Annulment of Open-Ended Suspension of Environmental Impact Assessment by SETENANulidad de suspensión indefinida de evaluación de impacto ambiental por SETENA

**FILE NUMBER:** **PROCEEDING:** Pure Law **PLAINTIFF:** LA BELLA MASAI M.N.J. S.A.

**DEFENDANT:** THE STATE **RULING No. 20-2016-VI** **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, SIXTH SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.** Goicoechea, at sixteen hours on the eighth of February of two thousand sixteen.- Proceeding of cognition declared as pure law, brought by LA BELLA MASAI M.N.J. SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number CED109726 - - , represented by its general agent without limit of sum, Ms. Nombre139028 , Spanish passport number Placa26328; against THE STATE, represented by the attorney Mauricio Castro Lizano, identity card number CED19452 - - . The Attorney Juan Abdelnour Granados, professional license number ten thousand two hundred twenty-six, appears as Special Judicial Representative of the plaintiff.

**WHEREAS:** 1.- On the first of August of 2011, the plaintiff company filed the complaint that gave rise to this proceeding so that the judgment orders the following claims, which were ratified and adjusted at the preliminary hearing: "1. The nullity of resolutions DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 of the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA. 2. That SETENA be ordered to issue the environmental license in the present matter because the company has fulfilled the requirements. 3. That the defendant be ordered to pay damages and losses; material damage for project delay and objective moral damage of the company for damage to the company's name, both to be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment phase, and 4. That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding" (folios 1 to 7 and 65 to 66 of the main file).

2.- The representation of the defendant answered the action in the negative and raised the defense of lack of right. It requested that the complaint be rejected and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs and interest (folios 33 to 36).- 3.- The preliminary hearing began at 8:50 hours on June 21, 2012, with the attendance of the parties and under the direction of the procedural judge, Mr. José Martín Conejo Cantillo. The claim was defined in the terms of the complaint, as indicated in the first whereas clause of this ruling. The disputed and undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of the case were determined, and the corresponding evidence was admitted. As there was no other evidence to be presented other than documentary evidence, the proceeding was declared as one of pure law in accordance with Article 98 subsection 2) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, and the conclusions were rendered (hearing recorded and attached to the file in its corresponding electronic support; minute at folios 65 and 66).- 4.- That by judgment No. 278-2012 of 15:00 hours on November 28, 2012, this Section of the Tribunal admitted the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge and declared the complaint inadmissible, exempting the plaintiff from paying costs (folios 67 to 81).

5.- That by ruling No. 66-F-TC-15 of 10:26 hours on June 10, 2015, of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it was ordered: "Therefore: The appeal is granted. Contrary to what was ordered by the trial Tribunal, the defense of acts not susceptible to challenge is rejected. Refer the file to this office" (folios 113 to 118).

6.- The file was assigned to this Sixth Section. This resolution is issued after deliberation. No grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are observed.- Judge Reyes Castillo writes with the affirmative vote of judges Garita Navarro and Hess Araya; **WHEREAS:** **I.- Proven facts.** The following facts are of relevance for the purposes of this proceeding: 1. That the property in the Province of Limón, registration number Placa26329, is owned by Nombre139028 (Public Registry certification, folios 12 and 13 of the judicial file). 2. That the property cited in the preceding fact, represented in cadastral map number Placa26330, is located within the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (see approval #0285-2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Energy that appears on the back of said map, folio 53 of the judicial file). 3. That on May 31, 2010, the plaintiff submitted an environmental impact assessment application to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat [SETENA] for a project to be developed on the property registered in the Province of Limón, real folio registration number Placa26331, cadastral map number Placa26332, located in Dirección16690; it was assigned file number D1-471-2010-SETENA (undisputed fact, folios 17 of the judicial file and 134 of the administrative file). 4. That in official communication 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, the person in charge of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge [REGAMA] of the National System of Conservation Areas [SINAC], in response to official communication SG-DEA-2809-2010 SETENA, informed the General Secretariat of SETENA that the project presented by the plaintiff is among the permitted uses according to the refuge's management plan and that the property has no complaints filed before the Área de Conservación Amistad Caribe and before that office (undisputed fact, folios 18 and 19 of the judicial file, 221 and 222 of the administrative file). 5. That by official communication DEA-930-2011 of March 23, 2011, the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA informed the plaintiff of the following: “… this Secretariat, through Official Communication SG-AJ-1092-2010, has requested the Legal Directorate of SINAC, in the person of Attorney María Angel Gómez Zúñiga-Director, to pronounce on the Report of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, and the Zoning Regulation for the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Executive Decree 34946-MINAET). The assertion issued by the Comptroller's Office affects several projects intended to be developed in that reserve area and involves the project presented by your represented party. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment of your project has been suspended for the time being until the legal directorate of SINAC issues a response…”; the content of said act was reiterated in official communication DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, 2011 (undisputed fact, folios 20 and 21 of the judicial file and folios 226 and 229 of the administrative file). 6. That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, in report number DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of December 10, 2008, addressed to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications and to the Executive Director of the National System of Conservation Areas, contains the results of the study of protected wilderness areas located in the country's coastal zones; makes some recommendations and sets compliance deadlines (see folios 255 to 261 of the administrative file). 7. That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of Environmental and Energy Services of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, via official communication number 04810 No. DFOE-AE-0158, sent SETENA report DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 of May 31, 2011, which records the result of the study carried out in relation to the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category, Executive Decree number 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008; a series of mandatory compliance provisions with fixed compliance deadlines are issued, directed to the Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, the Executive Director of SINAC, and the Plenary Commission of SETENA (see folios 237 to 243 of the administrative file). 8. That by resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of 8:50 hours on October 5, 2011, the Plenary Commission of SETENA in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article 26, resolved: "First: The initial environmental impact assessment procedure (EIA), corresponding to file number D1-471-SETENA for the Bungalows project, is suspended until such time as the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge is formalized, with the review and adjustments indicated by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services in its reports DFOE-AE-0158, Official Communication No. 04810 and Report DFOE-AE-158, counted from the notification of this resolution. Once this Secretariat is notified by the competent public entities, the environmental impact assessment will proceed. (…)" (folios 314 to 320 of the administrative file). 9. That on December 7, 2011, SINAC filed a review appeal against Report No. DFOE-AE-03-2011 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (folios 55 to 67 of the judicial file).

**II.- Unproven facts.** Due to the lack of evidence in the file to support it, the following is deemed unproven: Sole. That the official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA caused the plaintiff damages or losses attributable to the defendant Administration.

**III.- Subject matter of the proceeding. Allegations of the parties.** The subject matter of the proceeding is to determine the validity of resolutions No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, issued by SETENA, which suspend the processing of the environmental impact assessment for the plaintiff company's project. Allegations of the plaintiff: Specifically, it is claimed that the environmental impact study was suspended by the Administration without issuing the viability of the project and without any legal basis, which causes it damages. It maintains that the Legal Department of SINAC has not pronounced itself after more than a year has elapsed since the request. Furthermore, it indicates that in a similar case, the reason given was the alleged wait for the criterion of the Legal Directorate of SETENA and not of SINAC. Additionally, that there are other cases in which viability has been granted. It argues that it did fulfill all the requirements for the SETENA license and that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic cannot force the non-application of current regulations. It reiterates that its project cannot be suspended until the Refuge management plan (REGAMA) is modified by order of the Comptroller's Office. It maintains that the ordered suspension causes negative effects because it requested a permit that has the favorable opinion of MINAE, and the refusal to make a pronouncement violates its fundamental right to property, as it is the owner of a land registered in its name that the State has not acquired by purchase, nor is there any expropriation proceeding for that purpose. Allegations of the defendant party: The State's representation argues that report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic is binding and orders SINAC to refrain from granting permits in Mixed Refuges. It adds that official communication DFOE-AE-158 of May 31, 2011, from the Comptroller's Office ordered SINAC to review and adjust its Regulation contained in Decree No. 34946 with technical studies at a detailed geographic scale and to forward it to SETENA for environmental viability processing, and to refrain from granting environmental viabilities until the Regulation is formalized. It opposes the defense of lack of right and requests the award of costs with interest.

**IV.- On the merits.** The case under review questions the indefinite suspension of the environmental impact assessment procedure for a project of the plaintiff company, an administrative measure ordered in official communications No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22 of SETENA, based on reports from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 and DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 (DFOE-AE-158) of May 31, 2011, wherein it is ordered to review and adjust the Regulation adopted in Decree No. 34946 with technical studies at a detailed geographic scale. In this sense, it is evident that the indicated suspension of the environmental impact study corresponds to an administrative precautionary measure in environmental matters, and for this purpose, it is appropriate to transcribe the criterion of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court contained in ruling No. 199-F-S1-2010 of 15:30 on February 4, 2010, on this point:

"(...) In environmental matters, this authorization is reinforced insofar as the fundamental right of every person to a 'healthy and ecologically balanced environment' and concomitantly, the constitutional duty of the State to 'guarantee, defend, and preserve that right' (Article 50 of the Magna Carta) are recognized. Now, the precautionary measure can be conceptualized as that decision by the judge or the administrative body, as the case may be, where a necessary, suitable, and temporary protection is ordered for a right, interest (which may even be diffuse), or legal situation in order to prevent damage that is impossible or difficult to repair that affects or may affect the subject matter of the proceeding or procedure or the enforcement of the final resolution. This can be adopted during the processing of the proceeding or procedure, or beforehand, provided that the main action is filed. Now, regarding the principles applicable to it, and as relevant to the specific case, it is necessary to refer to those of instrumentality and provisionality. As for the first, also qualified as accessoriness, it refers to the indicated function of guaranteeing the effectiveness—not necessarily the enforcement—of the final decision adopted. Thus, the precautionary measure is linked and subject to the main procedure (hence the distinction between precautionary and main proceedings), such that it can only be issued by reason of the former. It consequently acquires a vicarious position, in service of the main procedure. Likewise, should the procedure conclude for any other reason, or should the main action not be filed, the adopted measure cannot subsist, leading to its expiration. Provisionality, for its part, refers to the temporary effectiveness of the precautionary measure. In this sense, the final resolution extinguishes and/or replaces the provision adopted on an interlocutory basis. (...)" (Emphasis supplied).

In complement to the above, the precautionary principle and that of *in dubio pro natura* allow the State to adopt the anticipated actions necessary to protect and conserve the environment and people's health when there is a risk of impact to them. The Constitutional Chamber has described the precautionary principle as follows: "properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures, not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment" (Ruling No. 3480-03, of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003). Furthermore, the Chamber observes that "in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if the biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment" (Ruling No. 17618-08, of 11:51 hours on December 5, 2008). In summary, administrative precautionary measures in environmental matters cannot be considered unrestricted and indefinite; on the contrary, the precautionary principle constitutes a parameter of legality for administrative conduct, and in this sense, the Constitutional Chamber in ruling no. 17747-2006 of 14 hours 37 minutes on September 11, 2006, clarified that "(…) when ordering restriction or intervention measures, the principle of proportionality must be respected, so that they are proportionate to the level of protection and the magnitude of the potential or eventual damage (…)." In the present proceeding, official communications DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, order the indefinite suspension of the environmental license processing until a pronouncement is made on report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of December 10, 2008, as is evident from the literal content of both communications, according to proven fact number six. It is clarified that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic and other agencies of the Executive Branch were not sued in this proceeding, and that the nullity of the reports of the comptroller body is not sought. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the violation of the Principles of Instrumentality and Provisionality is evident due to the indefinite suspension of the environmental license processing ordered by SETENA. The administrative procedure for the environmental impact study request managed by the plaintiff has been paralyzed unjustifiably, for an excessively long period. It is highlighted that SETENA bases official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 on report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of the Comptroller's Office, the same report that allows the granting of permits for permitted activities, according to the management plan. As a result of such authorization, official communication No. 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, was issued by SINAC, stating that the project presented by the plaintiff complied with the permitted use under Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET. On May 31, 2011, that is, after the application submitted by the plaintiff company (May 31, 2010), report No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic was issued. At the time this judgment is issued, there is no record in the case file of compliance with the technical requirements requested by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, i.e., the updating of the Zoning Regulation for the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Decree 34946-MINAET; on the contrary, the Administration challenged Report No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 with a review appeal, nor is the resolution of the review appeal or the granting of the environmental license to the plaintiff company accredited, with approximately four years having elapsed since the issuance of the cited acts, which renders the ordered suspension of the procedure indefinite. This constitutes a violation of the temporality and provisionality of the precautionary measure ordered, by preventing the applicant from obtaining a response to its environmental license application within a reasonable timeframe. It must be taken into account that Executive Decree No. 31849 "Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures," in Article 29, grants SETENA a maximum period of ten weeks for the review of projects of high environmental impact significance, Category A. For projects located in geographical areas with a Regulatory Plan or other land-use planning instrument, SETENA has a maximum period of ten days to grant environmental viability in accordance with articles 30 bis and 13 of said Regulation, Decree No. 31849. It must also be emphasized that the questioned official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA lack an appropriate basis capable of guaranteeing the legality of the ordered suspension, since they rely on a 2008 Comptroller's Office report that does not order abstaining from granting the environmental license. It should be noted that the 2011 Comptroller's report is subsequent to the plaintiff company's application and contained a deadline of July 30, 2011, for the Plenary Commission of SETENA to issue instructions for updating the Regulation; none of which, according to the case file, was complied with, therefore the deadline becomes excessive and arbitrary, being disproportionate and unreasonable. In the same sense, a violation of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations, established in Article 13 of the General Law of Public Administration, is evident, as the Administration failed to apply, for this specific case, the "Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category," Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008, disregarding the current regulatory provision that is binding for SETENA. There was also an infringement of the principle of legality, which was openly disrespected in this particular case by the non-application of the specific regulation. It must be kept in mind that the act by which the Administration grants environmental viability to a project is undoubtedly a regulated administrative act, insofar as it is provided for in the Organic Law of the Environment and in the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (Executive Decree No. 31849), as well as in the Manual of Technical Instruments for the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (Executive Decree No. 32966). It is reiterated that it is the law itself that requires the Environmental Impact Study when human activities alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic, or hazardous materials, just as ordered by Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which literally states:

"Article 17.- Environmental impact assessment. Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials shall require an environmental impact assessment by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat created in this law. Its prior approval by this body shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works, or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment." (Emphasis supplied).

Therefore, the adopted measure lacks consistency with the precautionary principle, due to the absence of clear and sufficient justification. Nor is the timeframe used reasonable or proportional, as it greatly exceeds the legal deadlines for responding to the administered party regarding its applications. What was ordered by SETENA is contrary to law due to violation of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations, by setting aside a current norm of the Legal System. Thus, while the indefinite suspension for the environmental impact study processing contained in official communications DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, issued by SETENA, is null and is so declared, the parties are warned of their legal obligation to prevent any action that could negatively affect the Natural Heritage of the State or the environment, and they must avoid any damage. Regarding the claim to order SETENA to issue the environmental license, it is rejected as improper. The granting of the environmental license is a function of the active Administration, alien to the legality review functions that this Tribunal holds.

**V.- Regarding the claims for compensation.** The lawsuit seeks economic compensation for material damage due to the project delay and objective moral damage of the plaintiff company. The claimed compensation items were neither motivated nor specified by the plaintiff, nor was evidence provided, as it is not sufficient to merely allege that these have occurred; their effective demonstration is necessary. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the provisions of Article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration, which require that the alleged damage be effective, evaluable, and individualizable, are not met in relation to numeral 58 subsection e) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, which imposes on the plaintiff the duty to specify the claim for damages and losses, which compels the rejection of the compensation claim for lacking any merit for its adoption.

**VI.- Analysis of the opposing defenses.** The defendant party raised the defense of lack of right. By virtue of the preceding analysis, the defense is partially accepted regarding damages and losses, and rejected in all other respects. Consequently, the complaint is partially granted, and the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is declared: a) official communications DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011. As a connected effect, the nullity of resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of 8:50 hours on October 5, 2011, issued by the Plenary Commission of SETENA in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article 26, is decreed. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment procedure of the plaintiff company is ordered without further delay, in accordance with Article 122 subsections a) and f) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code.

**VIII.- Costs.** Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party for the sole fact of being so, a pronouncement that must be made even on the court's own motion, pursuant to the provisions of that same norm, in concordance with numeral 119.2 ibidem. The dispensation of this award is only viable: a) when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered based on evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when *plus petitio* is incurred, that is, when the difference between what was claimed and what was ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the lawsuit are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (numeral 194 ibidem). In this case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the postulate of awarding costs to the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on the State, which has lost.

**THEREFORE:** The defense of lack of right is partially accepted regarding the compensation claim for damages and losses, and denied in all other respects. Consequently, the complaint filed by the company La Bella Masai M.N.J. Sociedad Anónima against the State is partially granted in the following terms: the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is declared: official communications DEA 930-2011 of the twenty-third of March and DEA-1940-2011 of the twenty-second of June, both two thousand eleven. By connection, the nullity of resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of eight hours fifty minutes on the fifth of October two thousand eleven, issued by the Plenary Commission of SETENA in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article twenty-six, is declared. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment procedure of the plaintiff company is ordered without further delay. Both costs are charged to the State.

NOTIFY.- JUDITH REYES CASTILLO JOSÉ ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA

**VOTO No. 20-2016-VI** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SEXTA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea,** at sixteen hundred hours on the eighth of February two thousand sixteen.- Ordinary proceeding declared a pure question of law (puro derecho) filed by **LA BELLA MASAI M.N.J. SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**, legal identification number CED109726 - - , represented by its unlimited general attorney-in-fact (apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma) Mrs. Nombre139028 , Spanish passport number Placa26328; against **EL ESTADO**, represented by the state attorney (procurador) Mauricio Castro Lizano, identity card number CED19452 - - . The Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact for the plaintiff is Licenciado Juan Abdelnour Granados, professional license number ten thousand two hundred twenty-six.

**RESULTANDO** **1.-** On the first of August 2011, the plaintiff company filed the complaint that gave rise to this proceeding, requesting that the judgment order the following claims, which were ratified and adjusted at the preliminary hearing: *"**1.-** The nullity of resolutions DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 of the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA. **2.-** That SETENA be ordered to issue the environmental license (licencia ambiental) in this matter, as the company has fulfilled the requirements. **3.-** That the defendant be ordered to pay damages; material damage for the delay of the project and objective moral damages (daño moral objetivo) of the company for harm to the company's name, both to be liquidated in the execution of judgment phase, and **4.-** That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding"* (folios 1 to 7 and 65 to 66 of the main case file).

**2.-** The defendant's representation answered the action in the negative and raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho). It requested that the complaint be dismissed and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs and interest (folios 33 to 36).- **3.-** The preliminary hearing began at 8:50 hours on June 21, 2012, with the attendance of the parties and under the direction of the procedural judge Lic. José Martín Conejo Cantillo. The claim was defined in the terms of the complaint, as indicated in the first recital (resultando) of this judgment. The disputed and undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of the case were determined, and the corresponding evidence was admitted. As there was no other evidence to examine other than the documentary evidence, the proceeding was declared a pure question of law in accordance with Article 98, subsection 2) of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), and the closing arguments were delivered (hearing recorded and attached to the case file on its corresponding electronic medium; minute at folios 65 and 66).- **4.-** By judgment No. 278-2012 at 15:00 hours on November 28, 2012, this Section of the Court admitted the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge (acto no susceptible de impugnación) and declared the complaint inadmissible, exempting the plaintiff from the payment of costs (folios 67 to 81).

**5.-** By opinion (voto) No. 66-F-TC-15 at 10:26 hours on June 10, 2015, of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), it was ordered: "Por tanto: The appeal is granted. Contrary to what the trial Court ordered, the defense of acts not susceptible to challenge is rejected. Remit the case file to that office" (folios 113 to 118).

**6.-** The case file was referred to this Sixth Section. This resolution is issued after deliberation. No grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are noted.- Drafted by Judge *Reyes Castillo* with the affirmative vote of judges *Garita Navarro and Hess Araya*; **CONSIDERANDO:** **I.-** **Proven facts.** The following are of relevance for the purposes of this proceeding: **1.** That the property in the Province of Limón, registration number Placa26329, is owned by Nombre139028 (certification from the Public Registry, folios 12 and 13 of the judicial case file). **2.** That the property cited in the preceding fact, represented on the cadastral map (plano catastrado) number Placa26330, is located within the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo) (see approval (visado) #0285-2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Energy on the reverse of said map, folio 53 of the judicial case file). **3.** That on May 31, 2010, the plaintiff submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) [SETENA] a request for an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), for a project to be developed on the property registered in the Province of Limón, real folio registration number Placa26331, cadastral map number Placa26332, located at Dirección16690, ; it was assigned file folder number D1-471-2010-SETENA (undisputed fact, folios 17 of the judicial case file and 134 of the administrative file). **4.** That in official communication 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, the person in charge of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge [REGAMA] of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) [SINAC], in response to official communication SG-DEA-2809-2010 SETENA, informed the General Secretariat of SETENA that the project presented by the plaintiff falls within the permitted uses according to the refuge's management plan and that the property has no complaints filed before the Amistad Caribe Conservation Area or before that office (undisputed fact, folios 18 and 19 of the judicial case file, 221 and 222 of the administrative file). **5.** That through official communication DEA-930-2011 of March 23, 2011, the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA informed the plaintiff of the following: “(…) *this Secretariat, through Official Communication SG-AJ-1092-2010, has requester (sic) the Legal Directorate of SINAC, in the person of Licenciada María Angel Gómez Zúñiga-Directora, to rule regarding the Report of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, and the Zoning Regulations of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (D.E. 34946-MINAET). The assertion issued by the Comptroller affects several projects intended to be developed in that reserve area and involves the project presented by your client. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment of your project has been, for the moment, suspended until the legal directorate of SINAC issues its response (…)*”; the content of said act was reiterated in official communication DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, 2011 (undisputed fact, folios 20 and 21 of the judicial case file and folios 226 and 229 of the administrative file). **6.** That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, in report number DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of December 10, 2008, addressed to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications and the Executive Director of the National System of Conservation Areas, contains the results of the study of protected wild areas located in the country's coastal zones; makes some recommendations and sets compliance deadlines (see folios 255 to 261 of the administrative file). **7.** That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of Environmental and Energy Services of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, through official communication number 04810 No. DFOE-AE-0158, forwarded to SETENA report DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 of May 31, 2011, which records the result of the study conducted in relation to the Zoning Regulations of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category, Decreto Ejecutivo number 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008; a series of orders of mandatory compliance and fixed-term fulfillment are issued, directed to the Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, the Executive Director of SINAC, and the Plenary Commission of SETENA (see folios 237 to 243 of the administrative file). **8.** That through resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA at 8:50 hours on October 5, 2011, the Plenary Commission of SETENA, in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article 26, agrees: *"First: The initial environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure (evaluación de impacto ambiental inicial, EAI), corresponding to case file number D1-471-SETENA for the Bungalows project, is suspended until such time as the Zoning Regulations of the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge are formalized, with the review and adjustments indicated by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services in its reports DFOE-AE-0158, Official Communication No. 04810 and Report DFOE-AE-158, counted from the notification of this agreement. At the time this Secretariat is notified by the competent public entities, the environmental impact assessment will proceed. (...)"* (folios 314 to 320 of the administrative file). **9.** That on December 7, 2011, SINAC filed an appeal for review (recurso de revisión) against Report No. DFOE-AE-03-2011 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (folios 55 to 67 of the judicial case file).

**II.- Unproven facts.** Due to the absence of supporting evidence in the case file, the following is deemed unproven: **Only.** That the official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA caused the plaintiff damages or losses attributable to the defendant Administration.

**III.-** **Object of the proceeding. Arguments of the parties.** The object of the proceeding is to determine the validity of resolutions No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, issued by SETENA, which suspend the processing of the environmental impact assessment for the plaintiff company's project. **Arguments of the plaintiff**: Specifically, it claims that the environmental impact study was suspended by the Administration without issuing the project's feasibility (viabilidad) and without any legal basis, which causes it damages. It maintains that the Legal Department of SINAC has not ruled, more than a year having elapsed since the request. Furthermore, it indicates that in a similar case, it was motivated by the supposed expectation of the criterion of the Legal Directorate of SETENA and not of SINAC. In addition, there are other cases where feasibility has been granted. It argues that it did comply with all the requirements for the SETENA license (licencia) and that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic cannot compel the disregard of prevailing regulations. It reiterates that the project cannot be suspended until the Refuge (REGAM) management plan is modified by order of the Comptroller. It maintains that the ordered suspension causes negative effects, because it requested a permit that has a favorable opinion from MINAET and the refusal to rule violates its fundamental right to property, as it is the owner of land registered in its name that the State has not acquired by purchase, nor does an expropriation process exist for that purpose. **Arguments of the defendant**: The State's representation argues that report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic is mandatory and orders SINAC to refrain from granting permits in Mixed Refuges. It adds that official communication DFOE-AE-158 of May 31, 2011, from the Comptroller ordered SINAC to review and adjust its Regulations contained in Decreto No. 34946 with technical studies at a detailed geographic scale and to refer it to SETENA for environmental feasibility processing, and to refrain from granting environmental feasibilities until such Regulations are formalized. It raises the defense of lack of right and requests the award of costs with interest.

**IV.- On the merits.** The case under examination questions *the indefinite suspension* of the environmental impact assessment processing for a project of the plaintiff company, an administrative measure ordered in official communications No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, by SETENA, based on reports of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 and DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 (DFOE-AE-158) of May 31, 2011, which order the review and adjustment of the Regulations adopted in Decreto No. 34946 with technical studies at a detailed geographic scale. In this regard, it is evident that the indicated suspension of the environmental impact study corresponds to an administrative precautionary measure (medida cautelar administrativa) in environmental matters, and for this, it is appropriate to transcribe the criterion of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court contained in opinion (voto) No. 199-F-S1-2010 at 15:30 on February 4, 2010, on this point:

*(...) In environmental matters, this authorization is reinforced insofar as the fundamental right of every person to a "healthy and ecologically balanced environment" is recognized, and concomitantly, the constitutional duty of the State to "guarantee, defend, and preserve that right" (Article 50 of the Magna Carta). Now, the precautionary measure can be conceptualized as that decision of the judge or the administrative body, as the case may be, where a necessary, suitable, and temporary protection is ordered for a right, interest (which may even be diffuse), or legal situation, in order to avoid damage that is impossible or difficult to repair that affects or may affect the object of the process or procedure or the execution of the final resolution. This may be adopted during the processing of the process or procedure, or beforehand, provided that the main action is filed. Now, regarding the principles applicable to it, and insofar as relevant for the specific case, it is necessary to refer to those of instrumentality and provisionality. Regarding the first, also called accessoriness, it refers to the indicated function of guaranteeing the effectiveness—not necessarily the execution—of the final decision adopted. Thus, the precautionary measure is linked and subordinated to the main procedure (hence the distinction between precautionary and main proceeding), such that it can only be ordered on the occasion of the former. It consequently acquires a vicarious position, at the service of the main procedure. Likewise, in the event the procedure ends for any other reason, or if the main action is not filed, the adopted measure cannot subsist, thus causing its lapse. Provisionality, for its part, refers to the temporal efficacy of the precautionary measure. In this sense, the final resolution extinguishes and/or substitutes the provision adopted in an interlocutory manner. (...)* (Emphasis added).

In addition to the above, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) and the principle of in dubio pro natura allow the State to adopt the necessary anticipatory actions to protect and conserve the environment and people's health, when there is a risk of harm to them. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has described the precautionary principle as follows: *“correctly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures, not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will indeed produce harmful effects on the environment”* (Voto N° 3480-03, at 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003). Furthermore, the Chamber observes that *“in environmental matters, coercion after the fact is ineffective, since once the biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment”* (voto N° 17618-08, at 11:51 hours on December 5, 2008). In summary, administrative precautionary measures (medidas cautelares administrativas) in environmental matters cannot be considered unrestricted and indefinite. On the contrary, the precautionary principle constitutes a parameter of legality for administrative conduct, and in this sense, the Constitutional Chamber, in voto no. 17747-2006 at 14 hours 37 minutes on September 11, 2006, clarified that *“(…) when ordering restrictive or intervention measures, the principle of proportionality must be respected, so that they are proportionate to the level of protection and the magnitude of the potential or eventual damage (…)”* . **In this proceeding**, official communications DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, order the indefinite suspension of the environmental license processing until there is a ruling on report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of December 10, 2008, of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, as is evident from the literal content of both communications, according to what is recorded in proven fact number six.

It is clarified that the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) and other dependencies of the Executive Branch were not sued in this proceeding and that the nullity of the reports of the oversight body is not sought. In the opinion of this Court, the violation of the Principles of Instrumentality and Provisionality (Principios de Instrumentalidad y Provisionalidad) is evidenced by the indefinite suspension of the environmental license (licencia ambiental) proceeding ordered by SETENA. The administrative procedure for the request of the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) filed by the plaintiff is unjustifiably halted for an excessively long period. It is highlighted that SETENA bases official letters DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 on the Comptroller's report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, which itself allows the granting of permits for permitted activities, according to the management plan. As a result of such authorization, official letter No. 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, issued by SINAC, was issued, indicating that the project presented by the plaintiff complied with the permitted use in Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET. On May 31, 2011, that is, after the application filed by the plaintiff company (May 31, 2010), the report of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 was issued. At the time of the issuance of this judgment, the record does not show compliance with the technical requirements requested by the Comptroller General of the Republic, i.e., the update of the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Decree 34946-MINAET (Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Decreto 34946-MINAET); on the contrary, the Administration challenged report No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 with a motion for review (recurso de revisión), the resolution of the motion for review is also not accredited, nor is the granting of the environmental license to the plaintiff company, approximately four years having elapsed since the issuance of the cited acts, which makes the ordered suspension of the proceeding indefinite. This constitutes a breach of the temporality and provisionality of the precautionary measure ordered, by preventing the applicant from obtaining a response to its request for an environmental license within a reasonable time. It must be taken into account that Executive Decree No. 31849 "Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures" ("Reglamento sobre los Procedimiento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental"), in Article 29, grants SETENA a maximum period of ten weeks for the review of projects of high environmental impact significance, category A. For projects located in geographic spaces with a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) or other land-use planning instrument, SETENA has a maximum period of ten days to grant environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) in accordance with Articles 30 bis and 13 of the indicated Regulation, Decree No. 31849. It must also be emphasized that the questioned official letters DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA lack appropriate support capable of guaranteeing the legality of the ordered suspension, as they are based on a 2008 Comptroller's report that does not order abstaining from granting the environmental license, and it should be noted that the 2011 Comptroller's report is subsequent to the plaintiff company's application and contained a deadline of July 30, 2011, for the SETENA Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria del SETENA) to issue instructions for updating the Regulation, none of which is shown in the record to have been complied with; therefore, the period is excessive and arbitrary, being disproportionate and unreasonable. In the same vein, a breach of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations (Principio de Inderogabilidad Singular de los Reglamentos), established in Article 13 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), is evidenced, since the Administration failed to apply, in this specific case, the "Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category" ("Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Categoría Mixta") Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008, disregarding the current and binding regulatory provision for SETENA. An infringement of the principle of legality was also incurred, which was openly disrespected in this particular case by the non-application of the specific norm. It must be borne in mind that the act by which the Administration grants environmental viability to a project is undoubtedly a regulated administrative act, insofar as it is provided for in the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and in the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (Executive Decree No. 31849), as well as in the Manual of Technical Instruments for the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (Executive Decree No. 32966). It is reiterated that it is the law itself that requires the Environmental Impact Assessment, when human activities alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, as ordered by Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which literally states:

"Article 17.- Environmental impact assessment. Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, shall require an environmental impact assessment by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) created in this law. Its prior approval by this body shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works, or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment." (Emphasis supplied).

For the foregoing reasons, the adopted measure lacks consonance with the precautionary principle, due to the absence of clear and sufficient justification. Nor is the period used reasonable or proportional, as it greatly exceeds the legal deadlines for responding to the administered party's applications. What was ordered by SETENA is contrary to law due to a violation of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations, by failing to apply a current norm of the Legal System. Thus, although the indefinite suspension of the environmental impact assessment proceeding contained in official letters DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011 issued by SETENA, is null and so declared, the parties are warned of their legal obligation to prevent any action that could negatively affect the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) or the environment and must avoid any damage. Regarding the claim to order SETENA to issue the environmental license, it is rejected as improper. The granting of the environmental license is an attribution of the active Administration, outside the attributions of legality control that this Court holds.

V.- Regarding the claims for damages. The lawsuit seeks economic compensation for material damage due to the project delay and objective moral damage of the plaintiff company. The compensatory items sought were neither substantiated nor specified by the plaintiff, nor was evidence provided, as it is not enough to allege that they have occurred, but their effective demonstration is necessary. In the opinion of this Court, the provisions of Article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration are not met, which requires that the alleged damage be effective, evaluable, and individualizable, in relation to numeral 58, subsection e) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), which imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to specify the claim for damages, which compels the rejection of the claim for damages for lacking all merit for its adoption.

VI.- Analysis of the defenses raised. The defendant raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho); by virtue of the preceding analysis, the defense is partially upheld with respect to the damages and rejected in all other respects. Consequently, the lawsuit is partially granted, and the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is declared: a) official letters DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011. As a related effect, the nullity of resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of 8:50 a.m. on October 5, 2011, issued by the SETENA Plenary Commission in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article 26, is decreed. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment procedure of the plaintiff company is ordered without further delay in accordance with Article 122, subsections a) and f) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code.

VIII.- Costs. Article 193 of the CPCA 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 the provisions of that same norm, in concordance with numeral 119.2 ibidem. The exemption from this condemnation is only viable: a) when there is, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when plus petitio is incurred, that is, when the difference between the amount claimed and what is ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the lawsuit are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (ordinal 194 ibidem). In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the postulate of condemning the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on the State, which was the losing party.

POR TANTO

The defense of lack of right is partially upheld regarding the claim for damages and denied in all other respects. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by the company La Bella Masai M.N.J. Sociedad Anónima against the State is partially granted in the following terms: the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy is declared: official letters DEA 930-2011 of March twenty-third and DEA-1940-2011 of June twenty-second, both of two thousand eleven. By connection, the nullity of resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of eight hours fifty minutes on October fifth, two thousand eleven, issued by the SETENA Plenary Commission in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article twenty-six, is declared. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment procedure of the plaintiff company is ordered without further delay. Both costs are to be borne by the State. NOTIFÍQUESE.- JUDITH REYES CASTILLO JOSÉ ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA **WHEREAS** **1.-** On the first of August, 2011, the plaintiff company filed the complaint that gave rise to the present proceeding, so that the following claims—ratified and adjusted at the preliminary hearing—be ordered in the judgment: *"1.- The nullity of resolutions DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 of the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA. 2.- SETENA be ordered to issue the environmental license (licencia ambiental) in the present matter, the company having fulfilled the requirements. 3.- The defendant be ordered to pay damages; material damage for project delay and objective moral damage to the company for harm to the company’s name, both to be liquidated in execution of judgment, and 4.- The defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding"* (folios 1 to 7 and 65 to 66 of the main case file).

**2.-** The defendant's representative answered the action negatively and raised the defense of lack of right. It requested that the complaint be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs and interest (folios 33 to 36).- **3.-** The preliminary hearing began at 8:50 a.m. on June 21, 2012, with the attendance of the parties and under the direction of the procedural judge, Lic. José Martín Conejo Cantillo. The claim was defined in the terms of the complaint, as indicated in the first whereas clause of this ruling. The disputed and undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of the case were determined, and the corresponding evidence was admitted. As there was no evidence to be evacuated other than the documentary evidence, the process was declared purely a matter of law in accordance with article 98, subsection 2) of the Code of Administrative Contentious Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), and the conclusions were rendered (hearing recorded and attached to the case file on its corresponding electronic medium; minutes at folios 65 and 66).- **4.-** That by judgment No. 278-2012 rendered at 3:00 p.m. on November 28, 2012, this Section of the Tribunal admitted the defense of an act not subject to challenge (acto no susceptible de impugnación) and declared the complaint inadmissible, exempting the plaintiff from the payment of costs (folios 67 to 81).

**5.-** That by vote No. 66-F-TC-15 rendered at 10:26 a.m. on June 10, 2015, by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), it was ordered: "Por tanto: The appeal is granted. Contrary to what was ordered by the trial Tribunal, the defense of acts not subject to challenge is rejected. The case file is remitted to that office" (folios 113 to 118).

**6.-** The case file was assigned to this Sixth Section. This resolution is issued after deliberation. No grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are noted.- Drafted by Judge *Reyes Castillo* with the affirmative vote of the judges *Garita Navarro and Hess Araya*; **CONSIDERING:** **I.- Proven facts.** The following are considered relevant for the purposes of the present proceeding: **1.** That the property in the Province of Limón, registration number Placa26329, is owned by Nombre139028 (certification from the Public Registry, folios 12 and 13 of the judicial case file). **2.** That the property cited in the preceding fact, represented on cadastral map number Placa26330, is located within the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo) (see approval #0285-2006 of the Ministry of Environment and Energy on the reverse of said map, folio 53 of the judicial case file). **3.** That on May 31, 2010, the plaintiff party submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat [SETENA] a request for an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), for a project to be developed on the property registered in the Province of Limón, real estate folio registration number Placa26331, cadastral map number Placa26332, located at Dirección16690; it was assigned the file number D1-471-2010-SETENA (undisputed fact, folios 17 of the judicial case file and 134 of the administrative dossier). **4.** That in official communication 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, the person in charge of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge [REGAMA] of the National System of Conservation Areas [SINAC], in response to official communication SG-DEA-2809-2010 SETENA, informed the General Secretariat of SETENA that the project presented by the plaintiff is among the permitted uses according to the refuge’s management plan and that the property has no complaints filed before the Amistad Caribe Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Amistad Caribe) or before that office (undisputed fact, folios 18 and 19 of the judicial case file, 221 and 222 of the administrative dossier). **5.** That through official communication DEA-930-2011 of March 23, 2011, the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA informed the plaintiff as follows: “(…) *this Secretariat, through Official Communication SG-AJ-1092-2010, has request (sic) the Legal Directorate of SINAC, in the person of Licenciada María Angel Gómez Zúñiga-Director, to render a statement regarding the Report of the Comptroller General of the Republic DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, and the Zoning Regulation for the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (D.E. 34946-MINAET). The assertion issued by the Comptroller's Office affects several projects intended to be developed in that reserve area and involves the project submitted by your represented party. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment of your project has been suspended for the moment until the legal directorate of SINAC issues the response (...)*”; the content of said act was reiterated in official communication DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, 2011 (undisputed fact, folios 20 and 21 of the judicial case file and folios 226 and 229 of the administrative dossier). **6.** That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services of the Comptroller General of the Republic, in report number DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of December 10, 2008, addressed to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications and to the Executive Director of the National System of Conservation Areas, contains the results of the study of protected wilderness areas located in the country's coastal zones; it makes some recommendations and sets compliance deadlines (see folios 255 to 261 of the administrative dossier). **7.** That the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of Environmental and Energy Services of the Comptroller General of the Republic, through official communication number 04810 No. DFOE-AE-0158, remitted to SETENA report DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 of May 31, 2011, which records the result of the study conducted concerning the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category, Executive Decree number 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008; a series of mandatory provisions with fixed compliance deadlines are issued, directed to the Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, the Executive Director of SINAC, and the Plenary Commission of SETENA (see folios 237 to 243 of the administrative dossier). **8.** That through resolution No. 2379-2011-SETENA of 8:50 a.m. on October 5, 2011, the Plenary Commission of SETENA, in ordinary session No. 0103-2011, article 26, agreed: *"First: The initial environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure (evaluación de impacto ambiental inicial, EAI), corresponding to file number D1-471-SETENA for the Bungalows project, is suspended until such time as the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge is formalized, with the review and adjustments indicated by the Comptroller General of the Republic, Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division, Area of General Public, Environmental, and Agricultural Services in its reports DFOE-AE-0158, Official Communication No. 04810 and Report DFOE-AE-158, counted from the notification of this agreement. At the time this Secretariat is notified by the competent public entities, the environmental impact assessment will proceed. (...)"* (folios 314 to 320 of the administrative dossier). **9.** That on December 7, 2011, SINAC filed a petition for review (recurso de revisión) against Report No. DFOE-AE-03-2011 of the Comptroller General of the Republic (folios 55 to 67 of the judicial case file).

**II.- Unproven facts.** Due to the lack of supporting evidence in the case file, the following is considered unsubstantiated: **Only.** That the official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA caused the plaintiff damages or losses attributable to the defendant Administration.

**III.- Object of the proceeding. Arguments of the parties.** The object of the proceeding consists of determining the validity of resolutions No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, issued by SETENA, which suspend the processing of the environmental impact assessment for the plaintiff company's project. **Arguments of the plaintiff**: Specifically, it claims that the environmental impact study was suspended by the Administration without issuing a decision on the project's viability (viabilidad) and without any legal basis, which causes it harm. It contends that the Legal Department of SINAC has not issued a statement, even though more than a year has passed since the request. Furthermore, it indicates that in a similar case, the justification was the supposed wait for the opinion of the Legal Directorate of SETENA and not of SINAC. In addition, there are other cases in which viability has been granted. It argues that it did meet all the requirements for the SETENA license and that the Comptroller General of the Republic cannot compel the non-application of current regulations. It reiterates that its project cannot be suspended until the management plan for the Refuge (REGAM) is modified by order of the Comptroller's Office. It contends that the ordered suspension causes it negative effects, because it requested a permit that has the favorable opinion of MINAET, and the refusal to issue a decision violates its fundamental right to property, as it is the owner of a land registered in its name which the State has not acquired through purchase, nor does an expropriation proceeding exist for that purpose. **Arguments of the defendant party**: The representation of the State argues that report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of the Comptroller General of the Republic is mandatory and directs SINAC to abstain from granting permits in Mixed Refuges. It adds that official communication DFOE-AE-158 of May 31, 2011, from the Comptroller's Office ordered SINAC to review and adjust its Regulation contained in Decree No. 34946 with technical studies at a detailed geographic scale and to submit it to SETENA for environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) processing, and to abstain from granting environmental viabilities until the Regulation is formalized. It raises the defense of lack of right and requests a condemnation in costs with interest.

**IV.- On the merits.** The case under review questions the indefinite suspension of the environmental impact assessment process for a project of the plaintiff company, an administrative measure ordered in official communications No. DEA-930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22 by SETENA, based on reports from the Comptroller General of the Republic No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 and DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 (DFOE-AE-158) of May 31, 2011, which order the review and adjustment of the Regulation adopted in Decree No. 34946 with detailed geographic scale technical studies. In this sense, it is evident that the indicated suspension of the environmental impact study corresponds to an administrative precautionary measure (medida cautelar administrativa) in environmental matters, and for this purpose, it is appropriate to transcribe the opinion of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court contained in vote No. 199-F-S1-2010 rendered at 3:30 p.m. on February 4, 2010, on this point:

*"(...) In environmental matters, this authorization is reinforced insofar as the fundamental right of every person to a 'healthy and ecologically balanced environment' is recognized, and concomitantly, the constitutional duty of the State to 'guarantee, defend, and preserve that right' (article 50 of the Magna Carta). Now then, the precautionary measure can be conceptualized as that decision of the judge or the administrative body, as the case may be, whereby a necessary, suitable, and temporary protection is ordered for a right, interest (which may even be diffuse), or legal situation in order to avoid damage of impossible or difficult reparation that affects or may affect the object of the proceeding or procedure or the execution of the final resolution. This can be adopted during the processing of the proceeding or procedure, or beforehand, provided that the main action is filed. Now, regarding the principles applicable to it, and what is relevant for the specific case, it is necessary to refer to those of instrumentality and provisionality. As for the first, also qualified as accessoriness, it refers to the indicated function of guaranteeing the effectiveness—not necessarily the execution—of the final decision adopted. Thus, the precautionary measure is linked and subject to the main procedure (hence the distinction between the precautionary and main proceeding), in such a way that it can only be issued on account of the latter. It consequently acquires a vicarial position, at the service of the main procedure. Likewise, if the procedure concludes for any other reason, or if it is not filed, the adopted measure cannot subsist, thus its lapse occurs. Provisionality, for its part, refers to the temporal effectiveness of the precautionary measure. In this sense, the final resolution extinguishes and/or substitutes the provision adopted in an interlocutory manner. (...)"* (Emphasis added).

In complement to the foregoing, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) and the principle of *in dubio pro natura* allow the State to adopt the early actions necessary to protect and conserve the environment and people's health when there is a risk of harm to them. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has described the precautionary principle as follows: *“properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures, not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment”* (Vote No. 3480-03, rendered at 2:02 p.m. on May 2, 2003). Furthermore, the Chamber observes that *“in environmental matters, ex post facto coercion is ineffective, because once biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment”* (vote No. 17618-08, rendered at 11:51 a.m. on December 5, 2008). In sum, administrative precautionary measures in environmental matters cannot be considered unrestricted and indefinite; on the contrary, the precautionary principle constitutes a parameter of legality for administrative conduct, and in this sense, the Constitutional Chamber, in vote no. 17747-2006 rendered at 2:37 p.m. on September 11, 2006, clarified that *“(…) when ordering restriction or intervention measures, the principle of proportionality must be respected, so that they are proportionate to the level of protection and the magnitude of the potential or eventual damage (…)”* . **In the present proceeding**, official communications DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011, order the indefinite suspension of the environmental license (licencia ambiental) procedure until a pronouncement is made regarding Comptroller General of the Republic report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 of December 10, 2008, as is evident from the literal content of both communications, as stated in proven fact number six. It is clarified that the Comptroller General of the Republic nor other dependencies of the Executive Branch were sued in this proceeding and that the nullity of the comptroller's reports is not sought. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the violation of the Principles of Instrumentality and Provisionality is evidenced by the indefinite suspension of the environmental license procedure ordered by SETENA. The administrative procedure for the request for the environmental impact study processed by the plaintiff party has been unjustifiably paralyzed for an excessively long period. It is highlighted that SETENA bases official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 on Comptroller's Office report No. DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, which itself permits the granting of permits for allowed activities, according to the management plan. As a result of such authorization, official communication No. 003-2011-REGAMA-SM of January 17, 2011, was issued by SINAC, indicating that the project presented by the plaintiff complied with the use permitted in Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET. On May 31, 2011, meaning after the application submitted by the plaintiff company (May 31, 2010), the Comptroller General of the Republic's report No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 was issued. At the time this judgment is rendered, the case record does not show compliance with the technical requirements requested by the Comptroller General of the Republic, that is, the updating of the Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Decree 34946-MINAET; on the contrary, the Administration challenged report No. DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 with a petition for review, and neither the resolution of the petition for review nor the granting of the environmental license to the plaintiff company is accredited, with approximately four years having passed since the issuance of the cited acts, which renders indefinite the ordered suspension of the proceeding. This constitutes a breach of the temporality and provisionality of the precautionary measure issued, by preventing the applicant from obtaining a response to its request for an environmental license within a reasonable timeframe. It must be taken into account that Executive Decree No. 31849 *"Regulations on the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures"* *(“Reglamento sobre los Procedimiento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental”)* , in article 29, grants SETENA a maximum period of ten weeks for the review of projects with high environmental impact significance, category A, and for projects. For projects located in geographic spaces with a Regulatory Plan or another land-use planning instrument, SETENA has a maximum period of ten days to grant environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) in accordance with articles 30 bis and 13 of the indicated Regulation, Decree No. 31849. It must also be emphasized that the challenged official communications DEA-930-2011 and DEA-1940-2011 issued by SETENA lack appropriate justification capable of guaranteeing the legality of the ordered suspension, because they are based on a 2008 Comptroller's Office report that does not order abstaining from granting the environmental license, noting that the 2011 comptroller's report is subsequent to the plaintiff company's request and contained a deadline of July 30, 2011, for the Plenary Commission of SETENA to issue instructions for updating the Regulation, none of which is evidenced in the case record as having been fulfilled; therefore, the period is excessive and arbitrary, being disproportionate and unreasonable. In the same vein, a breach of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations (Principio de Inderogabilidad Singular de los Reglamentos), established in article 13 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), is evidenced, since the Administration failed to apply, for this specific case, the *"Zoning Regulation of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category"* (“Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Categoría Mixta”), Executive Decree No. 34946-MINAET of December 6, 2008, disregarding the current normative provision that is binding for SETENA. The principle of legality was also infringed, which was openly disrespected in this particular case by the non-application of the specific rule.

It must be borne in mind that the act by which the Administration grants environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) to a project is undoubtedly a regulated administrative act, insofar as it is provided for in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and in the Reglamento sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849), as well as in the Manual de Instrumentos Técnicos para el Proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966). It is reiterated that it is the law itself that requires the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) when human activities alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, as ordered by Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which literally states:

"Article 17.- Environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, shall require an environmental impact assessment by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental created in this law. Its prior approval, by this body, shall be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works or projects. The laws and regulations shall indicate which activities, works or projects shall require the environmental impact assessment." (Emphasis supplied).

For the foregoing reasons, the measure adopted lacks consonance with the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), due to the absence of clear and sufficient justification. Nor is the period used reasonable or proportional, as it amply exceeds the legal deadlines for responding to the managed party's requests. What was ordered by SETENA is contrary to law due to violation of the Principle of Singular Non-Derogability of Regulations (Principio de Inderogabilidad Singular de los Reglamentos), by disapplying a current norm of the Legal System. Thus, although the indefinite suspension of the environmental impact assessment proceeding contained in official letters DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011 issued by SETENA, is null and is so declared, the parties are warned of their legal obligation to prevent any action that could negatively affect the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) or the environment and must avoid any damage. As for the claim to order SETENA to issue the environmental license (licencia ambiental), it is rejected as improper. The granting of the environmental license is an attribution of the active Administration, outside the attributions of legality control held by this Court.

V.- Regarding the claims for compensation.

The complaint seeks economic compensation for material damage due to the project's delay and objective moral damage to the plaintiff corporation. The compensation items claimed were not substantiated or specified by the plaintiff, nor was evidence provided, given that merely alleging they have occurred is not enough; their effective demonstration is necessary. In the view of this Court, the provisions of Article 196 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which orders that the alleged damage be effective, assessable and individualizable in relation to numeral 58 subsection e) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which imposes on the plaintiff the duty to specify the claim for damages and losses, are not met, which imposes the rejection of the claim for compensation as lacking all merit for its adoption.

VI.- Analysis of the defenses raised. The defendant raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho); by virtue of the preceding analysis, the defense is partially upheld regarding the damages and losses and rejected in all other respects. Consequently, the complaint is partially granted, and the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía is declared: a) official letters DEA 930-2011 of March 23 and DEA-1940-2011 of June 22, both of 2011. As a related effect, the nullity of resolution N°2379-2011-SETENA of 8:50 a.m. on October 5, 2011, issued by the Comisión Plenaria of SETENA in ordinary session N°0103-2011, article 26, is decreed. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment proceeding of the plaintiff company without further delay is ordered in accordance with Article 122 subsections a) and f) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

VIII.- Costs. Article 193 of the CPCA 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 the provisions of that same norm, in concordance with numeral 119.2 ibidem. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable: a) when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when there is plus petitio, that is, when the difference between what was claimed and what was ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the claim are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (ordinal 194 ibidem). In this case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth in the applicable regulations and to break the postulate of condemnation of the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on the State, which was the losing party.

POR TANTO

The defense of lack of right is partially upheld with respect to the claim for compensation for damages and losses, and denied in all other respects. Consequently, the complaint filed by the company La Bella Masai M.N.J. Sociedad Anónima against the State is partially granted in the following terms: the absolute nullity of the following administrative acts issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía is declared: official letters DEA 930-2011 of March twenty-three and DEA-1940-2011 of June twenty-two, both of two thousand eleven. By related effect, the nullity of resolution N°2379-2011-SETENA of eight hours fifty minutes on October five, two thousand eleven, issued by the Comisión Plenaria of SETENA in ordinary session N°0103-2011, article twenty-six, is declared. The continuation of the environmental impact assessment proceeding of the plaintiff company without further delay is ordered. Both costs are borne by the State. NOTIFÍQUESE.- JUDITH REYES CASTILLO JOSÉ ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA

Puro Derecho ACTOR:

LA BELLA MASAI M.N.J. S.A.

EL ESTADO VOTO No. 20-2016-VI TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SEXTA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las dieciséis horas del ocho de febrero del dos mil dieciséis.- Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho establecido por LA BELLA MASAI M.N.J. SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica número CED109726 - - , representada por su apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma la señora Nombre139028 , pasaporte español número Placa26328; contra EL ESTADO, representado por el procurador Mauricio Castro Lizano, cédula de identidad número CED19452 - - . Figura como Apoderado Especial Judicial de la parte actora el Licenciado Juan Abdelnour Granados, carné profesional número diez mil doscientos veintiséis.

RESULTANDO

1.- En fecha primero de agosto del 2011, la empresa actora formula la demanda que ha dado origen al presente proceso para que en sentencia se dispongan, las siguientes pretensiones que fueron ratificadas y ajustadas en audiencia preliminar: "1.- La nulidad de las resoluciones DEA-930-2011 y DEA-1940-2011 del Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental de SETENA. 2.- Se ordene a SETENA emitir la licencia ambiental en el presente asunto por haber cumplido la empresa con los requisitos. 3.- Se condene al pago de daños y perjuicios; daño material por atraso del proyecto y daño moral objetivo de la sociedad por afectación al nombre de la empresa, ambos a ser liquidados en ejecución de sentencia, y 4.- Se condene al demandado al pago de ambas costas del proceso" (folios 1 a 7 y 65 a 66 del expediente principal).

2.- La representación de la demandada contestó negativamente la acción y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho. Solicitó declarar sin lugar la demanda y condenar en ambas costas e intereses a la actora (folios 33 a 36).- 3.- La audiencia preliminar inició a las 8:50 horas del 21 de junio del 2012, con asistencia de las partes y bajo la conducción del juez de trámite Lic. José Martín Conejo Cantillo. La pretensión se definió en los términos de la demanda, según se indica en el primer resultando de este fallo. Se determinaron los hechos controvertidos y no controvertidos de relevancia para la resolución del caso y se admitió la prueba correspondiente. Al no haber otra prueba que evacuar distinta de la documental, se declaró el proceso como de puro derecho de conformidad con el artículo 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y fueron rendidas las conclusiones (audiencia grabada y que consta adjunta al expediente en su correspondiente soporte electrónico; minuta a folios 65 y 66).- 4.- Que por sentencia N°278-2012 de las 15:00 horas del 28 de noviembre de 2012 esta Sección del Tribunal admitió la excepción de acto no susceptible de impugnación y declaró inadmisible la demanda, eximiendo a la actora del pago de las costas (folios 67 a 81).

5.- Que por voto N°66-F-TC-15 de las 10:26 horas del 10 de junio de 2015 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia se dispuso: "Por tanto: Se declara con lugar el recurso. Contrario a lo dispuesto por el Tribunal de juicio, se rechaza la defensa de actos no susceptible de impugnación. Remítase el expediente a ese despacho" (folios 113 a 118).

6.- El expediente fue turnado a esta Sección Sexta. Esta resolución se dicta, previa deliberación. No se notan causales de nulidad capaces de invalidar lo actuado.- Redacta la Jueza Reyes Castillo con el voto afirmativo de los juzgadores Garita Navarro y Hess Araya;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- Hechos probados. De relevancia para efectos del presente proceso se tienen los siguientes: 1. Que la finca de la Provincia de Limón, matrícula número Placa26329, es propiedad de Nombre139028 (certificación de Registro Público folios 12 y 13 del expediente judicial). 2. Que la finca citada en el hecho que antecede, representada en el plano catastrado número Placa26330, se ubica dentro del Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo (ver visado #0285-2006 del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía que consta en el reverso de dicho plano, folio 53 del expediente judicial). 3. Que el 31 de mayo de 2010, la parte actora presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental [SETENA] solicitud de evaluación de impacto ambiental, para un proyecto a desarrollarse en la finca inscrita en la Provincia de Limón, matrícula de folio real número Placa26331, plano catastrado número Placa26332, ubicada en Dirección16690, ; se le asignó el número de carpeta D1-471-2010-SETENA (hecho no controvertido, folios 17 del expediente judicial y 134 del legajo administrativo). 4. Que en oficio 003-2011-REGAMA-SM de 17 de enero de 2011, el encargado del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo [REGAMA] del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación [SINAC], en respuesta al oficio SG-DEA-2809-2010 SETENA, comunicó a la Secretaría General de SETENA que el proyecto presentado por la actora se encuentra dentro de los usos permitidos según el plan de manejo del refugio y que la propiedad no presenta denuncias interpuestas ante el Área de Conservación Amistad Caribe y ante esa oficina (hecho no controvertido, folios 18 y 19 del expediente judicial, 221 y 222 del legajo administrativo). 5. Que mediante oficio DEA-930-2011 de 23 de marzo de 2011, el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental de SETENA comunicó a la actora lo siguiente: “(…) esta Secretaría, mediante Oficio SG-AJ-1092-2010, ha solicita (sic) a la Dirección Legal del SINAC en la persona de la Licenciada María Angel Gómez Zúñiga-Directora, se pronuncie con respecto al Informe de la Contraloría General de la República DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, y el Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo (D.E. 34946-MINAET). La aseveración emitida por parte de la Contraloría, afecta a varios proyectos que se pretenden desarrollar en esa área de reserva y que involucra al proyecto presentado por su representada. Por lo anterior, la evaluación de impacto ambiental de su proyecto ha quedado por el momento suspendida hasta que la dirección legal del SINAC emita la respuesta (...)”; el contenido de dicho acto fue reiterado en oficio DEA-1940-2011 de 22 de junio de 2011 (hecho no controvertido, folios 20 y 21 del expediente judicial y folios 226 y 229 del administrativo). 6. Que la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Servicios Públicos Generales, Ambientales y Agropecuarios de la Contraloría General de la República, en informe número DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 del 10 de diciembre de 2008, dirigido al Ministerio del Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones y al Director Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, contiene los resultados del estudio de las áreas silvestres protegidas ubicadas en las zonas costeras del país; hace algunas recomendaciones y fija plazo de cumplimiento (ver folios 255 a 261 del legajo administrativo). 7. Que la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Servicios Ambientales y de Energía de la Contraloría General de la República, mediante oficio número 04810 N° DFOE-AE-0158, remitió a SETENA el informe DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 del 31 de mayo de 2011, en el que se consigna el resultado del estudio efectuado en relación con el Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Categoría Mixta, Decreto Ejecutivo número 34946-MINAET de 6 de diciembre de 2008; se emiten una serie de disposiciones de acatamiento obligatorio y cumplimiento a plazo fijo, dirigidas al Ministro de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, al Director Ejecutivo del SINAC y a la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA (ver folios 237 a 243 del expediente administrativo). 8. Que mediante resolución N°2379-2011-SETENA de las 8:50 horas del 5 de octubre de 2011 la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA en sesión ordinaria N°0103-2011, artículo 26 acuerda: "Primero: Se suspende el procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental inicial (EAI), correspondiente al expediente número D1-471-SETENA del proyecto Bungalows, hasta el momento en que se oficialice el Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, con la revisión y los ajustes indicados por la Contraloría General de la República, División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa, Área de Servicios Públicos Generales, Ambientales y Agropecuarios en sus informes DFOE-AE-0158, Oficio N° 04810 y el Informe DFOE-AE-158, contados a partir de la notificación del presente acuerdo. En el momento de ser notificada esta Secretaría por las entidades públicas competentes, se procederá con la evaluación de impacto ambiental. (...)" (folios 314 a 320 del expediente administrativo). 9. Que el 7 de diciembre de 2011 el SINAC interpuso recurso de revisión en contra del Informe N°DFOE-AE-03-2011 de la Contraloría General de la República (folios 55 a 67 del expediente judicial).

II.- Hechos no probados. Por no haber prueba en el expediente que lo sustente, se tiene por indemostrado lo siguiente: Único. Que los oficios DEA-930-2011 y DEA-1940-2011 dictados por el SETENA, le hayan causado a la accionante daños o perjuicios imputables a la Administración demandada.

III.- Objeto del proceso. Alegatos de las partes. El objeto del proceso consiste en determinar la validez de las resoluciones N°DEA-930-2011 del 23 de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del 22 de junio, ambas del 2011 dictadas por el SETENA que suspenden el trámite de la evaluación de impacto ambiental del proyecto de la empresa actora. Alegatos de la actora: En concreto se reclama que el estudio de impacto ambiental fue suspendido por la Administración sin emitir la viabilidad del proyecto y sin fundamento legal alguno, lo que le produce daños. Sostiene que el Departamento Legal del SINAC no se ha pronunciado habiendo transcurrido más de un año después de la solicitud. Además, indica que en un caso similar, se motivó por la supuesta espera del criterio de la Dirección Legal del SETENA y no del SINAC. Además, que existen otros casos en los que sí se ha otorgado la viabilidad. Argumenta que sí cumplió con todos los requisitos para la licencia del SETENA y que la Contraloría General de la República no puede obligar a desaplicar las normas vigentes. Reitera que no se le puede suspender el proyecto hasta que se modifique el plan de manejo del Refugio (REGAM) por orden de la Contraloría. Sostiene que la suspensión dictaminada le provoca efectos negativos, porque solicitó un permiso que cuenta con el criterio favorable del MINAET y la negativa de pronunciamiento le violenta el derecho fundamental de propiedad, por ser propietario de un terreno inscrito a su nombre que el Estado no ha adquirido por compra ni existe proceso expropiatorio para ese fin. Alegatos de la parte demandada: Argumenta la representación del Estado, que el informe N°DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 de la Contraloría General de la República es obligatorio y manda al SINAC a abstenerse de otorgar permisos en Refugios Mixtos. Agrega, que el oficio DFOE-AE-158 del 31 de mayo de 2011 de la Contraloría ordenó al SINAC revisar y ajustar su Reglamento contenido en el Decreto N°34946 con estudios técnicos a escala geográfica detallada y remitirlo a SETENA para trámite de viabilidad ambiental y que se abstenga de otorgar viabilidades ambientales hasta que este oficializado el Reglamento. Opone la defensa de falta de derecho y solicita la condena en costas con los intereses.

IV.- Sobre el fondo. El caso bajo examen, cuestiona la suspensión indefinida del trámite de evaluación de impacto ambiental a un proyecto de la empresa actora, medida administrativa dispuesta en los oficios N°DEA-930-2011 del 23 de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del 22 de junio del SETENA con fundamento en los informes de la Contraloría General de la República N°DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 y DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011 (DFOE-AE-158) del 31 de mayo de 2011, donde se ordena revisar y ajustar el Reglamento adoptado en el Decreto N°34946 con estudios técnicos a escala geográfica detallada. En este sentido, resulta evidente que la indicada suspensión del estudio de impacto ambiental, corresponde a una medida cautelar administrativa en materia ambiental y para ello, conviene transcribir el criterio de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema contenido en el voto N°199-F-S1-2010 de las 15:30 del 4 de febrero de 2010, sobre este punto:

"(...) En materia ambiental, esta habilitación se ve reforzada en tanto se reconoce el derecho fundamental de toda persona a un “ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado” y concomitantemente, el deber constitucional del Estado de “garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho”(ordinal 50 de la Carta Magna). Ahora bien, la medida cautelar puede ser conceptualizada como aquella decisión del juez o del órgano administrativo, según el caso, en donde se dispone una protección, necesaria, idónea y temporal a un derecho, interés (el cual puede ser incluso difuso) o situación jurídica a efectos de evitar un daño de imposible o difícil reparación que incida o pueda incidir en el objeto del proceso o procedimiento o en la ejecución de la resolución final. Esta puede ser adoptada durante la tramitación del proceso o procedimiento, o bien con anterioridad, a condición de que se interponga el principal. Ahora bien, en cuanto a los principios que le son aplicables, y en lo que interesa para el caso concreto, es necesario referirse a los de instrumentalidad y provisionalidad. En cuanto al primero, calificado también como accesoriedad, se refiere a la función indicada de garantizar la efectividad –que no necesariamente ejecución- de la decisión final que se adopte. Así, la medida cautelar se encuentra vinculada y supeditada al procedimiento principal (de ahí que se haga la distinción entre proceso cautelar y principal), de forma tal que esta, sólo puede ser dictada con motivo de aquél. Adquiere, en consecuencia, una posición vicarial, al servicio del procedimiento principal. De igual forma, en caso de que el procedimiento finalice por cualquier otra causa, o bien, que no se interponga, la medida adoptada no puede subsistir, por lo que se da su decaimiento. La provisionalidad, por su parte, se refiere a la eficacia temporal de la medida cautelar. En este sentido, la resolución final viene a extinguir y/o sustituir la previsión adoptada en forma interlocutoria. (...)" (Énfasis suplido).

En complemento de lo citado, el principio precautorio y de in dubio pro natura, le permite al Estado adoptar las acciones anticipadas, necesarias para proteger y conservar el ambiente y la salud de las personas, cuando exista riesgo de afectación para aquellos. La Sala Constitucional ha descrito el principio precautorio de la siguiente manera: “bien entendido el principio precautorio, el mismo refiere a la adopción de medidas, no ante el desconocimiento de hechos generadores de riesgo, sino ante la carencia de certeza respecto de que tales hechos efectivamente producirán efectos nocivos en el ambiente” (Voto N° 3480-03, de las 14:02 horas del 2 de mayo del 2003). Además, la Sala observa que “en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias biológicas y socialmente nocivas, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados al ambiente” (voto N° 17618-08, de las 11:51 horas del 5 de diciembre del 2008). En suma, las medidas cautelares administrativas en materia ambiental no pueden considerarse irrestrictas e indefinidas, por el contrario el principio precautorio constituye un parámetro de legalidad de las conductas administrativas y en este sentido, la Sala Constitucional en el voto no. 17747-2006 de las 14 horas 37 minutos del 11 de setiembre de 2006, aclaró que “(…) al disponerse las medidas de restricción o intervención se debe respetar el principio de proporcionalidad, de modo que sean proporcionadas al nivel de protección y a la magnitud del daño potencial o eventual (…)” . En el presente proceso, los oficios DEA 930-2011 del 23 de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del 22 de junio, ambos del 2011, ordenan la suspensión indefinida del trámite de licencia ambiental hasta que exista pronunciamiento sobre el informe de la Contraloría General de la República N° DFOE-PGAA-59-2008 del 10 de diciembre de 2008, así se desprende del contenido literal de ambos oficios, según consta en el hecho probado número seis. Se aclara que la Contraloría General de la República ni otras dependencias del Poder Ejecutivo fueron demandadas en este proceso y que no se pretende la nulidad de los informes del órgano contralor. En criterio de este Tribunal, se evidencia la infracción de los Principios de Instrumentalidad y Provisionalidad por la suspensión indefinida del trámite de la licencia ambiental dictado por el SETENA. El procedimiento administrativo de solicitud del estudio de impacto ambiental gestionado por la parte actora se encuentra paralizado de forma injustificada, por un plazo excesivamente largo. Se destaca que el SETENA fundamenta los oficios DEA-930-2011 y DEA-1940-2011 en el informe de la Contraloría N°DFOE-PGAA-59-2008, mismo que permite el otorgamiento de permisos para las actividades permitidas, según el plan de manejo. Producto de tal habilitación se dictó el oficio N°003-2011-REGAMA-SM del 17 de enero de 2011 emitido por el SINAC, donde se indica que el proyecto presentado por la actora, cumplía con el uso permitido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N°34946-MINAET. Con fecha 31 de mayo de 2011, sea posterior a la gestión presentada por la empresa actora (31 de mayo de 2010), se emitió el informe de la Contraloría General de la República N° DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011. Al momento del dictado de esta sentencia, no consta en autos el cumplimiento de los requerimientos técnicos solicitado por la Contraloría General de la República, sea la actualización del Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Decreto 34946-MINAET, por el contrario la Administración impugnó con el recurso de revisión el informe N° DFOE-AE-IF-03-2011, tampoco se acredita la resolución del recurso de revisión ni el otorgamiento de la licencia ambiental a la empresa actora, habiendo transcurrido aproximadamente cuatro años desde la emisión de los actos citados, lo que torna en indefinida la suspensión del trámite dictada. Ello constituye un quebranto a la temporalidad y provisionalidad de la medida cautelar dictada, al impedir que el gestionante obtenga respuesta para su solicitud de licencia ambiental dentro del plazo razonable. Ha de tomarse en cuenta que el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 "Reglamento sobre los Procedimiento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental" , en el artículo 29 se concede al SETENA un plazo máximo de diez semanas para la revisión de proyectos del alta significancia de impacto ambiental, categoría A y para los proyectos. Para los proyectos localizados en espacios geográficos con un Plan Regulador u otro instrumento de planificación de uso del suelo, el SETENA tiene el plazo de diez días máximo para otorgar la viabilidad ambiental de conformidad con los artículos 30 bis y 13 del indicado Reglamento, Decreto N°31849. También se debe enfatizar que los oficios cuestionados DEA-930-2011 y DEA-1940-2011 dictados por el SETENA, carecen de un sustento apropiado y capaz de garantizar la legalidad de la suspensión ordenada, por cuanto se sostienen en un informe de la Contraloría del 2008 que no ordena abstenerse de conceder la licencia ambiental, debiendo advertir que el informe contralor del 2011 es posterior a la solicitud de la empresa actora y contenía un plazo al 30 de julio de 2011 para que la Comisión Plenaria del SETENA girara las instrucciones de actualización del Reglamento, nada de lo cual consta en autos que se cumpliera, por ende el plazo resulta excesivo y arbitrario, siendo desproporcionado e irrazonable. En el mismo sentido, se evidencia un quebranto al Principio de Inderogabilidad Singular de los Reglamentos, establecido en el artículo 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, ya que la Administración dejó de aplicar para este caso concreto el "Reglamento de Zonificación del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo, Categoría Mixta" Decreto Ejecutivo N°34946-MINAET del 6 de diciembre de 2008, inobservando la disposición normativa vigente y de carácter vinculante para el SETENA. Se incurrió también en infracción al principio de legalidad, que resultó abiertamente irrespetado para este caso en particular por la desaplicación de la norma concreta. Debe tenerse presente que el acto mediante el cual la Administración otorga viabilidad ambiental a un proyecto, es sin duda un acto administrativo reglado, en el tanto se encuentra previsto en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y en el Reglamento sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849), como en el Manual de Instrumentos Técnicos para el Proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 32966). Se reitera que es la propia ley que exige el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, cuando las actividades humanas alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, tal y como lo ordena el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente que literalmente dice:

"Artículo 17.- Evaluación de impacto ambiental . Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental creada en esta ley. Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental." (Énfasis suplido).

Por lo expuesto, la medida adoptada carece de consonancia con el principio precautorio, debido a la ausencia de justificación clara y suficiente. Tampoco es razonable ni proporcional el plazo empleado, por exceder sobradamente los plazos legales para dar respuesta al administrado de sus gestiones. Lo ordenado por SETENA, es contrario a derecho por violación al Principio de Inderogabilidad Singular de los Reglamentos, al desaplicar una norma vigente del Ordenamiento Jurídico. Así las cosas, si bien la suspensión indefinida para el trámite del estudio de impacto ambiental contenida en los oficios DEA 930-2011 del 23 de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del 22 de junio, ambos del 2011 dictados por SETENA, es nula y así se declara, se hace la advertencia a las partes de su obligación legal de prevenir cualquier acción que pueda incidir en forma negativa sobre el Patrimonio Natural del Estado o el medio ambiente y deberán evitar cualquier daño. En cuanto a la pretensión de ordenar al SETENA emitir la licencia ambiental, se rechaza por improcedente. El otorgamiento de la licencia ambiental se trata de una atribución de la Administración activa, ajena de las atribuciones del control de legalidad que ostenta este Tribunal.

V.- Sobre los reclamos indemnizatorios. En la demanda se pretende una indemnización económica por daño material ante el atraso del proyecto y daño moral objetivo de la sociedad actora. Los rubros indemnizatorios pretendidos no fueron motivados ni especificados por la parte actora, ni se aportó prueba, siendo que no basta con alegar que estos se han producidos, sino que resulta necesario su efectiva demostración. En criterio de este Tribunal, no se cumple con lo establecido en el artículo 196 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública que ordena que el daño alegado sea efectivo, evaluable e individualizable en relación con el numeral 58 inciso e) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, que impone a la parte accionante el deber de concretar la pretensión de daños y perjuicios, lo que impone el rechazo de la pretensión indemnizatoria por carecer de todo mérito para su adopción.

VI.- Análisis de las defensas opuestas. La parte demandada formuló la defensa de falta de derecho, en virtud del análisis precedente, la defensa se acoge parcialmente en cuanto a los daños y perjuicios rechazándose en lo demás. En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda y se declara la nulidad absoluta de los siguientes actos administrativos emitidos por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía: a) oficios DEA 930-2011 del 23 de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del 22 de junio, ambos del 2011. Como conexidad de efectos se decreta la nulidad de la resolución N°2379-2011-SETENA de las 8:50 horas del 5 de octubre de 2011, emitida por la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA en sesión ordinaria N°0103-2011, artículo 26. Se ordena la continuación del procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental de la empresa actora sin mayor dilación de conformidad con el artículo 122 incisos a) y f) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

VIII.- Costas. El artículo 193 del CPCA 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: a) cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar; b) cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas que desconociera la parte contraria; o bien, c) cuando se incurra en plus petitio, esto es, cuando la diferencia entre lo reclamado y lo obtenido en definitiva sea de un quince por ciento (15%) o más, a no ser que las bases de la demanda sean expresamente consideradas provisionales o su determinación dependa del arbitrio judicial o dictamen de peritos (ordinal 194 ibídem). En la especie, no encuentra este órgano colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido. Por ende, se impone el pago de ambas costas al Estado, que resultó vencido.

POR TANTO

Se acoge parcialmente la defensa de falta de derecho respecto a la pretensión indemnizatoria de daños y perjuicios y se deniega en lo demás. En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda incoada por la empresa La Bella Masai M.N.J. Sociedad Anónima contra el Estado en los siguientes términos: se declara la nulidad absoluta de los siguientes actos administrativos emitidos por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía: oficios DEA 930-2011 del veintitrés de marzo y DEA-1940-2011 del veintidós de junio, ambos del dos mil once. Por conexidad se declara la nulidad de la resolución N°2379-2011-SETENA de las ocho horas cincuenta minutos del cinco de octubre de dos mil once, emitida por la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA en sesión ordinaria N°0103-2011, artículo veintiséis. Se ordena la continuación del procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental de la empresa actora sin mayor dilación. Son ambas costas a cargo del Estado. NOTIFÍQUESE.- JUDITH REYES CASTILLO JOSÉ ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA