Precautionary measure against Condominio Lindora denied for lack of proof of serious harmRechazo de medida cautelar contra Condominio Lindora por falta de prueba de daño grave

IMPROPER HIERARCHY PROCEEDING APPELLANT: CORPORACIÓN B L VEINTIUNO DE SANTA ANA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA RESPONDENT: MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA ANA No. 36-2016 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, THIRD SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, at nine o'clock on February eleventh, two thousand sixteen.

This Tribunal hears, as non-hierarchical controller of legality of the precautionary measure and of the Appeal filed by DENNIS LACOMBE MARTINEZ, identity card CED81849, in his capacity as President with powers of Generalísimo Attorney-in-Fact without limit of amount of the company CORPORACIÓN B L VEINTIUNO DE SANTA ANA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identity number CED81850, against the Agreement taken by the Concejo Municipal of Santa Ana, in article II of Ordinary Session number 291 held on December first, two thousand fifteen.

CONSIDERANDO

I.-PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly accredited: 1) That on November 20, 2015, Mr. Dennis Lacombe Martínez, in his capacity as President with powers of Generalísimo Attorney-in-Fact without limit of amount of the company Corporación B L Veintiuno de Santa Ana Sociedad Anónima, files before the Concejo Municipal of Santa Ana, an extraordinary motion for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) against the following acts: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, c) Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, d) Acts MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, e) MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010 and f) All land uses (usos de suelo) and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010 on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000; the first three issued by the Concejo Municipal, the fourth by the Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial, the fifth by the Alcaldía Municipal, all of the Municipalidad de Santa Ana, and the remaining mentioned acts are unknown but are assumed to have been issued by the Alcaldía Municipal or its dependencies. (Folios 354 to 371); 2) That in the same act in which the extraordinary motion for review is filed, it requests as a precautionary measure that the construction permit and all works on the property of the Partido de San José registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, whose antecedent is the property of the Partido de San José registered under the Folio Real system, Registration number Placa18223 and whose mother cadastral map (plano catastrado) is SJ-361033-96, be suspended. (Folio 370); 3) That by means of article II of Ordinary Session number 291, held on December 1, 2015, the Concejo Municipal of Santa Ana rejects as inadmissible the extraordinary motion for review filed by the appellant. (Folios 396 to 399); 4) That by brief filed before the municipal corporation and before this Tribunal on December 14, 2015, the appellant files an appeal against the cited Article II of Ordinary Session number 291 and at the same time requests application of an ex parte precautionary measure (medida cautelar inaudita altera parte). (Folios 402 to 431 and 434 to 463); 5) That by brief filed before this Tribunal on January 4, 2016, the Municipalidad de Santa Ana submits the respective report in response to the requested precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-06-081540830): 6) That by brief filed before this Tribunal on January 19, 2016, Mr. Manuel Antonio Freer Rohrmoser, in his capacity as legal representative of the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, files a brief opposing the requested precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-20-075216249); 7) That by brief filed before this Tribunal on January 22, 2016, Mr. Ricardo Barquero Córdoba, in his capacity as administrative agent of the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, appears in relation to the appeal filed against the cited Article II of Ordinary Session number 291. (Digital document named 2016-01-26-110526151); 8) That by brief filed before this Tribunal on January 28, 2016, the appellant files a reply brief against what was stated by the municipal corporation regarding the precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-29-150616071).

II.ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE FILED APPEAL. For the purpose of addressing this matter, it is necessary to carry out an admissibility analysis of the filed action. As is evident from the proven facts, the enablement before this improper hierarchy originates by virtue of the appeal filed against article II of Ordinary Session number 291, held on December 1, 2015, by means of which the Concejo Municipal of Santa Ana rejects as inadmissible the extraordinary motion for review filed by the appellant against the following acts: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, c) Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, d) Acts MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, e) MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010 and, f) All land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010 on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222; the first three issued by the Concejo Municipal, the fourth by the Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial, the fifth by the Alcaldía Municipal, and the rest are assumed issued by the Alcaldía or its dependencies, all of the Municipalidad de Santa Ana. Now, it is necessary to point out that the admissibility analysis is not carried out solely with respect to the appeal filed before this hierarchy but also regarding the acts appealed in the extraordinary motion for review filed before the municipal corporation. Under the foregoing understanding, the analysis corresponding to the admissibility of the extraordinary motion for review filed against the described acts is carried out below. As can be seen from the detail of the appealed acts, three of the appealed acts were issued by the Concejo Municipal of Santa Ana and the other two by the administrative dependencies of the Alcaldía Municipal, namely one act of the Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial dependent on the Alcalde and the other issued by the latter. On this particular matter, it is necessary to point out that, with respect to the appeal filed against all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010 on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, this Tribunal declares them inadmissible, because the land uses and construction permits appealed are not identified, such that this Tribunal could not assume the existence of acts not expressly indicated in the appeal filed. Now, the study of the cases that are duly identified is carried out below. On the one hand, article 157 of the Código Municipal establishes the requirements for filing the extraordinary motion for review of Concejo Agreements, and establishes the following requirements: a) That it be an act emanating from the Concejo Municipal, b) That no ordinary appeal (recurso de apelación) has been established against the act, c) That ten years have not elapsed after the act was issued, and d) That the appealed act has not totally exhausted its effects. In the present matter, the Agreement of Ordinary Session number 181 does not meet the third requirement, since, as will be seen, it is not producing effects, being a mere procedural act; however, the remaining agreements, Ordinary Session number 233 and Ordinary Session number 235, do meet the required elements. A) Regarding Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, concerning the request of the company Rutilo Sociedad Anónima to lift the green area encumbrance (afectación de área verde) on the property with cadastral map number SJ-361033-1996, the Concejo Municipal stated that "from the standpoint of the admissibility of this matter, the regulations pointed out by the administration (article 13 of the Código Municipal) for having elevated this matter to the Concejo Municipal, refer to the instruments of a general or normative nature that the legislation grants to the Municipalities, such as regulatory plans (planes reguladores) and urban regulations, but not to the decision of specific authorization acts where competence corresponds to the administration itself, as these are matters of an eminently technical-administrative nature," and consequently concludes that "Therefore, the respective case file must be returned to the administration so that it may proceed according to Law." In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal determines that it is a procedural act, and consequently, it has no appellate phase before this instance, as it is not producing effects, but rather was consummated upon its issuance, as this Tribunal has indicated in resolution number 62-2015 at three o'clock in the afternoon on February nineteenth, two thousand fifteen, in which it held: "In principle, as is the reiterated criterion of this Tribunal, procedural administrative acts are not appealable through non-hierarchical legality review. Upon the vertical challenge of an act of this nature, the appropriate course would be its dismissal by the Municipal Government body that must rule on the specific case (be it the Alcalde or the Concejo Municipal, as appropriate). In this matter, article 154 subsection a) of the Código Municipal (relating to the council body), must be complemented with the referenced General Law as it pertains to the Alcaldía. This legal body also restricts the autonomous appealability of 'procedural acts (actos de trámite)' or 'preparatory acts', in those cases where these do not have a proper effect." (Highlighting not in original). As can be seen, according to the legal system, mere procedural acts are not susceptible to being challenged autonomously, but rather must be appealed jointly with the final act (articles 163.2 and 345.3 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 36 subsection c) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo and 154 subsection b) of the Código Municipal), which, in the specific case, would be the one issued by the Alcaldía Municipal, as the competent body to rule on the request for lifting the green area encumbrance. Furthermore, it is necessary to bear in mind that besides being a procedural act, the appealed act has no proper effect, and consequently lacks an appellate phase, as stated by the Sala Primera in resolution number 000905-F-S1-2012 at nine hours ten minutes on August seventh, two thousand twelve. In that sense, it constitutes a preparatory act aimed at forming the administration's will, which is to be manifested with the issuance of the act by the Alcaldía Municipal, by means of which the administrative decision would be adopted in the future, hence the effects of said act were deployed and concluded upon its issuance. B) Regarding the appeal formulated against Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, and Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, this Tribunal clarifies that in both cases the article appealed is article VI, as recorded in folios (80 and 101), and by virtue of the fact that they correspond to the granting of the request for construction permits on the property whose cadastral map is number SJ-1675558-2013, this Tribunal admits the appeal filed regarding the rejection of the extraordinary motion for review formulated against these administrative acts. On the other hand, article 163 of the Código Municipal establishes the requirements for the admissibility of the extraordinary motion for review against acts not emanating from the Concejo Municipal, and among them the following stand out: a) That it be an act not emanating from the Concejo Municipal, b) That it not be a labor matter, c) That ordinary appeals have not been established against the same act, d) That five years have not elapsed after the act was issued, and e) That the appealed act has not totally exhausted its effects. In relation to this last requirement, it is necessary to point out that, according to the provisions of the cited numeral, the formulation is presented in the sense that the act must be producing effects during the indicated five-year period, and not that the effects of the act serve to determine the start of the computation of said period. The absence of even one of the requirements would make the filed appeal inadmissible, which is why the existence of the same will be analyzed below in relation to official letters MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, and MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010. In this regard, note that the extraordinary motion for review was filed before the municipal corporation on November 20, 2015, which implies that for both cases, the five-year period set forth in numeral 163 of the Código Municipal had already amply elapsed, such that, by the passage of time, the right to appeal the cited acts was extinguished. Now, by virtue of the absence of this requirement, the analysis of the remaining elements becomes unnecessary. By virtue of the foregoing, this Tribunal declares inadmissible the appeal filed against the decision regarding Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, for being a mere procedural act; regarding official letters MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, and MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, for having elapsed the extinguishment period for the exercise of the appellate phase; and regarding all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010 on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222, for not having the individualization nor certainty of the existence of said acts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as the appeal is admitted regarding the remaining acts, the analysis of the requested precautionary measure is carried out below.

III.- OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.- The appellant initially states that with the concurrence of the elements of danger in delay (peligro en la demora), appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho) and no affected public interests, as well as in application of article 50 of the Constitution and the principle in dubio pro natura, requests as a precautionary measure that "all works on the property of the Partido de San José registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, whose antecedent is the property of Partido San José registered under folio real system 464397-000 and whose mother cadastral map is SJ-361033-96, Condominium owned by Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos, S.A., with legal identity card CED11925" be provisionally suspended. Subsequently, it points out that the urgency is directed at the protection of the environment, which is a general public interest enshrined in the Political Constitution and must prevail over private interests. Subsequently, in reply to the response on precautionary measures made by the municipal corporation, the appellant points out that the environmental damage is real, evident, and manifest because a green zone is being completely eliminated from the only two green zones established in the Plan Regulador of the canton of Santa Ana, without complying with the procedure established in the Ley de Planificación Urbana. Likewise, it bases the danger in delay and the appearance of good right on the lack of compliance with the procedure established for the modification of the Plan Regulador. Regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it states that by virtue of the principle of proportionality, the public interest in safeguarding the right of all the inhabitants of the canton to a healthy and balanced environment must be analyzed against private interests.

IV.- OF THE HEARING GRANTED TO THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA ANA. The Municipalidad de Santa Ana points out that a land use and construction permits were granted by virtue of the positive opinion of the technical department of that municipal corporation, given that they conformed to the regulations of the current Plan Regulador of Santa Ana. In relation to the danger in delay, it points out that the appellant at no time accredits the alleged environmental damage, but rather its arguments are directed at pointing out that the fact of bordering the construction of a shopping center implies harm to its property, loss of privacy, loss of market value of its property, and the impact of vehicular traffic. It also pointed out that under this premise, all neighbors of a shopping center suffer serious damages and losses. Likewise, it points out that if one of the indicated damages existed, there are legal remedies that can be resorted to (referencing civil proceedings) but not the precautionary route. Regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it gives special relevance to the principle of proportionality between the harm to the public interest and the damages and losses with the measure imposed on third parties, by virtue of the degree of progress of the works. Regarding the appearance of good right, it opposes it, as it considers that article III of Ordinary Session 181 held on December 8, 2009, is not producing effects. In addition, it points out that the other appealed agreements are based on the municipal administration acts that are being appealed.

V.- OF THE HEARING GRANTED TO THE INTERESTED THIRD PARTY. In relation to the granted hearing, the appearance of Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima is recorded, along with the filing of the exception of necessary passive joinder (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) to include the company Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima in the proceeding. In relation to the cited request, this Tribunal determines that with the evidentiary elements provided to this case file, the necessary information to resolve the precautionary measure is available; however, for the purposes of appearance regarding the filed appeal, when granting the statement of grievances (agravios), the period will be granted to the company Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima to state whatever it deems necessary regarding it. Now, with respect to the precautionary measure, it points out that the suspension of administrative acts is an exceptional measure in light of the characteristics of enforceability (ejecutividad) and self-executing force (ejecutoriedad) of the administrative act. Regarding the appearance of good right, it points out that it does not exist, because article III of Ordinary Session 181 held on December 8, 2009, is not producing effects, insofar as it does not resolve the request for lifting the green area encumbrance that was presented. Likewise, it points out that all the legal arguments set forth in this proceeding refer solely and exclusively to the analysis of municipal administrative acts numbers MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 and MSA-Alc-04-99-10, which cannot be appealed by virtue of the legal period to challenge them having elapsed. It also states that appealing both the Concejo acts and those of the Administration is done to circumvent the fatal extinction period (plazo de caducidad) that operated for the latter. Regarding the non-existence of serious damage, it points out that the appellant did not provide any type of proof demonstrating the alleged damage or its seriousness, nor does it identify what the caused damage is. It points out that it provides no proof about the manifestations of cracks in its property or about the risk it considers its property is placed in. It sets forth the appellant's arguments regarding location, privacy, interruptions of the property, and limitations on property rights, and states that it has the necessary permits and studies for the execution of the works. Regarding environmental damage, it states that it is non-existent, as it has the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) from the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental for the Terrazas Lindora project. This is coupled with the fact that only one of the one hundred seventy-two owners is pursuing the appeal action. They state that granting the precautionary measure would imply serious, irreparable damages to their represented party, as it would imply the dismissal of workers and the rescission and breach of contracts. They state that the degree of progress of the works is estimated at 75% and that given the foregoing, if the damage is so evident and there is urgency in suspending the works, why is the action being requested only at this point. It continues by pointing out that granting the measure would contravene the principle of proportionality, insofar as the appellant requests the most onerous measure that exists to the detriment of their represented party, its shareholders, contractors, clients, employees, and creditors. To the effect, it sets forth the potential patrimonial damages that could be caused if the requested precautionary measure were granted. Finally, it requests that if the precautionary measure is granted, sufficient and proportional security (contracautela) be established to guarantee the payment of damages and losses that may be caused, requesting the hiring of an expert appraiser.

VI.- OF PRECAUTIONARY JUSTICE IN THE COSTA RICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. In accordance with article 19 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), the regime of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) in this venue clearly distinguishes an objective purpose and a subjective purpose, as on one hand they seek to ensure the results of the proceeding and on the other, to guarantee a judgment that is effective for the interests of the party seeking justice. Now, by virtue of the accessory or instrumental nature of precautionary measures (Art. 22 CPCA) with respect to the main proceeding, the court's knowledge is limited to determining or verifying the essential prerequisites for granting said petition (summario cognitio), which according to numerals 21 and 22 CPCA, as well as reiterated jurisprudence in this matter, correspond to: 1. The appearance of good right: Currently inverted to its traditional formulation, and which refers to the accreditation that what is sought is not clearly lacking in seriousness or reckless. 2. The danger in delay: This implies that if the challenged administrative conduct is maintained or executed, it will cause serious, actual or potential damages to the legal situation of the party seeking justice. That is, the objective and reasonable possibility that the challenged conduct may cause serious actual or potential damages to the party seeking justice during the proceeding. Consequently, the interested party must accredit in its request, by means of a minimum evidentiary standard whether through indicia or evidentiary approximations, the probability or existence of the damage, the magnitude of that damage, that is, its seriousness, and the necessary causal link between the conduct and the alleged serious actual or potential damage. 3. Balancing of the interests at stake: This entails the assessment, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, of the public and private interests that would be affected whether or not the precautionary measure is taken, such that the Judge must decide which of these should prevail.

VII.- OF THE REQUESTED PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.- From the relation of the facts on which this Tribunal bases its decision in this matter, it derives easily from numerals 21 and 22 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which literally state: "Article 21.- The precautionary measure shall be admissible when the execution or permanence of the conduct submitted to proceeding produces serious damages or losses, actual or potential, to the alleged situation, and provided that the claim is not reckless or, clearly, lacking in seriousness. Article 22.- To grant or deny any precautionary measure, the tribunal or the respective judge must especially consider the principle of proportionality, weighing the possible harm to the public interest, the damages and losses caused with the measure to third parties, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive management of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. It must also take into account the financial possibilities and provisions that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure." Now, having seen and analyzed the arguments of each of the parties, this Tribunal considers that the requested precautionary measure is inadmissible, supported by the following: Regarding the appearance of good right, this prerequisite is deemed accredited, since its claim is not disproportionate, irrational, or reckless, given that the appellant's precautionary claim arises by virtue of the right to appeal the municipal acts through this avenue; notwithstanding the foregoing, it is necessary to take into consideration that in this same act, the appeals filed against some acts were declared inadmissible, admitting only the appeal with respect to Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, and Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, relating to the granting of the request for construction permits on the property whose cadastral map is number Placa18470. With respect to serious damage, and this associated with the danger in delay, note that the appellant requests as a precautionary measure that all construction work be immediately suspended until the appeal filed before this hierarchy has been resolved. On this particular matter, it must be indicated that in cases such as the one before us, and due to the very nature of the precautionary measure, it is incumbent upon the party alleging the damage to demonstrate it with suitable technical evidence that accredits the danger in delay and a balancing of interests favorable to the appellant, which does not occur in the present action, as stated by the municipal corporation and Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, wherein the appellant does not provide any evidentiary element that allows for such an assessment to be made; hence, this adjudicator cannot take as given the existence not only of the damage, but that it is serious, reasons for which this prerequisite is deemed not accredited. On this particular, note that the appellant points out that the urgency is directed at the protection of the environment, which is a general public interest enshrined in the Political Constitution and must prevail over private interests, because a green zone is being completely eliminated from the only two green zones established in the Plan Regulador of the canton of Santa Ana. In this regard, this adjudicator takes into consideration the principle “in dubio pro natura” and its relationship with the economic and social development of the canton, as required by the Sala Constitucional, when pointing out that "The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, which justifies State intervention. The foregoing, because excessive environmental protection that nullifies all economic activity can cause private parties to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, making some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would have a negative impact on the people. But equally, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can produce irreversible damage to the ecosystem, for which reason the application of the principle “in dubio pro natura” is imposed, in the sense that if there is doubt about whether an activity produces or does not produce environmental damage, its protection must be prioritized and, consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot, nor should, be left to the discretion of groups of any kind, but rather to technical studies, because this will apply when there is a danger of serious or irreversible environmental damage." (Sala Constitucional, resolution number 2009017155 of 14 horas on November 5, 2009).

In light of the foregoing, it should be noted that through resolutions numbers 1326-2010-SETENA of nine hours forty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand ten, and 1081-2014-SETENA of nine hours twenty minutes on June fourth, two thousand fourteen, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications approved the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), and the environmental impact matrices related to the Condominio Lindora project, thereby granting the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) of said project. Likewise, it should be noted that the Condominio Lindora Project has submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat the Environmental Oversight (Regencia Ambiental) reports for the Construction Stage related to said project, which record the Project Actions, the actions carried out, and the compliance status of each one. (Oversight reports numbers 12 of the month of July 2015 and 13 of the month of September 2015), which allows this Adjudicator to consider said reports and the granted environmental viability as accredited, along with the corresponding technical studies for the determination of environmental impact. Coupled with the above, regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it is necessary to state that, as a general rule, the public interest must always take precedence over private interests; however, the provisions of Article 22 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) cannot be disregarded, which makes special mention of the principle of proportionality, requiring a balancing of the potential injury to the public interest against the damages and losses caused to third parties by the measure. Thus, this Adjudicator must take into consideration that the work is approximately 75% complete, as evidenced by the documentation provided in the corresponding case file, which has two implications: on one hand, the time elapsed since the start of a work of such magnitude without the actions requested herein having been undertaken, and on the other hand, the substantial sums of money that have been invested in said project; aspects that are extensively weighed in denying the present precautionary measure, insofar as the impact on the implicated third parties could have unimaginable dimensions. Likewise, despite the advanced state of said project, this Court considers it accredited that the stoppage of works would have an economic impact of substantial dimensions, due to both contractual obligations assumed and employer obligations arising therefrom, as demonstrated by Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima in its response brief regarding the precautionary measure. The foregoing constitutes an impediment to granting the precautionary measure subject to a counter-guarantee (contracautela), without causing serious financial harm to the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima. By virtue of the foregoing, as the necessary requirements to grant the request for a precautionary measure cannot be verified in this specific case, its rejection is in order, as is hereby decreed.

POR TANTO:

The appeal filed against the resolution regarding the following acts is declared inadmissible: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Official letter number MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, c) Official letter number MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, and d) Against all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222. Likewise, the requested precautionary measure is rejected.- This, in addition to the fact that only one of the one hundred seventy-two owners is bringing the appeal. They state that granting the precautionary measure would imply serious, irreparable harm to their represented party, as it would entail the dismissal of workers and the rescission and breach of contracts. They state that the degree of progress of the works is estimated at 75% and that given the foregoing, if the harm is so evident and there is urgency in suspending the works, why is the action being requested only at this time. They continue by pointing out that granting the measure would contradict the principle of proportionality, insofar as the appellant is requesting the most burdensome measure that exists to the detriment of their represented party, its shareholders, contractors, clients, employees, and creditors. To this effect, they set forth the potential patrimonial damages that could be caused if the requested precautionary measure were granted. Finally, they request that if the precautionary measure is granted, a sufficient and proportionate counter-security (contracautela) be established to guarantee the payment of damages that may be caused, requiring the hiring of an expert appraiser.

**VI.- OF CAUTELARY JUSTICE IN THE COSTA RICAN LEGAL SYSTEM.** According to Article 19 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (CPCA), the regime of precautionary measures in this venue clearly distinguishes between an objective purpose and a subjective purpose, as on the one hand they seek to ensure the results of the process and on the other, to guarantee a judgment that is effective for the interests of the justiciable party. However, by virtue of the accessory or instrumental nature of precautionary measures (Art. 22 CPCA) with respect to the main process, their cognizance is limited to determining or verifying the essential prerequisites for granting said petition (summario cognitio), which according to numerals 21 and 22 CPCA, as well as reiterated case law on this matter, correspond to: **1. The appearance of a good right**: Currently inverted from its traditional formulation, and which refers to the accreditation that what is sought is not manifestly lacking in seriousness or reckless. **2. The danger in delay:** It implies that if the challenged administrative conduct is maintained or executed, serious, current, or potential damages will be caused to the legal situation of the justiciable party. That is, the objective and reasonable possibility that the challenged conduct may cause serious current or potential damages to the justiciable party during the processing of the case. Consequently, the interested party must prove in their request, through a minimum of evidence either by indications or evidentiary approximations, the probability or existence of the damage, the magnitude of that damage, that is, its seriousness, and the necessary causal link between the conduct and the serious current or potential damage alleged. **3. Balancing of the interests at stake:** It entails the assessment, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, of the public and private interests that would be affected whether or not the precautionary measure is taken, in such a way that the Judge must decide which of these should prevail.

**VII.- OF THE REQUESTED PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.-** From the relationship of the facts on which this Court bases its decision on this matter, it is easily derived from numerals 21 and 22 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, which literally state: ***"Article 21.-** The precautionary measure shall be appropriate when the execution or permanence of the conduct subject to process, produces serious damages or harm, current or potential, to the alleged situation, and provided that the claim is not reckless or, manifestly, lacking in seriousness. **Article 22.-** To grant or deny any precautionary measure, the court or the respective judge shall especially consider the principle of proportionality, balancing the potential injury to the public interest, the damages and the harm caused by the measure to third parties, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive activity of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. It shall also take into account the financial possibilities and provisions that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure".* Now, having viewed and analyzed the arguments of each of the parties, this Court considers that the requested precautionary measure is **inappropriate**, supported by the following: Regarding the appearance of a good right, the prerequisite is deemed proven, given that its claim is not disproportionate, irrational, or reckless, since the appellant's precautionary claim arises by virtue of the right to challenge municipal acts through this channel; however, it is necessary to consider that in this same order, the appeals lodged against certain acts were declared inadmissible, only admitting the appeal regarding Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, and Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, relating to the granting of the construction permit request on property identified by cadastral map number Placa18470. Regarding the serious harm, and this associated with the danger in delay, it is observed that the appellant requests as a precautionary measure the immediate suspension of all construction works until the appeal filed before this court has been resolved. In this regard, it must be noted that in cases such as the one at hand, and by the very nature of the precautionary measure, it is up to the party alleging the damage to prove it with suitable technical evidence, substantiating the danger in delay and a balancing of interests favorable to the appellant, which does not occur in the present action, as stated by the municipal corporation and Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, where the appellant does not provide any evidentiary element allowing such assessment to be made; hence, this judge cannot take for granted the existence not only of the damage, but also that it is serious, reasons for which this prerequisite is deemed not proven. In this regard, note that the appellant points out that the urgency is directed at the protection of the environment, which is a general public interest enshrined in the Political Constitution and must prevail over private interests, because a green zone, one of only two green zones established in the Regulatory Plan of the canton of Santa Ana, is being completely eliminated. In this regard, this judge takes into consideration the *principle "in dubio pro natura"* and its relationship with the economic and social development of the canton, as required by the Constitutional Chamber, when stating that *"The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, which justifies State intervention. The foregoing, because excessive environmental protection that annuls all economic activity can cause private parties to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, making some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would negatively impact people. But equally, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can produce irreversible damage to the ecosystem, for which reason the application of the principle 'in dubio pro natura' is imposed, in the sense that if there is doubt as to whether an activity produces or does not produce harm to the environment, its protection must be prioritized and, consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot, nor should it, be left to the discretion of any groups whatsoever, but to technical studies, as this will apply when there is danger of serious or irreversible harm to the environment"* (Constitutional Chamber, resolution number 2009017155 of 14:00 hours on November 5, 2009.). In light of the above, note that through resolutions numbers 1326-2010-SETENA of nine hours forty minutes on June sixteen, two thousand ten, and 1081-2014-SETENA of nine hours twenty minutes on June four, two thousand fourteen, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, approved the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), and the environmental impact matrices relating to the Condominio Lindora project, thereby granting the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) of said project. Likewise, note that the Condominio Lindora Project has submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) the Environmental Oversight Reports (informes de Regencia Ambiental) of the Construction Stage related to said project, which detail the Project Actions, the actions carried out, and the status of compliance of each one. (Oversight reports number 12 of July 2015 and number 13 of September 2015), which allows this Judge to deem proven said reports and the environmental viability granted as the technical studies corresponding to the determination of environmental impact. Coupled with the foregoing, with respect to the balancing of the interests at stake, it is necessary to state that as a general rule, the public interest must always take precedence over private interests; however, the provisions of Article 22 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code cannot be ignored, where special mention is made of the *principle of proportionality*, which requires balancing the potential injury to the public interest and the damages and harm caused by the measure to third parties. Thus, this Judge must take into consideration that the works show a progress of approximately 75%, as evidenced by the documentation provided in the corresponding case file (expediente), which has two implications: on the one hand, the time elapsed since the start of a work of such magnitude without the actions requested herein having been undertaken, and on the other hand, the large sums of money that have been invested in said project; aspects that are broadly assessed to deny this precautionary measure, insofar as the impact on the third parties involved could have unimaginable dimensions. Likewise, despite the progress already made on said project, this Court deems it proven that the paralysis of the works would have an economic impact of large dimensions, both due to the contractual obligations contracted and the employer obligations derived from it, as demonstrated by Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima in its written response to the precautionary measure. The foregoing constitutes an impediment to being able to grant the precautionary measure subject to a counter-security (contracautela), without causing serious patrimonial harm to the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima. By virtue of the foregoing, as the necessary prerequisites for granting the request for a precautionary measure cannot be verified in the specific case, the appropriate course of action is its denial as is hereby ordered.

**THEREFORE:** The appeal filed against the resolution regarding the following acts is declared inadmissible: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Official letter number MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, c) Official letter number MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, and d) Against all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222. Likewise, the precautionary measure formulated is rejected.- (Folios 354 to 371); 2) That in the same act in which he files the extraordinary appeal for review, he requests as a precautionary measure the suspension of the construction permit and all works on the property of the San José district registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, whose antecedent is the property of the San José District registered under the Real Folio System with Registration Number Placa18223 and whose parent cadastral map is SJ-361033-96. (Folio 370); 3) That through article II of Ordinary Session number 291, held on December 1, 2015, the Municipal Council of Santa Ana rejects as inadmissible the extraordinary appeal for review filed by the appellant. (Folios 396 to 399); 4) That in a writ filed before the municipal corporation and before this Tribunal on December 14, 2015, the appellant files an appeal against Article II of the cited Ordinary Session number 291 and at the same time requests the application of an inaudita altera parte precautionary measure. (Folios 402 to 431 and 434 to 463); 5) That through a writ filed before this Tribunal on January 4, 2016, the Municipality of Santa Ana submits the respective report in response to the requested precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-06-081540830): 6) That through a writ filed before this Tribunal on January 19, 2016, Mr. Manuel Antonio Freer Rohrmoser, in his capacity as legal representative of the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, files a writ of opposition to the requested precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-20-075216249); 7) That through a writ filed before this Tribunal on January 22, 2016, Mr. Ricardo Barquero Córdoba, in his capacity as administrative attorney-in-fact of the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, appears in relation to the appeal filed against Article II of the cited Ordinary Session number 291. (Digital document named 2016-01-26-110526151); 8) That through a writ filed before this Tribunal on January 28, 2016, the appellant files a reply brief against what was stated by the municipal corporation regarding the precautionary measure. (Digital document named 2016-01-29-150616071).

**II. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL FILED.** In order to address this matter, it is necessary to conduct an admissibility analysis of the filed action. As is evident from the proven facts, the authorization before this improper hierarchy originates by virtue of the appeal filed against article II of Ordinary Session number 291, held on December 1, 2015, through which the Municipal Council of Santa Ana rejects as inadmissible the extraordinary appeal for review filed by the appellant against the following acts: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, c) Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, d) Acts MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, e) MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, and f) All land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222; the first three issued by the Municipal Council, the fourth by the Territorial Planning Directorate, the fifth by the Municipal Mayor's Office, and the remaining ones are assumed to have been issued by the Mayor's Office or its dependencies, all of the Municipality of Santa Ana. Now, it is necessary to point out that the admissibility analysis is not conducted solely regarding the appeal filed before this hierarchy but also regarding the acts appealed in the extraordinary appeal for review filed before the municipal corporation. Under the foregoing understanding, the analysis corresponding to the admissibility of the extraordinary appeal for review filed against the described acts is conducted below. As can be seen from the detail of the appealed acts, three of the appealed acts were issued by the Municipal Council of Santa Ana and the other two by the administrative dependencies of the Municipal Mayor's Office, namely an act of the Territorial Planning Directorate dependent on the Mayor and the other issued by him. On this particular point, it is necessary to note that, regarding the appeal filed against all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, this Tribunal declares them inadmissible, since the appealed land uses and construction permits are not identified, such that this Tribunal could not assume the existence of acts not expressly indicated in the filed appeal. Now, the study of the cases that are duly identified is conducted below. **On one hand**, article 157 of the Municipal Code establishes the requirements for filing the extraordinary appeal for review of Council Agreements, and establishes the following requirements: a) That it be an act emanating from the Municipal Council, b) That no appeal has been established against the act, c) That no more than ten years have elapsed since the act was issued, and d) That the appealed act has not completely exhausted its effects. In this matter, the Agreement of Ordinary Session number 181 does not meet the third requirement, since, as will be seen, it is not producing effects, being a mere procedural act; however, the remaining agreements, Ordinary Session number 233 and Ordinary Session number 235, do meet the required requirements. **A)** Regarding Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, concerning the request by the company Rutilo Sociedad Anónima to lift the green area encumbrance (afectación de área verde) affecting the property with cadastral map number SJ-361033-1996, the Municipal Council stated that *"from the point of view of the admissibility of this matter, the regulation indicated by the administration (article 13 of the Municipal Code) for having elevated this matter to the Municipal Council refers to instruments that the legislation grants to the Municipalities of a general or normative nature, such as regulatory plans and urban regulations, but not to the decision of specific authorization acts where competence corresponds to the administration itself, as these are matters of an eminently technical-administrative nature,"* and consequently concludes that *"Therefore, the respective file must be returned to the administration to proceed as legally appropriate."* In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal determines that it is a procedural act, and consequently, it has no recourse phase before this instance, as it is not producing effects, but rather was consummated upon its issuance, as this Tribunal has indicated in resolution number 62-2015 at fifteen hours on February nineteenth, two thousand fifteen, in which it ordered: *"**In principle, as is the reiterated opinion of this Tribunal, procedural administrative acts are not challengeable through non-hierarchical legality review.** In the event of a vertical challenge against an act of this nature, the appropriate course would be its dismissal by the Municipal Government body that must rule on the specific case (be it the Mayor or the Municipal Council, as applicable). In this matter, article 154 subsection a) of the Municipal Code (regarding the council body), must be complemented with the aforementioned General Law regarding the Mayor's Office. This legal body also restricts the autonomous challengeability of "procedural acts" or "preparatory acts", in those cases where they do not have their own effect."* (The highlighting is not from the original). As can be seen, according to the legal system, mere procedural acts are not susceptible to being challenged autonomously, but rather must be appealed jointly with the final act (articles 163.2 and 345.3 of the General Public Administration Law, 36 subsection c) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, and 154 subsection b) of the Municipal Code), which, in the specific case, would be the one issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office, as the competent body to rule on the request to lift the green area encumbrance. Furthermore, it is necessary to bear in mind that besides being a procedural act, the appealed act does not have its own effect, and therefore lacks a recourse phase, as stated by the First Chamber in resolution number 000905-F-S1-2012 at nine hours ten minutes on August seventh, two thousand twelve. In that sense, it constitutes a preparatory act aimed at forming the will of the administration, which must be manifested by the issuance of the act by the Municipal Mayor's Office, through which the administrative decision would be adopted in the future, hence the effects of said act unfolded and concluded upon its issuance. **B)** Regarding the appeal formulated against Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, and Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, this Tribunal clarifies that in both cases the appealed article is article VI, as recorded at folios (80 and 101), and by virtue of the fact that they correspond to the granting of the request for construction permits on the property whose cadastral map is number SJ-1675558-2013, this Tribunal admits the appeal filed regarding the rejection of the extraordinary appeal for review formulated against these administrative acts. **On the other hand,** article 163 of the Municipal Code establishes the requirements for the admissibility of the extraordinary appeal for review against acts not emanating from the Municipal Council, and among them the following stand out: a) That it be an act not emanating from the Municipal Council, b) That it not be a labor matter, c) That no ordinary remedies have been established against the same act, d) That no more than five years have elapsed since the act was issued, and e) That the appealed act has not completely exhausted its effects. In relation to this last requirement, it is necessary to note that, according to the provisions of the cited numeral, the formulation is presented in the sense that the act must be producing effects during the indicated five-year period, and not that the effects of the act serve to determine the start of the computation of said period. The absence of a single one of the requirements would render the filed appeal inadmissible, which is why the existence of the same in official letters MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, and MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, will be analyzed below. In this regard, note that the extraordinary appeal for review was filed before the municipal corporation on November 20, 2015, which implies that for both cases, the five-year period established in numeral 163 of the Municipal Code had already amply elapsed, such that, by the passage of time, the right to appeal the cited acts was extinguished. Now, by virtue of the absence of this requirement, it becomes unnecessary to analyze the remaining elements. By virtue of the foregoing, this Tribunal declares inadmissible the appeal filed against what was resolved regarding Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, as it is a mere procedural act, regarding official letters MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, and MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, because the extinction period for exercising the recourse phase has elapsed, and regarding all land uses and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system with number Placa18222, because the individualization and certainty of the existence of said acts is lacking. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as the appeal is admitted regarding the remaining acts, the analysis of the requested precautionary measure is conducted below.

**III.- OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.-** The appellant party initially points out that, given the concurrence of the elements of danger in delay (peligro en la demora), appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho), and no affected public interests, as well as in application of article 50 of the Constitution and the in dubio pro natura principle, it requests as a precautionary measure that *"all works on the property of the San José district registered under the horizontal property system with number 3832-M-000, whose antecedent is the property of the San José District registered under the real folio system 464397-000 and whose parent cadastral map is SJ-361033-96, Condominium owned by Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos, S.A., with legal identification number CED11925, be provisionally suspended."* Subsequently, it points out that the urgency is directed at the protection of the environment, which is a general public interest enshrined in the Political Constitution and must prevail over private interests. Subsequently, in reply to the response on precautionary measures made by the municipal corporation, the appellant points out that the environmental damage is real, evident, and manifest because a green zone is being completely eliminated from only two green zones established in the Regulatory Plan of the canton of Santa Ana, without complying with the procedure established in the Urban Planning Law. Likewise, it bases the danger in delay and the appearance of good right on the failure to comply with the established procedure for modifying the Regulatory Plan. Regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it states that by virtue of the principle of proportionality, the public interest in safeguarding the right of all inhabitants of the canton to a healthy and balanced environment must be analyzed against private interests.

**IV.- OF THE HEARING GRANTED TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ANA.** The Municipality of Santa Ana points out that a land use and the construction permits were granted by virtue of the positive criterion of the technical section of that municipal corporation, given that they conformed to the regulations of the current Regulatory Plan of Santa Ana. In relation to the danger in delay, it points out that the appellant at no time accredits the alleged damage to the environment, but rather that his arguments are aimed at indicating that the fact of bordering the construction of a shopping center implies an injury to his property, loss of privacy, loss of market value of his property, and the impact of vehicular traffic. It further pointed out that under that premise, all neighbors of a shopping center would suffer serious damages and losses. Likewise, it points out that if there were any of the damages indicated, there are legal remedies to which he can resort (referencing the civil route) but not the precautionary route. Regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it places special relevance on the principle of proportionality between the injury to the public interest and the damages and losses to third parties imposed by the measure, by virtue of the degree of progress of the works. Regarding the appearance of good right, it opposes the same, since it considers that article III of Ordinary Session 181 held on December 8, 2009, is not producing effects. Furthermore, it points out that the other appealed agreements are based on the acts of the municipal administration that are being appealed.

**V.- OF THE HEARING GRANTED TO THE INTERESTED THIRD PARTY.** In relation to the hearing granted, there is the appearance of Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima and the filing of the exception of necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) to include the company Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima in the process. In relation to the cited request, this Tribunal determines that with the evidentiary elements provided to this file, the necessary information to resolve the precautionary measure is available; however, regarding the appearance concerning the filed appeal, at the time of granting the statement of grievances, the period will be granted to the company Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima to state what it deems necessary regarding the same. Now, regarding the precautionary measure, it points out that the suspension of administrative acts is an exceptional measure compared to the characteristics of enforceability and self-executing nature (ejecutoriedad) of the administrative act. Regarding the appearance of good right, it points out that it does not exist, because article III of Ordinary Session 181 held on December 8, 2009, is not producing effects, insofar as it does not resolve the request to lift the green area encumbrance that was raised. Likewise, it points out that all the legal arguments presented in this proceeding refer solely and exclusively to the analysis of the municipal administrative acts numbers MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 and MSA-Alc-04-99-10, which cannot be appealed by virtue of the legal period for challenging them having elapsed. It also states that appealing both the Council acts and those of the Administration is done to circumvent the fatal expiration period that operated for the latter. Regarding the non-existence of serious damage, it points out that the appellant did not provide any type of evidence demonstrating the alleged damage or its seriousness, nor does it identify what the damage caused is. It points out that he does not provide evidence on the statements of cracks in his property or on the risk he considers his property is under. It sets forth the appellant's arguments regarding location, privacy, nuisances to the property, and limitations on property rights, and states that it has the necessary permits and studies to carry out the works. Regarding environmental damage, it states that it is non-existent, as it has the Environmental Feasibility approval from the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) for the Terrazas Lindora project. This is coupled with the fact that only one of the one hundred seventy-two owners is taking the appeal action. They state that granting the precautionary measure would imply serious damages, of impossible reparation to its represented party, since it would imply the dismissal of workers and the termination and breach of contracts. It states that the degree of progress of the works is estimated at 75% and that given the above, if the damage is so evident and there is urgency in suspending the works, why is the action requested only at this time. It continues by pointing out that granting the measure would contravene the principle of proportionality, insofar as the appellant requests the most burdensome measure that exists to the detriment of its represented party, its shareholders, contractors, clients, employees, and creditors. To this effect, it sets forth the potential financial damages that could be caused if the requested precautionary measure were granted. Finally, it requests that if the precautionary measure is granted, sufficient and proportional security (contracautela) be established to guarantee the payment of damages and losses that may be caused, requesting the hiring of an appraisal expert.

**VI.- OF PRECAUTIONARY JUSTICE IN THE COSTA RICAN LEGAL SYSTEM.** According to article 19 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, CPCA), the regime of precautionary measures in this venue clearly distinguishes an objective purpose and a subjective purpose, since on one hand they seek to ensure the results of the process and, on the other, to guarantee a judgment that is effective for the interests of the justice-seeker. Now, by virtue of the accessory or instrumental nature of precautionary measures (Art. 22 CPCA) with respect to the main process, their cognizance is limited to determining or verifying the essential requirements for granting said petition (*summario cognitio*), which according to numerals 21 and 22 of the CPCA, as well as reiterated jurisprudence on this matter, correspond to: **1. The appearance of good right**: Currently inverted from its traditional formulation, this refers to the accreditation that what is sought is not manifestly lacking in seriousness or reckless. **2. Danger in delay:** It implies that if the challenged administrative conduct is maintained or executed, serious, current, or potential damages will be caused to the legal situation of the justice-seeker. That is, the objective and reasonable possibility that the challenged conduct may cause serious current or potential damages to the justice-seeker during the processing of the case. Consequently, the interested party must accredit in their request, through a minimum evidentiary showing whether by indications or evidentiary approximations, the probability or existence of the damage, the magnitude of that damage, that is, its seriousness, and the necessary causal nexus between the conduct and the serious actual or potential damage alleged. **3. Balancing of the interests at stake:** It entails the assessment, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, of the public and private interests that would be affected whether or not the precautionary measure is taken, in such a way that the Adjudicator must decide which of these should prevail.

**VII.- OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE REQUESTED.-** From the list of facts on which this Tribunal bases its decision on this matter, it is easily derived from numerals 21 and 22 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, which literally state: ***"Article 21.-** The precautionary measure shall be admissible when the execution or permanence of the conduct submitted to process produces serious damages or losses, current or potential, to the alleged situation, and provided the claim is not reckless or, manifestly, lacking in seriousness. **Article 22.-** To grant or deny any precautionary measure, the tribunal or the respective judge must especially consider the principle of proportionality, balancing the potential injury to the public interest, the damages and losses caused by the measure to third parties, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive function of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. They must also take into account the financial possibilities and provisions that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure."* Now, having reviewed and analyzed the arguments of each of the parties, this Tribunal considers that the requested precautionary measure is **inadmissible**, supported by the following: Regarding the appearance of good right, this requirement is considered accredited, since his claim is not disproportionate, irrational, or reckless, given that the appellant's precautionary claim arises by virtue of the right to appeal the municipal acts through this channel; notwithstanding the foregoing, it is necessary to take into consideration that in this same act, the appeals filed against some acts were declared inadmissible, only admitting the appeal regarding Article XI of Ordinary Session number 233 held on October 21, 2014, and Article XII of Ordinary Session number 235 held on November 4, 2014, relating to the granting of the request for construction permits on the property whose cadastral map is number Placa18470. Regarding the serious damage, and this associated with the danger in delay, see that the appellant requests as a precautionary measure that all construction work be immediately suspended until the appeal filed before this hierarchy has been resolved.

In this regard, it must be noted that in cases such as the one before us, and due to the very nature of the precautionary measure (medida cautelar), it is incumbent upon the party alleging the harm to prove it with suitable technical evidence that demonstrates danger in delay (peligro en la demora) and a balancing of interests (ponderación de intereses) favorable to the applicant, which has not occurred in this proceeding, as argued by the municipal corporation and Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, given that the applicant provides no evidentiary element allowing for such an assessment; hence, this adjudicator cannot take as established not only the existence of harm but also that it is serious, reasons for which this prerequisite is deemed unsubstantiated. On this particular point, it should be noted that the applicant states that the urgency is directed at environmental protection, which is a general public interest enshrined in the Political Constitution and must prevail over private interests, because an entire green zone (zona verde) from the only two green zones established in the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the canton of Santa Ana is being eliminated. In this regard, this adjudicator takes into consideration the principle “in dubio pro natura” and its relationship with the economic and social development of the canton, as required by the Constitutional Chamber, when it stated that "The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, which justifies State intervention. The foregoing, because excessive environmental protection that annuls all economic activity may cause private parties to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, rendering some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would negatively impact people. But in equal measure, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can produce irreversible damage to the ecosystem, reason for which the application of the principle 'in dubio pro natura' is imposed, in the sense that if doubt exists as to whether an activity causes environmental damage or not, its protection must be prioritized, and consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot, and must not, be left to the discretion of groups of any kind, but rather to technical studies, as this principle shall apply when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage to the environment" (Constitutional Chamber, resolution number 2009017155 of 14:00 hours on November 5, 2009). In light of the foregoing, it should be noted that through resolutions numbers 1326-2010-SETENA of nine hours forty minutes on June sixteenth, two thousand ten, and 1081-2014-SETENA of nine hours twenty minutes on June fourth, two thousand fourteen, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones) approved the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), and the environmental impact matrices (matrices de impacto ambiental) relating to the Condominio Lindora project, thereby granting the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) of said project. Likewise, it should be noted that the Condominio Lindora Project has submitted to SETENA the Environmental Oversight (Regencia Ambiental) reports for the Construction Phase relating to said project, which record the project's actions, the actions carried out, and the compliance status of each. (Oversight reports numbers 12 of July 2015 and 13 of September 2015), which allows this adjudicator to accept these reports as substantiated and the granted environmental viability as the technical studies corresponding to the determination of environmental impact. Coupled with the foregoing, regarding the balancing of interests at stake, it is necessary to state that as a general rule, the public interest must always take precedence over private interests; however, the provisions of Article 22 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) cannot be ignored, which makes special mention of the principle of proportionality (principio de proporcionalidad), which requires weighing the potential harm to the public interest against the damages and losses caused to third parties by the measure. Thus, this adjudicator must take into consideration that the work is approximately 75% complete, as evidenced by the documentation provided to the corresponding file, which has two implications: on one hand, the time elapsed since the start of such a significant work without the actions requested herein having been undertaken, and on the other hand, the large sums of money that have been invested in said project; aspects that are broadly assessed to deny this precautionary measure, as the impact on the implicated third parties could have unimaginable dimensions. Likewise, despite what has already been advanced in said project, this Court accepts as substantiated that the stoppage of works would have an economic impact of large dimensions, both due to the contractual obligations undertaken and the employer obligations derived therefrom, as demonstrated by Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima in its response to the precautionary measure. The foregoing constitutes an impediment to being able to grant the precautionary measure subject to a counter-security (contracautela), without causing serious pecuniary damage to the company Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima. By virtue of the foregoing, as the necessary prerequisites to grant the request for a precautionary measure cannot be verified in the specific case, its rejection is appropriate, as is hereby ordered.

POR TANTO:

The appeal filed against the ruling regarding the following acts is declared inadmissible: a) Article III of Ordinary Session number 181 held on December 8, 2009, b) Official Communication number MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 dated December 15, 2009, c) Official Communication number MSA-Alc-04-99-10 dated February 9, 2010, and d) Against all land uses (usos de suelo) and construction permits granted after February 9, 2010, on the property registered under the horizontal property system (propiedad horizontal) with plate number Placa18222. Likewise, the precautionary measure formulated is rejected.-

PROCESO DE JERARQUÍA IMPROPIA RECURRENTE: CORPORACIÓN B L VEINTIUNO DE SANTA ANA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA ANA Nº 36-2016 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN TERCERA, II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, a las nueve horas del once de febrero de dos mil dieciséis.

Conoce este Tribunal, como contralor no jerárquico de legalidad de la medida cautelar y del recurso de Apelación interpuesto por DENNIS LACOMBE MARTINEZ, cédula CED81849, en su condición de Presidente con facultades de Apoderado Generalísimo sin límite de suma de la sociedad CORPORACIÓN B L VEINTIUNO DE SANTA ANA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica número CED81850, contra el Acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Santa Ana, en el artículo II de la Sesión Ordinaria número 291 celebrada el primero de diciembre de dos mil quince.

CONSIDERANDO

I.-HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos: 1) Que en fecha 20 de noviembre de 2015, el señor Dennis Lacombe Martínez, en su condición de Presidente con facultades de Apoderado Generalísimo sin límite de suma de la sociedad Corporación B L Veintiuno de Santa Ana Sociedad Anónima interpone ante el Concejo Municipal de Santa Ana, recurso extraordinario de revisión contra los siguientes actos: a) Artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, b) Artículo XI de la Sesión Ordinaria número 233 celebrada el 21 de octubre de 2014, c) Artículo XII de la Sesión Ordinaria número 235 celebrada el 04 de noviembre de 2014, d) Actos MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 de fecha 15 de diciembre de 2009, e) MSA-Alc-04-99-10 de fecha 09 de febrero de 2010 y f) Todos los usos de suelo y permisos de construcción otorgados después del 09 de febrero de 2010 sobre la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número 3832-M-000; los tres primeros emitidos por el Concejo Municipal, el cuarto por la Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial, el quinto por la Alcaldía Municipal, todos de la Municipalidad de Santa Ana, y los restantes actos mencionados se desconocen pero se supondrían serían emitidos por la Alcaldía Municipal o sus dependencias. (Folios 354 a 371); 2) Que en el mismo acto en que interpone recurso extraordinario de revisión solicita que como medida cautelar se suspenda el permiso de construcción y todas las obras sobre la finca del partido de San José inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número 3832-M-000, cuyo antecedente es la finca del Partido de San José inscrita bajo el sistema de Folio Real Matrícula número Placa18223 y cuyo plano catastrado madre es SJ-361033-96. (Folio 370); 3) Que mediante el artículo II de la Sesión Ordinaria número 291, celebrada el 01 de diciembre de 2015, el Concejo Municipal de Santa Ana rechaza por improcedente el recurso extraordinario de revisión interpuesto por el recurrente. (Folios 396 a 399); 4) Que escrito presentado ante la corporación municipal y ante este Tribunal en fecha 14 de diciembre de 2015, el recurrente interpone recurso de apelación contra el Artículo II de la Sesión Ordinaria número 291 citada y la vez solicita aplicación de medida cautelar inaudita altera parte. (Folios 402 a 431 y 434 a 463); 5) Que mediante escrito presentado ante este Tribunal en fecha 04 de enero de 2016, la Municipalidad de Santa Ana remite el informe respectivo en atención a la medida cautelar solicita. (Documento digital denominado 2016-01-06-081540830): 6) Que mediante escrito presentado ante este Tribunal en fecha 19 de enero de 2016, el señor Manuel Antonio Freer Rohrmoser, en condición de representante legal de la empresa Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, presenta escrito de oposición a la medida cautelar solicitada. (Documento digital denominado 2016-01-20-075216249); 7) Que mediante presentado ante este Tribunal en fecha 22 de enero de 2016 el señor Ricardo Barquero Córdoba, en condición de apoderado administrativo de la empresa Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, se apersona en relación al recurso de apelación interpuesto contra el Artículo II de la Sesión Ordinaria número 291 citada. (Documento digital denominado 2016-01-26-110526151); 8) Que mediante escrito presentado ante este Tribunal en fecha 28 de enero de 2016, el recurrente interpone escrito de replica contra lo manifestado por la corporación municipal respecto a la medida cautelar. (Documento digital denominado 2016-01-29-150616071).

II.SOBRE LA ADMISIBILIDAD DEL RECURSO INTERPUESTO. A efectos de abordar el presente asunto, es necesario realizar un análisis de admisibilidad de la gestión interpuesta. Tal y como se desprende de los hechos probados, la habilitación ante esta jerarquía impropia se origina en virtud del recurso de apelación interpuesto contra el artículo II de la Sesión Ordinaria número 291, celebrada el 01 de diciembre de 2015, mediante el cual, el Concejo Municipal de Santa Ana rechaza por improcedente el recurso extraordinario de revisión interpuesto por el recurrente contra los siguientes actos: a) Artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, b) Artículo XI de la Sesión Ordinaria número 233 celebrada el 21 de octubre de 2014, c) Artículo XII de la Sesión Ordinaria número 235 celebrada el 04 de noviembre de 2014, d) Actos MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 de fecha 15 de diciembre de 2009, e) MSA-Alc-04-99-10 de fecha 09 de febrero de 2010 y, f) Todos los usos de suelo y permisos de construcción otorgados después del 09 de febrero de 2010 sobre la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número Placa18222; los tres primeros emitidos por el Concejo Municipal, el cuarto por la Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial, el quinto por la Alcaldía Municipal, y los restantes se suponen emitidos por la Alcaldía o sus dependencias, todos de la Municipalidad de Santa Ana. Ahora bien, es necesario señalar que el análisis de admisibilidad no se realiza únicamente respecto al recurso de apelación interpuesto ante esta jerarquía sino también sobre los actos recurridos en el recurso extraordinario de revisión interpuesto ante la corporación municipal. Bajo el anterior entendido, a continuación se procede a realizar el análisis correspondiente a la admisibilidad del recurso extraordinario de revisión interpuesto contra los actos descritos. Tal y como se observa del detalle de los actos recurridos, tres de los actos recurridos fueron emitidos por el Concejo Municipal de Santa Ana y los otros dos por la dependencias administrativas de la Alcaldía Municipal, a saber un acto de la Dirección de Ordenamiento Territorial dependiente del Alcalde y el otro emitido por éste. Sobre este particular, es necesario señalar que, respecto al recurso interpuesto contra todos los usos de suelo y permisos de construcción otorgados después del 09 de febrero de 2010 sobre la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número 3832-M-000, este Tribunal declara inadmisibles los mismos, por cuanto, no se identifican los usos de suelo ni permisos de construcción recurridos, de forma que no podría este Tribunal suponer la existencia de actos no señalados expresamente en el recurso interpuesto. Ahora bien, a continuación se procede a realizar el estudio de los casos que se encuentran debidamente identificados. Por un lado, el artículo 157 el Código Municipal establece los requisitos para la interposición del recurso extraordinario de revisión de los Acuerdos del Concejo, y establece los siguientes requisitos: a) Que sea un acto emanado del Concejo Municipal, b) Que no se haya establecido el recurso de apelación contra el acto, c) Que no hayan transcurrido diez años después de dictado el acto, y d) Que el acto recurrido no haya agotado totalmente sus efectos. En el presente asunto, el Acuerdo de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 no cumple con el tercer requisito, por cuanto, tal y como se verá, el mismo no se encuentra surtiendo los efectos, al ser un acto de mero trámite; no obstante los restantes acuerdos, Sesión Ordinaria número 233 y Sesión Ordinaria número 235, si cumplen con los requisitos exigidos. A) En cuanto al Artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, referente a la solicitud de la empresa Rutilo Sociedad Anónima para que se levante la afectación de área verde que recae sobre el inmueble con plano catastrado número SJ-361033-1996, el Concejo Municipal señaló que "desde el punto de vista de la admisibilidad del presente asunto, la normativa señalada por la administración (artículo 13 del Código Municipal) para haber elevado el presente asunto al Concejo Municipal, se refiere a los instrumentos que la legislación otorga a las Municipalidades de carácter general o normativa, como lo son los planes reguladores y los reglamentos urbanos, pero no a la decisión de actos concretos de autorización donde la competencia le corresponde a la administración propiamente, por tratarse de temas de carácter eminentemente técnico-administrativo", y por consiguiente concluye que "Por lo anterior deberá devolverse el expediente respectivo a la administración para que proceda conforme a Derecho corresponde". De conformidad con lo expuesto, este Tribunal determina que el mismo es un acto de trámite, y por consiguiente, no tiene fase recursiva ante esta instancia, al no encontrarse surtiendo efectos, sino que se consumó con su emisión, tal y como lo ha señalado este Tribunal en la resolución número 62-2015 de las quince horas del diecinueve de febrero de dos mil quince, en la cual dispuso: "En principio, como es criterio reiterado de este Tribunal los actos administrativos de trámite, no son impugnables en vía de control no jerárquico de legalidad. Ante la impugnación vertical de un acto de esta naturaleza, lo procedente sería su desestimación por parte del órgano del Gobierno Municipal que deba pronunciarse en el caso concreto (sea el Alcalde o el Concejo Municipal según corresponda). En esta materia el artículo 154 inciso a) del Código Municipal (relativo al cuerpo edil), debe ser complementado con la referida Ley General en lo que hace a la Alcaldía. Este cuerpo legal también restringe la impugnabilidad autónoma de los “actos de trámite” o “actos preparatorios”, en aquellos casos en que estos no tengan un efecto propio." (El resaltado no es del original). Como se puede apreciar, de acuerdo con el ordenamiento jurídico, los actos de mero trámite no son susceptibles de ser impugnados en forma autónoma, sino que más bien deben recurrirse conjuntamente con el acto final (artículos 163.2 y 345.3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 36 inciso c) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y 154 inciso b) del Código Municipal), el cual, en el caso concreto sería el que emita la Alcaldía Municipal, como órgano competente para pronunciarse sobre la solicitud de levantamiento de la afectación de área verde. Además, es necesario tener presente que además de ser un acto de trámite, el acto recurrido no tiene efecto propio, y por consiguiente carece de fase recursiva, tal y como lo ha manifestado la Sala Primera en la resolución número 000905-F-S1-2012 de las nueve horas diez minutos del siete de agosto de dos mil doce. En ese sentido, constituye un acto preparativo tendente a formar la voluntad de la administración, la cual se ha de manifestar con la emisión del acto por parte de la Alcaldía Municipal, mediante el cual se adoptaría en un futuro la decisión administrativa, de allí que los efectos de dicho acto se desplegaron y concluyeron con su emisión. B) En cuanto al recurso formulado contra el Artículo XI de la Sesión Ordinaria número 233 celebrada el 21 de octubre de 2014 y el Artículo XII de la Sesión Ordinaria número 235 celebrada el 04 de noviembre de 2014, este Tribunal aclara que en ambos casos el artículo recurrido es el artículo VI, según consta a folios (80 y 101), y en virtud de que los mismos corresponden al otorgamiento de la solicitud de permisos de construcción en la propiedad que tiene como su plano el catastrado número SJ-1675558-2013, este Tribunal admite el recurso de apelación interpuesto en cuanto al rechazo del recurso extraordinario de revisión formulado contra estos actos administrativos. Por otro lado, el artículo 163 del Código Municipal establece los requisitos para la procedencia del recurso extraordinario de revisión contra los actos no emanados por el Concejo Municipal, y dentro de ellos destacan los siguientes: a) Que sea un acto no emanado del Concejo Municipal, b) Que no sea de materia laboral, c) Que no se hayan establecido los recursos ordinarios contra el mismo acto, d) Que no hayan transcurrido cinco años después de dictado el acto, y e) Que el acto recurrido no haya agotado totalmente sus efectos. En relación a éste último requisito, es necesario señalar que, según lo dispuesto en el citado numeral, la formulación se presenta en el sentido de que el acto debe encontrarse surtiendo efectos durante el plazo de cinco años señalado, y no de que los efectos del acto sirvan para determinar el inicio del cómputo de dicho plazo. La ausencia de uno solo de los requisitos haría improcedente el recurso interpuesto, motivo por el cual, a continuación se procederá a analizar la existencia de los mismos en los oficios MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 de fecha 15 de diciembre de 2009 y MSA-Alc-04-99-10 de fecha 09 de febrero de 2010. Al respecto, nótese que el recurso extraordinario de revisión fue interpuesto ante la corporación municipal en fecha 20 de noviembre de 2015, lo que implica que para ambos casos, el plazo de cinco años dispuesto en el numeral 163 del Código Municipal ya había transcurrido sobradamente, de forma que, por el transcurso del tiempo, se extinguió el derecho de recurrir los actos citados. Ahora bien, en virtud de la ausencia de este requisito, deriva en innecesario el análisis de los restantes elementos. En virtud de lo anterior, este Tribunal declara inadmisible el recurso de apelación interpuesto contra lo resuelto respecto al Artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, por ser un acto de mero trámite, respecto a los oficios MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 de fecha 15 de diciembre de 2009 y MSA-Alc-04-99-10 de fecha 09 de febrero de 2010, por haber transcurrido el plazo de extinción para el ejercicio de la fase recursiva, y respecto a todos los usos de suelo y permisos de construcción otorgados después del 09 de febrero de 2010 sobre la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número Placa18222, por no tenerse la individualización ni certeza de la existencia de dichos actos. No obstante lo anterior, al admitirse el recurso respecto a los restantes actos, a continuación se procede a realizar el análisis de la medida cautelar solicitada.

III.- DE LOS MOTIVOS DE LA MEDIDA CAUTELAR.- La parte apelante, inicialmente señala que concurriendo los elementos de peligro en la demora, apariencia de buen derecho y no habiendo intereses públicos afectos, así como en aplicación del artículo 50 constitucional y el principio in dubio pro natura, solicita como medida cautelar que se "suspenda provisionalmente todas las obras sobre la finca del partido de San José inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número 3832-M-000, cuyo antecedente la finca el Partido San José inscrita bajo el sistema de folio real 464397-000 y cuyo plano catrastrado madre es SJ-361033-96, Condominio propiedad de Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos, S.A., con cédula jurídica CED11925". Posteriormente, señala que la urgencia va dirigida a la protección al medio ambiente que es un interés público general consagrado en la Constitución Política y debe privar sobre intereses particulares. Posteriormente, en replica a la contestación de medidas cautelares realizada por la corporación municipal, el recurrente señala que el daño ambiental es real, evidente y manifiesto porque se está eliminando del todo una zona verde de únicamente dos zonas verdes establecidas en el Plan Regulador del cantón de Santa Ana, sin cumplir con el procedimiento establecido en la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Asimismo, fundamenta el peligro en la demora y la apariencia de buen derecho en la falta de cumplimiento del procedimiento establecido para la modificación del Plan Regulador. En cuanto a la ponderación de intereses en juego, manifiesta que en virtud del principio de proporcionalidad, debe analizarse el interés público en salvaguardia de todos los habitantes del cantón de tener derecho a un ambiente sano y equilibrado frente a intereses particulares.

IV.- DE LA AUDIENCIA CONFERIDA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA ANA. La Municipalidad de Santa Ana señala que se otorgó un uso de suelo y los permisos de construcción en virtud del criterio positivo de la parte técnica de esa corporación municipal, dado que los mismos se ajustaban a la normativa del Plan Regulador de Santa Ana vigente. En relación al peligro en la demora, señala que la recurrente en ningún momento acredita el supuesto daño al ambiente, sino que sus argumentos van dirigidos a señalar que el hecho de colindar con la edificación de un centro comercial implica una lesión a su patrimonio, pérdida de privacidad, pérdida de valor del mercado de su propiedad y el impacto de tráfico vehicular. Señalada además que bajo dicha premisa, todos los colindantes de un centro comercial sufren daños y perjuicios graves. Asimismo, señala que de existir un daño de los señalados, existen remedios legales a los cuales puede acudir (referenciando a la vía civil) pero no a la vía cautelar. En cuanto a la ponderación de intereses en juego, hace especial relevancia al principio de proporcionalidad entre la lesión al interés público y los daños y perjuicios con la medida impuesta a terceros, en virtud del grado de avance de las obras. En cuanto a la apariencia de buen derecho se opone a la misma, por cuanto, considera que el artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, no se encuentra surtiendo efectos. Además, señala que los otros acuerdos recurridos, tienen como sustento los actos de la administración municipal que se recurren.

V.- DE LA AUDIENCIA CONFERIDA AL TERCER INTERESADO. En relación a la audiencia conferida, se tiene el apersonamiento de Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima y la interposición de la excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario para incluir al proceso a la compañía Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima. En relación a la citada solicitud, este Tribunal determina que con los elementos probatorios aportados al presente expediente se tiene la información necesaria para resolver la medida cautelar, no obstante, a efectos del apersonamiento respecto al recurso interpuesto, al momento de otorgar agravios se concederá el plazo a la compañía Portafolio Inmobiliario Sociedad Anónima para que manifiesta lo que considere necesario respecto al mismo. Ahora bien, respecto a la medida cautelar, señala que la suspensión de los actos administrativos es una medida excepcional frente a las características de ejecutividad y ejecutoriedad del acto acto administrativo. En cuanto a la apariencia de buen derecho, señala que no existe la misma, por cuanto, el artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, no se encuentra surtiendo efectos, en el tanto no resuelve la solicitud de levantamiento de la afectación del área verde que se planteó. Asimismo, señala que todos los argumentos jurídicos expuestos en el presente procedimiento, se refieren única y exclusivamente al análisis de los actos administrativos municipales números MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 y MSA-Alc-04-99-10, los cuales no pueden ser recurridos en virtud de haber transcurrido el plazo legal para impugnarlos. Manifiesta además, que el recurrir tanto los actos de Concejo como los de la Administración lo hace para burlar el plazo fatal de caducidad que operó para los segundos. En cuanto a la inexistencia del daño grave, señala que el recurrente no aportó ningún tipo de prueba que demuestre el daño alegado ni su gravedad, ni tampoco identifica cual es el daño provocado. Señala que no aporta prueba sobre las manifestaciones de grietas en su propiedad o sobre el riesgo en que considera se pone su propiedad. Expone los argumentos del recurrente, respecto a la ubicación, la privacidad, las interrupciones del bien y las limitaciones al derecho de propiedad, y manifiesta que cuenta con los permisos y estudios necesarios para la realización de las obras. En cuanto al daño ambienta, manifiesta que el mismo es inexistente, por cuanto, cuenta con la Viabilidad Ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental para el proyecto Terrazas Lindora. Lo anterior aunado a que solo uno de los ciento setenta y dos propietarios realizan la acción recursiva. Manifiestan que el acoger la medida cautelar implicaría graves daños, de imposible reparación a su representada, por cuanto implicaría el despido de trabajadores y la rescisión e incumplimiento de contratos. Manifiesta que el grado de avance de las obras se estima en un 75% y que dado lo anterior, si el daño es tan evidente y media urgencia en la suspensión de las obras, porque se solicita la gestión hasta esta oportunidad. Continua señalando que el otorgar la medida contrariaría el principio de proporcionalidad, en el tanto el recurrente solicita la medida más gravosa que existe en perjuicio de su representada, sus accionistas, contratistas, clientes, empleados y acreedores. Al efecto, expone los eventuales daños patrimoniales que podría ocasionarse de concederse la medida cautelar solicitada. Por último, solicita que en caso de concederse la medida cautelar, se establezca una contracautela suficiente y proporcionada para para garantizar el pago de daños y perjuicios que se puedan ocasionar, requiriendo la contratación de un perito valuador.

VI.- DE LA JUSTICIA CAUTELAR EN EL ORDENAMIENTO COSTARRICENSE. De acuerdo al artículo 19 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), el régimen de medidas cautelares en esta sede distingue claramente un fin objetivo y un fin subjetivo, pues por un lado buscan estas asegurar los resultados del proceso y por otro, garantizar una sentencia que sea efectiva para los intereses del justiciable. Ahora bien, en virtud de la naturaleza accesoria o instrumental de las medidas cautelares (Art. 22 CPCA) respecto del proceso principal, su conocimiento esta limitado a determinar o comprobar los presupuestos esenciales para acoger dicha petitoria (summario cognitio), que según los numerales 21 y 22 CPCA, así como reiterada jurisprudencia en esta materia, corresponden a: 1. La apariencia de buen derecho: Actualmente invertido a su formulación tradicional, y que se refiere a la acreditación de que lo pretendido no sea en forma palmaria carente de seriedad o temerario. 2. El peligro en la demora: Implica que de mantenerse o ejecutarse la conducta administrativa impugnada se causen daños graves, actuales o potenciales, a la situación jurídica del justiciable. Es decir, la posibilidad objetiva y razonable de que la conducta impugnada pueda causar daños graves actuales o potenciales al justiciable durante el trámite del proceso. Por consiguiente, la parte interesada deberá acreditar en su solicitud, mediante un mínimo probatorio ya sea por indicios o aproximaciones probatorias, la probabilidad o la existencia del daño, la magnitud de ese daño, es decir, su gravedad, y el necesario nexo de causalidad entre la conducta y el daño grave actual o potencial que se aduce. 3. Ponderación de los intereses en juego: Conlleva la valoración, conforme al principio de proporcionalidad, de los intereses públicos y privados que se afectarían de tomarse o no la medida cautelar, de manera tal que el Juzgador ha decidir cuál de estos ha de prevalecer.

VII.- DE LA MEDIDA CAUTELAR SOLICITADA.- De la relación de los hechos que tiene como fundamento este Tribunal para la decisión de este asunto, se deriva, con facilidad de los numerales 21 y 22 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, que literalmente dicen: "Artículo 21.- La medida cautelar será procedente cuando la ejecución o permanencia de la conducta sometida a proceso, produzca graves daños o perjuicios, actuales o potenciales, de la situación aducida, y siempre que la pretensión no sea temeraria o, en forma palmaria, carente de seriedad. Artículo 22.- Para otorgar o denegar alguna medida cautelar, el tribunal o el juez respectivo deberá considerar, especialmente, el principio de proporcionalidad, ponderando la eventual lesión al interés público, los daños y los perjuicios provocados con la medida a terceros, así como los caracteres de instrumentalidad y provisionalidad, de modo que no se afecte la gestión sustantiva de la entidad, ni se afecte en forma grave la situación jurídica de terceros. También deberá tomar en cuenta las posibilidades y previsiones financieras que la Administración Pública deberá efectuar para la ejecución de la medida cautelar". Ahora bien, vistas y analizadas las argumentaciones de cada una de las partes este Tribunal considera que la medida cautelar solicitada es improcedente, respaldado en lo siguiente: En cuanto a la apariencia de buen derecho, el presupuesto se tiene por acreditado, toda vez que su pretensión no resulta desproporcional, irracional o temeraria, dado que la pretensión cautelar del recurrente surge en virtud del derecho de recurrir en esta vía los actos municipales, no obstante lo anterior, es necesario tomar en consideración que en este mismo acto se declararon inadmisibles los recursos interpuestos contra algunos actos, admitiéndose únicamente el recurso respeto al Artículo XI de la Sesión Ordinaria número 233 celebrada el 21 de octubre de 2014 y el Artículo XII de la Sesión Ordinaria número 235 celebrada el 04 de noviembre de 2014, relativos al otorgamiento de la solicitud de permisos de construcción en la propiedad que tiene como su plano el catastrado número Placa18470. En lo tocante al daño grave, y éste asociado al peligro en la demora, véase que el recurrente solicita como medida cautelar que se proceda a suspender de forma inmediata toda obra de construcción hasta tanto se haya resuelto el recurso de apelación interpuesto ante esta jerarquía. Sobre el particular debe indicarse que en casos como el que nos ocupa, y por la naturaleza misma de la medida cautelar, le corresponde a la parte que alega el daño demostrarlo con prueba técnica idónea, que acredite el peligro en la demora y una ponderación de intereses favorable para el recurrente, lo cual no sucede en la presente gestión, tal y como así lo dispone la corporación municipal y Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima, en donde el recurrente no aporta ningún elemento probatorio que permita realizar dicha valoración, de allí que no puede este juzgador dar por sentada la existencia no sólo del daño, sino que el mismo resulte grave, razones por las cuales este presupuesto se tiene como no acreditado. Sobre este particular, nótese que el recurrente señala que la urgencia va dirigida a la protección al medio ambiente que es un interés público general consagrado en la Constitución Política y debe privar sobre intereses particulares, por cuanto, se está eliminando del todo una zona verde de únicamente dos zonas verdes establecidas en el Plan Regulador del cantón de Santa Ana. Al respecto, este juzgador, toma en consideración el principio “in dubio pro natura” y su relación con al desarrollo económico y social del cantón, tal y como lo ha requerido la Sala Constitución, al señalar que "La responsabilidad consiste en equilibrar la protección del ambiente, el desarrollo económico y las actividades de los particulares, que justifique la intervención del Estado. Lo anterior, por cuanto una protección excesiva del ambiente que anule toda actividad económica, puede hacer incurrir a los particulares en costos desproporcionados e innecesarios, tornando algunas actividades productivas en ruinosas y generando pobreza y desempleo, lo cual impactaría negativamente a la gente. Pero de igual modo, una actividad económica descontrolada e irresponsable puede producir un daño irreversible en el ecosistema, razón por la cual se impone la aplicación del principio “in dubio pro natura”, en el sentido de que si existe duda sobre si una actividad produce o no daños al ambiente, debe priorizarse en su protección y en consecuencia, limitarse o prohibirse dicha actividad. No obstante, la determinación de esa duda, no puede, ni debe, quedar al arbitrio de los grupos sea cual sea, sino de estudios técnicos, pues este aplicará cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible en el ambiente" (Sala Constitucional, resolución número 2009017155 de las 14 horas del 05 de noviembre del 2009.). Atendiendo a lo anterior, nótese que mediante resoluciones números 1326-2010-SETENA de las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del dieciséis de junio de dos mil diez y 1081-2014-SETENA de las nueve horas veinte minutos del cuatro de junio de dos mil catorce, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, aprobó el Plan de Gestión Ambiental, la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales y las matrices de impacto ambiental relativas al proyecto Condominio Lindora, concediendo de esta forma la Viabilidad Ambiental de dicho proyecto. Asimismo, nótese que el Proyecto Condominio Lindora ha presentado ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental los informes de Regencia Ambiental de la Etapa Constructiva relativos a dicho proyecto, en donde constan las Acciones del proyecto, las acciones realizadas, y el estado de cumplimiento de cada uno. (Informes de regencia números 12 del mes de julio de 2015 y 13 del mes de setiembre de 2015), lo que le permite a este Juzgador tener por acreditados dichos informes y la viabilidad ambiental otorgada como los estudios técnicos correspondientes a la determinación de la afectación ambiental. Aparejado a lo anterior, con respecto a la ponderación de intereses en juego, resulta necesario decir que por regla general frente a los intereses particulares siempre debe anteponerse el interés público, no obstante, no puede obviarse lo dispuesto en el artículo 22 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en donde se hace especial mención del principio de proporcionalidad, el cual requiere ponderar la eventual lesión al interés público y los daños y los perjuicios provocados con la medida a terceros. Así las cosas, debe tomar en consideración este Juzgador que la obra presenta un avance de aproximadamente el 75%, según consta de la documentación aportada al expediente correspondiente, lo que tiene dos implicaciones, por un lado el tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio de la obra de tal magnitud sin que se haya realizado las gestiones que aquí se solicitan, y por otro lado, las altas sumas de dinero que se han invertido en dicho proyecto; aspectos que son ampliamente valorados para denegar la presente medida cautelar, en el tanto la afectación a los terceros implicados podría tener dimensiones inimaginables. Asimismo, pese a lo ya avanzado en dicho proyecto, este Tribunal tiene por acreditado que la paralización de las obras tendría una afectación económica de altas dimensiones, tanto por las obligaciones contractuales contraídas como por las obligaciones patronales derivados del mismo, tal y como así lo demuestra Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima en su escrito de contestación de la medida cautelar. Lo anterior, se constituye como un impedimento para poder conceder la medida cautelar sujeta a una contracautela, sin causar una grave afectación patrimonial a la sociedad Lindora Project Mil Ochocientos Sociedad Anónima. En mérito de lo anterior, al no poder verificarse en el caso concreto los presupuestos necesarios para acoger la solicitud de medida cautelar, lo procedente es su rechazo como en efecto se ordena.

POR TANTO:

Se declara inadmisible el recurso de apelación interpuesto contra lo resuelto respecto a los siguientes actos: a) Artículo III de la Sesión Ordinaria número 181 celebrada el 08 de diciembre de 2009, b) Oficio número MSA-DOT-D-03-607-2009 de fecha 15 de diciembre de 2009, c) Oficio número MSA-Alc-04-99-10 de fecha 09 de febrero de 2010, y d) Contra todos los usos de suelo y permisos de construcción otorgados después del 09 de febrero de 2010 sobre la finca inscrita bajo el sistema de propiedad horizontal con el número Placa18222. Asimismo, se rechaza la medida cautelar formulada.-