Bahía Herradura, of a Mixed Residential, Tourist Condominium, called Punta Bocana (1 to 563 of the administrative file). 2).- That on August 24, 2009, the Department of Inspections of the Municipalidad de Garabito, through report No. 3144, appeared at the Project indicated in the preceding fact and verified the existence of works without municipal license, for the erection of 8 buildings and 1 villa and ordered: "A stoppage of constructions was ordered as a precautionary measure for not having municipal permits and until such permits are obtained. Work progress 10% overall foundation process and placement of metal beams building structure. The existence of footings and structures of 8 buildings and 1 Villa was verified on site" (folios 134-139 of the administrative file). 3).- That on August 26, 2009, the company PB 29 y 33 S.A., filed before the Municipalidad de Garabito, construction permit application No. 3708, for the construction of eight buildings, a work with a value of ¢6,438,788,100.00 (folios 144-146 of the administrative file). 4).- That through official letter No. DI-521-2009, of August 27, 2009, addressed to the Municipal Mayor, the Technical Head of the Construction Department of Garabito, stated that after an on-site inspection, it was determined that the real progress of the works was 3% (folio 141 of the administrative file). 5).- That on October 8, 2009, the Department of Engineering and Construction granted to Banco de Costa Rica (trustee) and Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., construction permit No. PC-265-2009-A, for two four-story buildings with four subsidiaries each and eight two-story single-subsidiary buildings. In the same act, the following was indicated: "Estimated total cost of the work: ¢6,438,788,100.00; Construction tax (1.00%), ¢64,387,881.00; Fine 100%, ¢64,387,881.00; Total to pay: ¢128,775,762.00" (folio 224 of the administrative file). 6).- That on December 22, 2009, the plaintiff company paid the Municipality the sum of ¢64,387,881.00- for the concept of construction tax (receipt No. 0178222, folio 281 of the administrative file). 7).- That by brief dated November 16, 2009, the plaintiff company filed before the Department of Engineering and Construction, an appeal for revocation with subsidiary appeal, against the fine of ¢64,387,881.00, for having started the works without a permit (folios 236-240 of the administrative file). 8).- That the revocation appeal was rejected through official letter DI-713-2009 of December 21, 2009, based on legal opinion DL-267-2009-H (folios 242-254 and 272 of the administrative file). 9).- That the Municipal Mayor, through resolution AM-1580-2010, at 10:30 hours on August 12, 2010, declared the appeal without merit (folios 406-412 of the administrative file). 10).- That by brief dated August 27, 2010, the plaintiff company filed an appeal against act AM-1580-2010, which was referred to this Court to be heard in the capacity of improper administrative hierarchy (folios 427-431 of the administrative file). 11).- That through resolution No. 33-2011 at 14:35 hours on February 3, 2011, the Third Section of this Court in the capacity of improper administrative hierarchy, confirmed the decision of the Municipalidad de Garabito in resolution AM-1580-2010 and considered the administrative remedy (vía administrativa) exhausted (folios 565-580 of the administrative file).

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: None are considered of special relevance for this matter.

III.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING: According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff, the object of this matter consists of declaring the absolute nullity of the act imposing a fine contained in Construction Permit PC-265-2009-A, as well as all acts connected and concomitant to the establishment of said pecuniary sanction, contained through Official Letters DI-634-2009, of October 29, 2009, and DI-713-2009, of December 21, 2009, both from the Department of Engineering and Construction of the Municipalidad de Garabito, official letter DL-267-2009, of November 25, 2009, issued by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipalidad de Garabito, and Official Letter AM-2264-2009, dated December 17, 2009, issued by the Office of the Mayor of said Municipality. Accessorily to that nullity, it requests that the Municipalidad de Garabito be ordered to pay the damages caused, the liquidation of which is reserved for the judgment execution phase.

IV.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF: In summary, the plaintiff alleges that its represented party began administrative procedures to obtain a construction license for the development of a tourist project on a property it owns, Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real 71440, cadastral map P-1301196-2008, located in the cantón de Garabito, distrito Jacó. That simultaneously, it began land preparation works, which were carried out in good faith and with the knowledge of the municipal authorities. That while the obtaining of the construction permits was being processed, some earthworks (movimientos de tierra) began and later, foundations of a building. That the Head of the Construction Department of the Municipalidad de Garabito issued official letter DI-521-2009 of August 27, 2009, in which he indicated that in an inspection carried out that same day, the real progress of the works being performed reached 3% of the total project and expressed his consent for their continuation regarding slope stabilization and welding of unsecured parts, under the warning that the company had to complete the missing documentation for the construction permit application. That on October 8, 2009, the defendant entity issued construction permit PC-265-2009-A, through which it was indicated the necessary payment of the construction tax, a sum set at ¢64,387,881.00. That in that same construction permit, it was recorded that its represented party also owed, as a fine (sanction), an amount equivalent to 100% of the construction permit tax (¢64,387,881.00) for having started the works without the respective permit. It considers that the actions of the Municipalidad de Garabito regarding the imposition of the fine are arbitrary and illegal and therefore void (viciado de nulidad), due to two aspects: first, since to apply said sanction an administrative procedure should have been followed to determine the existence of the infraction, thus violating the fundamental right to due process. That although subsection a) of article 89 of the Ley de Construcciones establishes the execution of works without prior license as an infraction, it does not mean that whoever commits said fault becomes deserving of a fine ipso facto. That article 93 of the same Ley de Construcciones sets the rules of due process, by contemplating a period of 30 days in favor of the offender to correct their acts and manage to remedy the infraction, further granting a second opportunity in case they do not comply with all the requirements during the first period. That this is applicable to those situations in which the buildings or constructions are completed, which is not applicable to its represented party since it only carried out preparatory acts that reached a progress of 3%. Second, because the Municipalidad de Garabito applied an automatic formula to impose the fine without analyzing the reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction. That the fine for constructions that do not have a construction permit was agreed upon by the Concejo Municipal de Garabito, which violates numeral 39 of the Constitución Política since it was not set by law.

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT: In summary, the representation of the Municipalidad de Garabito points out that the plaintiff company began the procedures to obtain the construction permit when the works were closed down for lacking said permit. That the fine imposed of 64,387,881.00, was for starting the works without a permit, thus it is covered by law. Based on this, it raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active and passive standing and requests that this complaint be declared without merit in all its respects.

VI.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONING POWER IN URBAN PLANNING MATTERS: In its historical development, the administrative sanctioning power was linked to the police power as another expression thereof; however, this power has evolved to become a distinct area of state activity.

Thus, through the police power an entire administrative order is constructed, compliance with which is necessary for the administration in order to guarantee the protection of the environmental public function. This task is intended to be achieved through recourse to the administration's sanctioning power, which is but one more manifestation of the State's *ius puniendi*, that is, that power to impose burdens on those administered by reason of the harm caused by their conduct to the detriment of the legally protected interest safeguarded by the order, a power which, in urban planning matters, is provided for in articles 82 and 88 of the Ley de Construcciones and 57 and 58 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana. Given the need to uphold public order, Local Governments are vested with the authority to monitor and determine whether the exercise of private property rights conforms to the urban planning order, such that once non-compliance is detected, it may set in motion the sanctioning power established at the legal level. Those powers, which are legally provided for in articles 88, 89, 90, and 91 of the Ley de Construcciones, are those exercised by the administration after the "mere verification" of the state of illegality of the person administered, or through the corresponding legal procedure, as the case may be. Regarding the first —mere verification—, the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional has indicated the following:

"III.- On the merits. In repeated jurisprudence, the Sala has indicated that the ordering of a work closure for lacking the respective permits, without the need for any prior administrative procedure, is proper because when it involves verifying the lack of said authorizations for the activity, there is no need to open such an administrative procedure. For situations such as the one described, the administration simply verifies whether the respective permits exist for the exercise of a particular activity that requires them, and should it verify in its files that the party does not have one, it proceeds immediately to its closure or sealing, and it materializes with the placement of seals, which, if violated, may be subject to criminal penalties" (Emphasis not in the original) (Resolución 2006-04429 of March 29, 2006).

**VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER:** Once the claims have been analyzed, this Tribunal considers that the lawsuit filed cannot be upheld, for the reasons that are set forth below. The plaintiff bases its annulment claim fundamentally on two arguments. First, that its fundamental right to due process was violated because no administrative procedure was conducted prior to the imposition of the fine of ¢64,387,881.00 for commencing a construction project without a municipal license, and second, because the amount of the fine is not motivated by criteria of reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction, and that it was agreed upon by an administrative decision of the Concejo Municipal de Garabito and not by law, which violates the principle of legal reservation contained in numeral 39 of the Constitución Política. Now, as has been demonstrated from the evidence in the record —see list of proven facts— and from the parties' own statements, the plaintiff company Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., commenced without a municipal construction permit a tourism condominium project in the canton of Garabito, district of Jacó. Said construction works were estimated at six billion four hundred thirty-eight million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand one hundred colones (¢6,438,788,100.00) and the construction permit (No. PC-265-2009-A), was not granted until October 8, 2009. The construction tax was assessed at 1% of the indicated sum, that is, at exactly sixty-four million three hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one colones (¢64,387,881.00), a sum that was paid on December 22 of that same year. In an inspection report conducted on August 24, 2009, by officials from the Inspection Department of the Municipalidad de Garabito, that is, a month and a half before the date of the license, the existence of pre-cast elements and structures for eight buildings and one villa was verified on site, works that were subsequently determined to constitute, at that time, 3% progress of the total planned construction. Based on that situation, in the construction permit itself, a fine corresponding to 1% of the total cost of the work was imposed on the plaintiff company, that is, for ¢64,387,881.00. On that particular, article 89, subsection a), of the Ley de Construcciones, provides:

"Article 89. Infractions. The following shall be considered infractions in addition to those indicated in the Chapters of this Order: a) Executing, without a prior license, works for which this law and its regulations require a license..." For its part, numeral 90 of that same regulatory body establishes the following:

"Article 90. Fines. The amount of the fine shall in no case exceed the economic loss that the lack of receipt of the fee for the corresponding license for the violated concept implies for the Municipality." This last provision must be related —in pertinent part— to article 70 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which regulates the amount to be paid to municipalities on the value of constructions and urbanizations carried out within their territorial jurisdiction, according to the following rule: "Municipalities are authorized to establish taxes, for the purposes of this law, of up to 1% on the value of constructions and urbanizations carried out in the future, and to receive special contributions for specific urban works or improvements (...)." As can be observed from the preceding legal provisions, the infraction consists of executing, without a prior license, works for which the law requires one, and the consequent sanction is represented by the economic loss that the lack of receipt of the fee for said license implies for the Municipality, and said loss corresponds to 1% of the total value of the construction. In the present case, it is clear that the infraction was committed, since it is demonstrated in the record that Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A., commenced the construction of the buildings without a prior municipal license, works that at the time of the inspection conducted by the Municipalidad de Garabito on August 24, 2009, had reached 3% of the total projected. Such infraction generates, by provision of law, the imposition of the fine as a sanction. Note that the cited regulations do not exclude the existence of the infraction under any circumstance, nor do they condition the existence of the fault on a minimum percentage of works constructed without a license. It is sufficient that works are started without the permit in order to deem the unlawful act to have occurred (mere verification), as indeed happened in this case. For its part, the allegation that the due process and right to defense of the plaintiff company were violated because no administrative procedure was conducted prior to the imposition of the fine is not admissible. In this case, the Municipality conducted a prior on-site inspection and verified the existence of the works erected without a permit, determined the percentage of progress in relation to the total (3%), and set the amount of the fine, which was communicated to the plaintiff company, who had ample opportunities to challenge the imposed sanction through its appeals both at the municipal level and before this Tribunal acting as improper hierarchical superior, so due process was indeed fulfilled. Executing works without a municipal license is a matter of mere verification, and due process was indeed respected. Article 93 of the Ley de Construcciones invoked by the plaintiff party is not applicable to the matter specifically under discussion, because the period set by that provision (30 days) is only for the offender to bring the construction into compliance with the law regarding the obtaining of the construction permit, but not for the imposition of the fine, which, as stated, applies as long as the start of construction without a permit is verified. Regarding the amount of the sanction (fine), this Tribunal does not find that a disproportionate or unreasonable application was incurred, nor that the principle of legal reservation was violated, because the Municipalidad de Garabito adhered to what is established in the applicable legislation. Article 90 of the Ley de Construcciones clearly establishes that the sanction may not exceed the economic loss that the lack of receipt of the license fee implies for the Municipality, which amounts to 1% of the total cost of the works. That percentage is not the maximum to be imposed, but the sanction itself. The provision does not provide for the possibility of grading that sanction, and it merely indicates that this percentage cannot be exceeded. The principles of legality and specificity of sanctions would prevent the defendant municipality from determining, at its discretion, the fine to be set. In any case, the Municipalidad de Garabito did not discretionarily impose the amount but limited itself to applying the indicated legal percentage. Neither is the argument admissible that, because only 3% of the works were advanced without a permit, the sanction should have been limited to that same percentage of the tax amount to be paid for the license. That assertion is not supported by any of the legal provisions regulating the matter, and is therefore unfounded. Executing works without a license generates the imposition of a single fine, which, in accordance with the law, is indivisible, so it is not relevant whether, at the time the Municipality intervenes, the work is 3% or any other percentage complete, as this is irrelevant for deeming the infraction committed and imposing the sanction, which in all cases will be equal to —and not more than— the license tax. The Ley de Construcciones indicates that the fine is equivalent to the loss caused by the non-payment of the tax, exactly as occurred in this matter. Based on the foregoing and as no defect is found in the administrative acts being challenged, the annulment claim must be rejected in its entirety and consequently, as it is ancillary, the claim for damages for losses and harm must also be rejected, which compels a declaration that the lawsuit filed is without merit in all its respects.

**VIII.-** **OF THE FILED EXCEPTIONS:** The defendant municipality only raised those of lack of right and lack of standing to sue in its two aspects (active and passive). The lack of right exception must be upheld for the reasons set forth in the preceding recital. As for the lack of standing (active and passive), it must be rejected because the author of the administrative conduct subject to this proceeding is the Municipalidad de Garabito (article 12, 1) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), while the direct impact of said conduct relates to the interests and rights of the plaintiff company (article 10, 1) a) ibidem).

**IX.- ON COSTS.** Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a pronouncement that must be made even ex officio, in accordance with that same provision, in conjunction with numeral 119.2 ibidem. Exemption from this award is only viable when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient cause to litigate or when the judgment is handed down based on evidence unknown to the opposing party. In the instant case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set by the applicable regulations and overturn the rule of awarding costs against the loser. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

**THEREFORE:** The exception of lack of active and passive standing raised by the Municipalidad de Garabito is rejected and the exception of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. against the Municipalidad de Garabito is declared **WITHOUT MERIT** in all its respects. Both costs of this action are charged to Desarrollos PB 29 Nombre14711 33 S.A.

Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo Karla Suárez Baltodano Luis Eduardo Mesén García             IV.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF: In summary, the plaintiff alleges that its represented company initiated administrative procedures to obtain a construction license (licencia de construcción) for the development of a tourism project on a property owned by it, Partido de Puntarenas with Folio Real 71440, cadastral plan P-1301196-2008, located in the canton of Garabito, district of Jacó. That simultaneously, it began land conditioning work, which was carried out in good faith and with the knowledge of the municipal authorities. That while the construction permits were being processed, some earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and later, foundations for a building began. That the Head of the Construction Department of the Municipality of Garabito issued official letter DI-521-2009 of August 27, 2009, in which he stated that in an inspection carried out that same day, the actual progress of the works being carried out amounted to 3% of the total project and expressed his consent for its continuation regarding slope stabilization and the welding  of unsecured pieces, under the warning that the company had to complete the missing documentation for the construction permit application. That on October 8, 2009, the defendant entity issued construction permit PC-265-2009-A, by means of which it was indicated that the necessary payment of the construction tax was required, a sum that was set at ¢64,387,881.00. That in that same construction permit, it was recorded that its represented company also owed, as a fine (sanction), an amount equivalent to 100% of the construction permit tax (¢64,387,881.00) for having started the works without the respective permit. It considers that the actions of the Municipality of Garabito regarding the imposition of the fine are arbitrary and illegal and therefore vitiated by nullity, for two aspects: first, since to apply said sanction, an administrative procedure should have been followed to determine the existence of the infraction, thereby violating the fundamental right to due process. That although subsection a) of Article 89 of the Ley de Construcciones establishes as an infraction the execution of works without a prior license, it does not mean that whoever commits said fault becomes deserving of a fine ipso facto. That Article 93 of the same Ley de Construcciones sets the rules of due process, by contemplating a period of 30 days  for the benefit of the offender to correct their actions and remedy the infraction, also granting them a second opportunity in the event that they do not meet all the requirements during the first period. That this is applicable for those situations in which the buildings or constructions are finished, which  is not applicable to its represented company since it only carried out preparatory acts that amounted to 3% progress. Second, because the Municipality of Garabito applied an automatic formula to impose the fine without analyzing the reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction.  That the fine for constructions that do not have a building permit was agreed upon by the Municipal Council of Garabito, which violates Article 39 of the Political Constitution for not having been established by law.            V.- DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS: In summary, the representation of the Municipality of Garabito states that the plaintiff company began the procedures to obtain the construction permit when the works were closed down for lacking said permit. That the fine imposed of ¢64,387,881.00 was for starting works without a permit, and thus is supported by law. On that basis, it filed the exceptions of lack of right and lack of active and passive standing and requests that the present claim be declared without merit in all its respects.            VI.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONING POWER IN URBAN PLANNING MATTERS: In its historical development, the administrative sanctioning power (potestad sancionatoria administrativa) was linked to police power as yet another expression of it; however, this power has evolved to become a distinct area of state activity. Thus, through police power, an entire administrative order is built, whose compliance is necessary for the administration in order to  guarantee  the  protection  of  the   environmental public function. This goal is intended to be achieved through recourse to the administration's sanctioning power, which is but one more manifestation of the State's “ius puniendi”, that is, that power to impose burdens on the administered parties by reason of the damage caused by their behavior to the detriment of the legal right protected by the order, a power that in urban planning matters is provided for in Articles 82 and 88 of the Ley de Construcciones and 57 and 58 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana. Faced with the need to uphold public order, Local Governments are vested with the authority to monitor and determine whether the exercise of private property rights conforms to the urban planning order or not, so that once a breach is detected, it can set in motion the sanctioning power established at the legal level. These powers, which are legally provided for in Articles 88, 89, 90 and 91 of the Ley de Construcciones, are those exercised by the administration after the “mere verification” (mera constatación) of the illegality status of the administered party, or through the corresponding legal procedure, as the case may be. Regarding the first -mere verification-, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber has stated the following: “III.- On the merits. In reiterated jurisprudence, the Chamber has indicated that the closure of a construction for lacking the respective permits, without the need for any prior administrative procedure, is not necessary because in the event of verification of the lack of said authorizations for the activity, the opening of such an administrative procedure is not applicable. For situations such as the one described, the administration simply verifies whether the respective permits are held for the exercise of a particular activity that requires them, and if it verifies in its archives that the same is not held, it immediately proceeds to its closure or shut-down and materially materializes with the placement of seals, the violation of which may be subject to criminal sanctions” (Highlighting not in the original) (Resolution 2006-04429 of March 29, 2006).            VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER: Having analyzed the pleadings, this Court considers that the claim filed cannot   be   upheld,   for    the    reasons    that     are     developed     below  . The plaintiff bases its claim for annulment basically on two arguments. First, that its fundamental right to due process was violated by not conducting a prior administrative procedure before imposing the fine  of ¢64,387,881.00 for starting construction work without a municipal license, and second, because the amount of the fine is not based on criteria of reasonableness and proportionality between the infraction and the sanction, and that it was agreed upon by an administrative decision of the Municipal Council of Garabito and not by law, which violates the principle of legal reserve contained in Article 39 of the Political Constitution. Now then, as has been demonstrated from the evidence contained in the case file -see list of proven facts- and from the parties' own statements, the plaintiff company Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., initiated a tourist condominium project in the canton of Garabito, district of Jacó, without a municipal building permit. Said construction works were estimated at six billion four hundred thirty-eight million seven hundred eighty-eight thousand  one hundred colones (¢6,438,788,100.00) and the building permit (No. PC-265-2009-A) was not granted until October 8, 2009. The construction tax was assessed at 1% of the indicated sum, that is, at exactly sixty-four million three hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one colones (¢64,387,881.00), a sum  that  was paid on December 22 of that same year. In an inspection report made on August 24, 2009, by officials from the Inspection Department of the Municipality of Garabito, that is, a month and a half before the license date, the existence on site of prefabricated parts and structures for eight buildings and one villa was confirmed, works that were later determined to constitute progress at that time of 3% of the total programmed to be built. Based on that situation, in the same building permit, a fine was imposed on the plaintiff company corresponding to 1% of the total cost of the work, that is, for ¢64,387,881.00. In this regard, Article 89, subsection a), of the Ley de Construcciones, provides:  "Article 89. Infractions. The following shall be considered infractions, in addition to those indicated in the Chapters of this Ordinance: a) Executing, without a prior license, works for which this law and its regulations require a license..." In turn, Article 90 of that same regulatory body establishes the following: "Article 90. Fines. The amount of the fine shall in no case be greater than the economic loss implied for the Municipality by the lack of receipt of the fee for the license corresponding to the violated concept.". This last rule must be related -as relevant- to Article 70 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which regulates the amount that must be paid to the municipalities on the value of constructions and developments (urbanizaciones) carried out within their territorial jurisdiction, according to the following rule: "Municipalities are authorized to establish taxes, for the purposes of this law, of up to 1% of the value of constructions and developments carried out in the future, and to receive special assessments  for specific works or urban improvements (...)". As observed from the foregoing legal rules, the infraction consists of executing, without a prior license, works for which the law requires it, and the consequent  sanction is represented by the economic loss implied for the Municipality by the lack of receipt of the fee for said license, and said loss corresponds to 1% of the total value of the construction. In the present case, it is clear that the infraction was committed, since it is demonstrated in the case file that Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. began construction of the buildings without a prior municipal license, works that at the time of the inspection carried out by the Municipality of Garabito on August 24, 2009, amounted to 3% of the total projected. Such infraction generates, by provision of law, the imposition of the fine as a sanction. Note that the exposed regulations do not exclude the existence of the infraction under any circumstance, nor do they condition the existence of the fault on a minimum percentage of construction works carried out without a license. It is sufficient that works are started without the permit for  the  wrongful  act  to have occurred  (mere verification),   as    occurred  in  the   case at hand. For its part, the argument that the due process and right of defense of the plaintiff company were violated, for not having conducted an administrative procedure before the imposition of the fine, is not acceptable. In this case, the Municipality carried out a prior on-site inspection and verified the existence of works erected without a permit, determined the percentage of progress in relation to the total (3%), and  set the amount of the fine, which was communicated to the plaintiff company, which had  ample opportunities to appeal the imposed sanction, through its challenges both at the municipal level and before this Court as an improper hierarchical body, thereby complying with due process. Carrying out works without a municipal license is a matter of mere verification and due process was indeed respected. Article 93 of the Ley de Construcciones invoked by the plaintiff is not applicable in the matter specifically discussed, since the period set by that rule (30 days)  is only for the offender to bring the construction into compliance with the law regarding obtaining the building permit, but not for the imposition of the fine, which, as stated, is applicable as long as the start of construction without a permit is verified. Regarding the amount of the sanction (fine), this Court does not consider that a disproportionate or unreasonable application was incurred, nor that the principle of legal reserve was violated, since the Municipality of Garabito adhered to what is established in the applicable legislation. Article 90 of the Ley de Construcciones clearly establishes that the sanction cannot exceed the economic loss implied for the Municipality by the lack of receipt of the license fee, which amounts to 1% of the total cost of the works. This percentage is not the maximum to be imposed, but the sanction itself. The rule does not foresee the possibility of graduating that sanction, and it only states that this percentage cannot be exceeded. The principles of legality and specificity of sanctions would prevent the sued municipality from determining, at its discretion,  the  fine  to be set. In any case, the Municipality of Garabito did not impose the amount discretionally, but rather limited itself to applying the indicated legal percentage. Nor is the argument admissible that because only 3% of the works were advanced without a permit, the penalty should have been limited to that same percentage of the tax amount payable for the license. That assertion is not supported by any of the legal provisions regulating the matter, and is therefore unfounded. Carrying out works without a license triggers the imposition of a single fine, which according to the law is indivisible, so it is not relevant whether, at the time the Municipality intervened, the work was 3% complete or any other percentage, as this is immaterial to finding the infraction committed and imposing the sanction, which in all cases will be equal to—and not greater than—the license tax. The Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) indicates that the fine is equivalent to the harm caused by the failure to pay the tax, exactly as occurred in this matter. For the foregoing reasons, and as no defect is found in the administrative acts being challenged, the annulment claim must be rejected in its entirety and, consequently, as it is accessory, the claim for damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) must also be rejected, requiring the lawsuit filed to be declared without merit in all its aspects.

VIII.- OF THE DEFENSES RAISED: The defendant municipality raised only those of lack of right (falta de derecho) and lack of standing (falta de legitimación ad causam) in its two aspects (active and passive). The lack of right defense must be granted for the reasons set forth in the preceding recital. As for the lack of standing (active and passive), it must be rejected because the author of the administrative conduct subject to this proceeding is the Municipality of Garabito (article 12, 1) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)), while the direct impact of said conduct relates to the interests and rights of the plaintiff company (article 10, 1) a) ibidem).

IX.- ON COSTS. Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a ruling that must be made even on the court's own motion, pursuant to the provisions of that same rule, in conjunction with section 119.2 ibidem. Waiver of this award is viable only when there is, in the Tribunal's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party. In this case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the rule of awarding costs against the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

POR TANTO:

The defense of lack of active and passive standing raised by the Municipality of Garabito is rejected, and the defense of lack of right is granted. The lawsuit filed by Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. against the Municipality of Garabito is declared SIN LUGAR in all its aspects. Both costs of this action are borne by Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. Notify.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo Karla Suárez Baltodano Luis Eduardo Mesén García

PROCESO: Puro derecho ACTOR: Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

DEMANDADO: Municipalidad de Garabito Sentencia No. 07-2015-II TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA (SECCIÓN SEGUNDA). Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, a las trece horas con cuarenta y cinco minutos del treinta de enero del dos mil quince.- PROCESO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO, seguido ante este Tribunal por DESARROLLOS PB 29 Y 33 S.A., cédula de persona jurídica número CED60127, representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma Roberto Acosta Mora, mayor, cédula de identidad CED60128; contra MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO, representada por su Alcalde Marvin Elizondo Cordero, mayor, cédula de identidad CED60129;

RESULTANDO:

1.- Que en su demanda formulada, la parte actora pide que en sentencia se declare: "1.- Con lugar la presente demanda en todos sus extremos. 2.- La nulidad absoluta del acto de imposición de multa a mi representada, contenido en el Permiso de Construcción N° PC-265-2009-A. 3.- La nulidad absoluta de todos los actos conexos y concomitantes al establecimiento de dicha sanción pecuniaria, contenidos a través de los Oficios DI-634-2009, del 29 de octubre de 2009, y DI-713-2009, del 21 de diciembre de 2009, ambos del Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcciones de la Municipalidad de Garabito; el oficio DL-267-2009, del 25 de noviembre de 2009, emitido por la Asesoría Legal de la Municipalidad de Garabito; y el Oficio AM-2264-2009, fechado el 17 de diciembre de 2009, emitido por el Despacho del Alcalde de dicha Municipalidad. 4.- Como consecuencia de lo anterior, que se condene a la Municipalidad de Garabito al pago de los daños y perjuicios irrogados, que serán liquidados en ejecución de sentencia. 5.- Que se condene a la Municipalidad de Garabito al pago de ambas costas del proceso". Y también que: "declare la nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta de la multa impuesta a la parte actora por la suma de ¢64.387.881,00 (sesenta y cuatro millones trescientos ochenta y siete mil ochocientos ochenta y un colones), incluida en el permiso de construcción N° PC-265-2009-A, del 8 de octubre de 2009; así como la declaratoria de nulidad de todos sus actos preparatorios, conexos y derivados" (folios 15, 16, 129, 241 vto y 242).- 2.- Que la parte demandada contestó negativamente la acción y opuso la excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación ad causam en sus dos vertientes (folios 88-95 y 151-155).

3.- Que en la audiencia preliminar efectuada a partir de las 13:55 horas del 18 de agosto del 2014, con asistencia de ambas partes, no se admitieron ajustes en las pretensiones, las cuales por ende se mantienen en los términos establecidos en la demanda. La Jueza Tramitadora además rechazó la prueba testimonial propuesta por la Municipalidad de Garabito y declaró el proceso de puro derecho, al no haber más prueba que recibir aparte de la documental, de conformidad con el artículo 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), por lo que las partes rindieron oralmente sus conclusiones (audiencia grabada y que consta adjunta al expediente en su correspondiente soporte electrónico; minuta a folios 241-243).

4.- Que en la especie, no se notan causales de nulidad capaces de invalidar lo actuado.

Redacta el juez Núñez Castrillo, con el voto afirmativo de la jueza Suárez Baltodano y del juez Mesén García ; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De relevancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tienen como tales los siguientes hechos: 1). Que la sociedad actora Desarrollos PB 29 y 33, S.A. tiene proyectada la construcción en el Cantón de Garabito, Distrito Jacó, frente a Bahía Herradura, de un Condominio Residencial Mixto, Turístico, denominado Punta Bocana (1 a 563 del expediente administrativo). 2).- Que el 24 de agosto de 2009, el Departamento de Inspecciones de la Municipalidad de Garabito, mediante acta No. 3144, se apersonó al Proyecto indicado en el hecho anterior y constató la existencia de obras sin licencia municipal, para el levantamiento de 8 edificios y 1 villa y dispuso: "Se ordenó paralización de construcciones como medida cautelar por no contar con permisos municipales y hasta no contar con los mismos. Avance de obra 10% general proceso de cimientos y colocación de vigas metálicas estructura de edificio. Se constató en lugar previstas y estructuras de 8 edificios y 1 Villa" (folios 134-139 de expediente administrativo). 3).- Que el 26 de agosto de 2009, la sociedad PB 29 y 33 S.A., presentó ante la Municipalidad de Garabito, solicitud de permiso de construcción No. 3708, para la construcción de ocho edificios, obra con un valor de ¢6.438.788.100,00 (folios 144-146 de expediente administrativo). 4).- Que mediante oficio No. DI-521-2009, del 27 de agosto de 2009, dirigido al Alcalde Municipal, el Jefe Técnico del Departamento de Construcciones de Garabito, manifestó que luego de una inspección en el lugar, se determinó que el avance real de las obras era de un 3% (folio 141 de expediente administrativo). 5).- Que el 08 de octubre de 2009, el Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcción otorgó al Banco de Costa Rica (fiduciario) y Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., el permiso de construcción No. PC-265-2009-A, para dos edificios de cuatro pisos con cuatro filiales cada uno y ocho edificios de dos pisos de una filial. En el mismo acto se indicó lo siguiente: "Costo total de la obra estimado: ¢6.438.788.100,00; Impuesto de construcción (1.00%), ¢64.387.881,00; Multa 100%, ¢64.387.881,00; Total a pagar: ¢128.775.762,00" (folio 224 de expediente administrativo). 6).- Que el 22 de diciembre de 2009, la empresa actora canceló a la Municipalidad la suma de ¢64.387.881,00- por concepto de impuesto de construcción (recibo No. 0178222, folio 281 de expediente administrativo). 7).- Que mediante escrito del 16 de noviembre de 2009, la sociedad actora interpuso ante el Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcciones, recurso de revocatoria y apelación subsidiaria, contra la multa de ¢64.387.881,00, por haber iniciado las obras sin permiso (folios 236-240 de expediente administrativo). 8).- Que el recurso de revocatoria se rechazó mediante oficio DI-713-2009 del 21 de diciembre de 2009, fundamentado en el criterio legal DL-267-2009-H (folios 242-254 y 272 de expediente administrativo). 9).- Que el Alcalde Municipal, mediante resolución AM-1580-2010, de las 10:30 horas del 12 de agosto de 2010, declaró sin lugar el recurso de apelación (folios 406-412 de expediente administrativo). 10).- Que por escrito del 27 de agosto de 2010, la empresa actora interpuso apelación contra el acto AM-1580-2010, el cual fue remitido a este Tribunal para ser conocido en condición de jerarquía impropia administrativa (folios 427-431 de expediente administrativo). 11).- Que mediante resolución No. 33-2011 de las 14:35 horas del 03 de febrero de 2011, la Sección Tercera de este Tribunal en condición de jerarquía impropia administrativa, confirmó lo resuelto por la Municipalidad de Garabito en la resolución AM-1580-2010 y dió por agotada la vía administrativa (folios 565-580 de expediente administrativo.

II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: No se considera ninguno de especial relevancia para este asunto.

III.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO: Según la demanda formulada por la parte actora, el objeto de este asunto consiste en que se declare la nulidad absoluta del acto de imposición de multa contenido en el Permiso de Construcción PC-265-2009-A, así como de todos los actos conexos y concomitantes al establecimiento de dicha sanción pecuniaria, contenidos a través de los Oficios DI-634-2009, del 29 de octubre de 2009, y DI-713-2009, del 21 de diciembre de 2009, ambos del Departamento de Ingeniería y Construcciones de la Municipalidad de Garabito, el oficio DL-267-2009, del 25 de noviembre de 2009, emitido por la Asesoría Legal de la Municipalidad de Garabito y el Oficio AM-2264-2009, fechado el 17 de diciembre de 2009, emitido por el Despacho del Alcalde de dicha Municipalidad. Accesoriamente a esa nulidad, pide que se condene a la Municipalidad de Garabito al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados, cuya liquidación reserva para fase de ejecución de sentencia.

IV.- ARGUMENTOS DE LA PARTE ACTORA: En síntesis, la parte actora alega que su representada inició trámites administrativos para obtener licencia de construcción para el desarrollo de un proyecto turístico en una finca de su propiedad, Partido de Puntarenas con Folio Real 71440, plano catastrado P-1301196-2008, localizado en el cantón de Garabito, distrito Jacó. Que simultáneamente, inició labores de acondicionamiento de los terrenos, que se ejecutaron de buena fe y con conocimiento de las autoridades municipales. Que mientras se gestionaba la obtención de los permisos de construcción, iniciaron algunos movimientos de tierra y luego, fundaciones de un edificio. Que el Jefe del Departamento de Construcciones de la Municipalidad de Garabito, emitió el oficio DI-521-2009 del 27 de agosto de 2009, en el cual señaló que en inspección realizada ese mismo día, que el avance real de las obras que se realizaban alcanzaba un 3% de la totalidad del proyecto y manifestó su anuencia para su continuación en cuanto a la estabilización de taludes y soldadura de piezas no aseguradas aún, bajo el apercibimiento de que la empresa debía completar la documentación faltante de la solicitud del permiso de construcción. Que el 08 de octubre de 2009, la entidad demandada emitió el permiso de construcción PC-265-2009-A, por medio del cuál se le indicaba la necesaria cancelación del impuesto de construcción, suma que se fijó en ¢64.387.881,00. Que en ese mismo permiso de construcción, se consignó que su representada también debía por concepto de multa (sanción) un monto equivalente al 100% del impuesto del permiso de construcción (¢64.387.881,00) por haber iniciado las obras sin el respectivo permiso. Considera que lo actuado por la Municipalidad de Garabito en cuanto a la imposición de la multa es arbitrario e ilegal y por ende viciado de nulidad, por dos aspectos: en primer lugar, ya que para aplicar dicha sanción debió seguirse un procedimiento administrativo para determinar la existencia de la infracción, por lo que se violentó el derecho fundamental al debido proceso. Que si bien el inciso a) del artículo 89 de la Ley de Construcciones establece como infracción la ejecución de obras sin licencia previa, no significa que quien comete dicha falta se haga merecedor de una multa ipso facto. Que el artículo 93 de la misma Ley de Construcciones fija las reglas del debido proceso, al contemplar un plazo de 30 días a favor del infractor para que corrija sus actos y logre subsanar la infracción, concediéndole además una segunda oportunidad en caso de que no cumpla con todos los requisitos durante el primer período. Que ello es aplicable para aquellas situaciones en las cuales las edificaciones o construcciones se encuentren finalizadas, lo cual no es aplicable a su representada ya que sólo realizó actos preparatorios que alcanzaban un avance del 3%. En segundo lugar, por cuanto la Municipalidad de Garabito aplicó una fórmula automática para aplicar la multa sin analizar la razonabilidad y proporcionalidad entre la infracción y la sanción. Que la multa la multa para las construcciones que no disponen de permiso de construcción fue acordada por el Concejo Municipal de Garabito, lo que viola el numeral 39 de la Constitución Política al no haber sido fijada por ley.

V.- ARGUMENTOS DE LA PARTE DEMANDADA: En resumen, la representación de la Municipalidad de Garabito señala que la sociedad actora inició los trámites para obtener el permiso de construcción cuando se clausuraron los trabajos por carecer de dicho permiso. Que la multa impuesta por 64.387.881,00, fue por iniciar las obras sin permiso, de modo que está amparada por ley. Con base en ello, interpuso las excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y solicita que se declare sin lugar la presente demanda en todos sus extremos.

VI.- SOBRE LA POTESTAD SANCIONATORIA ADMINISTRATIVA EN MATERIA URBANÍSTICA: En su desarrollo histórico, la potestad sancionatoria administrativa estuvo ligada con el poder de policía como otra expresión más de la misma, sin embargo esta potestad ha evolucionado para convertirse en un ámbito distinto de la actividad estatal. Así, mediante el poder de policía se construye todo un ordenamiento administrativo cuyo cumplimiento es necesario para la administración a efectos de garantizar la tutela de la función pública ambiental. Este cometido pretende ser alcanzado mediante el recurso a la potestad sancionatoria de la administración, la cual no es sino una manifestación más del “ius puniendi” del Estado, es decir, aquella potestad de imponer gravámenes a los administrados en razón del perjuicio causado por su comportamiento en detrimento del bien jurídico tutelado mediante el ordenamiento, potestad que en materia urbanística, se encuentra prevista en los artículos 82 y 88 de la Ley de Construcciones y 57 y 58 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Ante la necesidad de hacer prevalecer el orden público, los Gobiernos Locales se encuentran investidos con la autoridad para vigilar y determinar si el ejercicio del derecho de propiedad privada se ajusta o no al ordenamiento urbanístico, de modo que una vez detectado el incumplimiento puede éste poner en marcha la potestad sancionatoria establecida a nivel legal. Dichas potestades que están previstas legalmente en los artículos 88, 89, 90 y 91 de la ley de construcciones, son las que ejerce la administración luego de la “mera constatación” del estado de ilegalidad del administrado, o a través del procedimiento legal correspondiente, según sea el caso. Respecto a la primera -mera constatación-, la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, ha señalado lo siguiente:

“III.- Sobre el fondo. En reiterada jurisprudencia la Sala ha indicado que la procedencia de la clausura de una construcción por carecer de los permisos respectivos, sin necesidad de algún procedimiento administrativo previo no es necesario por cuanto tratándose de la constatación de la falta de dichas autorizaciones para la actividad, no cabe la apertura de tal procedimiento administrativo. Para situaciones como la descrita, la administración simplemente constata, si se tiene los permisos respectivos para el ejercicio de determinada actividad que lo requiera y en caso de verificar en sus archivos que el mismo no la tenga, procede de inmediato a su cierre o clausura y materialmente se concretiza con la colocación de sellos, que ante la violación de ellos, pueden ser objeto de sanciones penales” (El resaltado no es del original) (Resolución 2006-04429 del 29 de marzo de 2006).

VII.- SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO: Una vez analizado lo planteado, considera este Tribunal que la demanda formulada no puede ser acogida, por las razones que de seguido se desarrollan. Fundamenta la parte actora su pretensión anulatoria, básicamente en dos argumentos. Primero, que le se violentó su derecho fundamental de debido proceso al no realizarse un procedimiento administrativo previo a la imposición de la multa de ¢64.387.881,00 por iniciar una obra constructiva sin licencia municipal y segundo, porque el monto de la multa no se motiva en criterios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad entre la infracción y la sanción, y que la misma fue acordada por una decisión administrativa del Concejo Municipal de Garabito y no por ley, lo que violenta el principio de reserva de ley contenido en el numeral 39 de la Constitución Política. Ahora bien, según se ha demostrado de la prueba que consta en autos -ver elenco de hechos probados- y de las mismas manifestaciones de las partes, la sociedad actora Desarrollo PB 29 y 33 S.A., inició sin permiso municipal de construcción un proyecto turístico de condominios en el cantón de Garabito, distrito Jacó. Dichas obras constructivas fueron estimadas en seis mil cuatrocientos treinta y ocho millones setecientos ochenta y ocho mil cien colones (¢6.438.788.100,00) y el permiso de construcción (No. PC-265-2009-A), se otorgó hasta el 08 de octubre de 2009. El impuesto de construcción se tasó en el 1% de la suma indicada, es decir, en sesenta y cuatro millones trescientos ochenta y siete mil ochocientos ochenta y un colones exactos (¢64.387.881,00), suma que fue cancelada el 22 de diciembre de ese mismo año. En acta de inspección realizada el 24 de agosto de 2009, por funcionarios del Departamento de Inspecciones de la Municipalidad de Garabito, es decir, un mes y medio antes de la fecha de la licencia, se comprobó en el lugar la existencia de previstas y estructuras de ocho edificios y una villa, obras que posteriormente se determinó que constituían un avance a ese momento, del 3% del total programado a edificar. Con base en esa situación, en el mismo permiso de construcción, se le impuso a la sociedad actora una multa correspondiente al 1% del costo total de la obra, esto es, por ¢64.387.881,00. Sobre ese particular, el artículo 89, inciso a), de la Ley de Construcciones, dispone:

"Artículo 89. Infracciones. Se considerarán infracciones además de las señaladas en los Capítulos de este Ordenamiento, las siguientes:

a)Ejecutar sin licencia previa, obras para las cuales esta ley y su reglamento exijan la licencia..." Por su parte, el numeral 90 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, establece lo siguiente:

"Artículo 90. Multas. El importe de la multa en ningún caso será superior a la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad la falta de percepción del derecho de la licencia correspondiente al concepto violado".

Esta última norma, debe relacionarse -en lo conducente- con el artículo 70 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, el cual regula el monto que debe cancelarse a las municipalidades, sobre el valor de las construcciones y urbanizaciones que se realicen dentro de su circunscripción territorial, según la siguiente regla: "Se autoriza a las municipalidades para establecer impuestos, para los fines de la presente ley, hasta el 1% sobre el valor de las construcciones y urbanizaciones que se realicen en el futuro, y para recibir contribuciones especiales para determinadas obras o mejoras urbanas (...)". Como se observa de las anteriores normas legales, la infracción consiste en ejecutar sin licencia previa, obras para las que la ley la exige y la consecuente sanción, está representada por la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad la falta de percepción del derecho de dicha licencia y dicha lesión corresponde al 1% del valor total de la construcción. En el presente caso, queda claro que la infracción se cometió, pues está demostrado en autos que Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A., inició la construcción de los edificios sin licencia municipal previa, obras que al momento de la inspección realizada por la Municipalidad de Garabito el 24 de agosto de 2009, alcanzaba un 3% del total proyectado. Tal infracción genera, por disposición de ley, la imposición de la multa como sanción. Nótese, que la normativa expuesta no excluye la existencia de la infracción en ningún supuesto y tampoco condiciona la existencia de la falta a un porcentaje mínimo de construcción de obras sin licencia. Basta con que se inicien las obras sin el permiso, para tener por ocurrido el hecho ilícito (mera constatación), tal cual ocurrió en la especie. Por su parte, el alegato de que se violó el debido proceso y el derecho de defensa de la sociedad actora, por no haberse realizado un procedimiento administrativo previo a la imposición de la multa, no es de recibo. En este caso, la Municipalidad realizó una inspección previa en el sitio y constató la existencia de las obras levantadas sin permiso, determinó el porcentaje de avance en relación con el total (3%) y fijó el monto de la multa, la cual fue comunicada a la sociedad actora, quien tuvo amplias oportunidades para recurrir la sanción impuesta, a través de sus impugnaciones tanto en sede municipal como ante este Tribunal en condición de jerárquica impropia, por lo que sí se cumplió el debido proceso. La realización de obras sin licencia municipal es un asunto de mera constatación y el debido proceso sí se respetó. El artículo 93 de la Ley de Construcciones invocado por la parte actora, no resulta aplicable en el asunto concretamente discutido, ya que el plazo que fija esa norma (30 días) es únicamente para que el infractor ajuste la construcción a derecho en cuanto a la obtención del permiso de construcción, pero no para la imposición de la multa, la cual como se dijo, procede en el tanto se constate el inicio de la construcción sin permiso. En lo referente al monto de la sanción (multa), no estima este Tribunal que se haya incurrido en una aplicación desproporcionada o irrazonable ni que se haya violentado el principio de reserva de ley, pues la Municipalidad de Garabito se ajustó a lo establecido en la legislación aplicable. El artículo 90 de la Ley de Construcciones, establece con claridad que la sanción no puede sobrepasar la lesión económica que implique para la Municipalidad, la falta de percepción del derecho de la licencia, el cual asciende al 1% del costo total de las obras. Ese porcentaje no es el máximo a imponer, sino la sanción propiamente dicha. La norma, no prevé la posibilidad de graduar esa sanción, y lo único que hace es señalar que no se puede sobrepasar ese porcentaje. Los principios de legalidad y tipicidad de las sanciones, impedirían que la municipalidad accionada disponga, según su criterio, la multa a fijar. En todo caso, la Municipalidad de Garabito no impuso discrecionalmente el monto, sino que se limitó a aplicar el porcentaje legal indicado. Tampoco es admisible el argumento en el sentido de que como sólo se avanzó un 3% de las obras sin permiso, la sanción debió limitarse a ese mismo porcentaje del monto del impuesto a pagar por la licencia. Esa afirmación no se sustenta en ninguna de las disposiciones legales que regulan la materia, por lo que resulta infundada. La realización de obras sin licencia genera la imposición de la multa única, que de acuerdo con la ley es indivisible, por lo que no es relevante si al momento de intervenir la Municipalidad, la obra lleva un 3% u otro porcentaje distinto, pues ello es indiferente para tener por cometida la infracción e imponer la sanción, la que en todos los casos será igual -y no más- al impuesto de la licencia. La Ley de Construcciones indica que la multa es equivalente a la lesión que ocasiona la falta de pago del tributo, tal y como así se dio en este asunto. Por lo expuesto y al no encontrarse ningún vicio en los actos administrativos que se impugnan, debe rechazarse en su totalidad la pretensión anulatoria y consecuentemente, por ser accesoria, también la pretensión indemnizatoria por daños y perjuicios, lo que obliga a declarar sin lugar la demanda formulada en todos sus extremos.

VIII.- DE LAS EXCEPCIONES INTERPUESTAS: La municipalidad accionada opuso únicamente las de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación ad causam en sus dos vertientes (activa y pasiva). La de falta de derecho, debe acogerse por las razones que se expusieron en el considerando anterior. En cuanto a la falta de legitimación (activa y pasiva), debe rechazarse por cuanto la autora de la conducta administrativa objeto de este proceso es la Municipalidad de Garabito (artículo 12, 1) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), mientras que la incidencia directa de dicha conducta es en relación de intereses y derechos de la sociedad actora (artículo 10, 1) a) ibídem).

IX.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS. El artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo establece que las costas procesales y personales son impuestas al vencido por el solo hecho de serlo, pronunciamiento que debe hacerse incluso de oficio, al tenor de lo dispuesto en esa misma norma, en concordancia con el numeral 119.2 ibídem. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas que desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encuentra este órgano colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar la regla de condena al vencido. Por ende, se impone el pago de ambas costas a Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A.

POR TANTO:

Se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva interpuesta por la Municipalidad de Garabito y se acoge la de falta de derecho. Se declara SIN LUGAR, en todos sus extremos, la demanda interpuesta por Desarrollos PB 29 y 33 S.A. contra la Municipalidad de Garabito. Son ambas costas de esta acción a cargo de Desarrollos PB 29 Nombre14711 33 S.A. Notifíquese.- Fabián Núñez Castrillo Karla Suárez Baltodano Luis Eduardo Mesén García

Municipal fine for unlicensed construction does not require prior hearingMulta municipal por construir sin licencia no requiere procedimiento previo

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp