Subject-matter jurisdiction in state-institution demolition interdictCompetencia en interdicto de derribo promovido por institución estatal

VOTO N° 22-C-16 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- At fifteen hours and eight minutes of the eighteenth of January of two thousand sixteen.- INTERDICTAL PROCEEDING established by the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD, legal identification number CED1 - - , represented by its general judicial attorney-in-fact, Mr. Erick Picado Sancho, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Guadalupe, identity card number CED2 - - . Appearing in the proceeding is the PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, represented by José Barahona Vargas, of legal age, divorced, attorney, identity card number CED3 - - , in his capacity as advisory procurator. Acting as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the Institute is Ms. Sabrina Francis Salazar, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Escazú, identity card number CED4 - - . Processed before the Juzgado Agrario of the Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur.- Drafted by Judge Ulate Chacón, and;

CONSIDERANDO

I.- The Advisory Procurator, Mr. José Joaquín Barahona Vargas, raises the exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (incompetencia en razón de la materia) in this summary interdictal proceeding for demolition (derribo), arguing that the matter is of a contentious-administrative nature, since the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad is an autonomous institution of the State, and therefore, in accordance with the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, its cognizance corresponds to the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, whose jurisdiction is non-extendable (folios 22 and 23).- II.- This Court has held regarding subject-matter jurisdiction in interdicts for the felling of trees (derribo de árboles) in public areas: "The interdict for demolition proceeds when the poor condition of a building, construction, or tree constitutes a threat to the rights of possessors or passersby, or could harm some public good. From the complaint, it is inferred that the alleged danger is linked to a tree known as 'orgullo de la india' (pride of India), approximately eight years old, located in a public area, specifically in a residential zone, from which branches are constantly breaking off and falling onto the roof of Mrs. [Nombre1], generating the risk of falling onto a dwelling and causing damage, and even causing the death of a person (folios 3 and 10). From the foregoing, it follows that this is indeed a proceeding within the jurisdiction of the Agrarian Jurisdiction because trees constitute natural resources that are part of the national biodiversity. Trees as natural resources are regulated, among other norms, by the Ley de Biodiversidad, which provides in subsection 3 of Article 11 that one of the criteria for applying that regulation is the environmental public interest. Specifically, the norm states: 'The use of the elements of biodiversity shall guarantee development options for future generations, food security, the conservation of ecosystems, the protection of human health, and the improvement of the quality of life of citizens.' Such aspects must be considered for the resolution of this proceeding, as a natural resource is at stake; and the subject-matter jurisdiction for such determination is reserved by law to this Jurisdiction. Basically, numeral 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad states: 'In matters of biodiversity and as long as there is no environmental jurisdiction, all disputes shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. As exceptions to the foregoing rule, crimes against biodiversity shall be judged by the criminal jurisdiction; likewise, disputes that arise between private parties, where no administrative act or public domain matter is involved, shall be the jurisdiction of the agrarian jurisdiction.' From the foregoing, it is concluded that, being in the presence of a proceeding in which a private individual files a claim in relation to a natural resource, it falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the agrarian courts according to the cited regulations, hence the plea of lack of jurisdiction (inhibitoria) declared by the Court must be rejected." TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto No. 15-C-13 of seven hours and thirty-four minutes of the eighteenth of January of two thousand thirteen.

III.- In the case at hand, the interdict is not filed by a private individual, but by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, as an autonomous institution of the State, raising the need to fell three trees that could endanger not only the lives of people, but also the telecommunications services located adjacent to the Central Telefónica de Playa Zancudo, administered by the same Institute, that is, affect a public domain good. Hence, in this case, the provisions of Article 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the agrarian jurisdiction regarding private parties are not applicable, the matter rather being the jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Consequently, the exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is upheld and the case file is ordered to be sent to the Juzgado Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. In accordance with the provisions of numeral 16, subsection c) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the parties are informed of the possibility of submitting a consultation to the Sala Primera de Casación on what has been decided in this resolution within three days following its notification.-

POR TANTO:

The exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (falta de competencia material) is upheld and the case file is ordered to be sent to the Juzgado Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. In accordance with the provisions of numeral 16, subsection c) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the parties are informed of the possibility of submitting a consultation to the Sala Primera de Casación on what has been decided in this resolution within three days following its notification.- [Nombre2] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre3] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre4] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *150001510419AG*

**VOTO N° 22-C-16** **TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las quince horas y ocho minutos del dieciocho de enero de dos mil dieciséis.-** **PROCESO INTERDICTAL** established by the **INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD**, legal identification number CED1 - , represented by its general judicial attorney, Mr. Erick Picado Sancho, of legal age, married, attorney-at-law, resident of Guadalupe, identity card number CED2 - . The **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA** appears in the process, represented by José Barahona Vargas, of legal age, divorced, attorney-at-law, identity card number CED3 - , in his capacity as advisory prosecutor (procurador asesor). The Institute's special judicial attorney (apoderada especial judicial) is Sabrina Francis Salazar, of legal age, single, attorney-at-law, resident of Escazú, identity card number CED4 - . Processed before the Juzgado Agrario of the Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur.- Judge Ulate Chacón writes, and; **CONSIDERANDO** **I.-** The Advisory Prosecutor, Attorney José Joaquín Barahona Vargas, raises the exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (incompetencia en razón de la materia) in this summary interdicto de derribo proceeding, arguing that the matter is of a contencioso administrativo nature, since the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad is an autonomous institution of the State, and therefore, in accordance with the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, its hearing corresponds to the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, whose jurisdiction is non-extendable (folios 22 and 23).- **II.-** This Tribunal has held, regarding material jurisdiction in interdictos de derribo of trees in public areas: *"The interdicto de derribo applies when the poor state of a building, construction, or tree constitutes a threat to the rights of possessors or passers-by, or may harm a public good. From the complaint, it appears that the alleged danger is linked to a tree known as 'orgullo de la india', approximately eight years old, located in a public area, specifically in a residential zone, from which branches are constantly detaching and falling onto the roof of Mrs. [Nombre1], generating the risk of falling onto a dwelling and causing damage, and even causing the death of a person (folios 3 and 10). From the above, it is clear that we are in the presence of a process within the jurisdiction of the Jurisdicción Agraria, because trees are natural resources that are part of the national biodiversity. Trees as natural resources are regulated by, among other norms, the Ley de Biodiversidad, which establishes in clause 3 of Article 11 that one of the criteria for applying that regulation is the environmental public interest (interés público ambiental). Specifically, the provision states: 'The use of the elements of biodiversity must guarantee development options for future generations, food security, ecosystem conservation, protection of human health, and improvement of citizens' quality of life.' Such aspects must be considered for the resolution of this process, as a natural resource is at stake; and the material jurisdiction for such a determination is reserved by law to this Jurisdiction. Basically, Article 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad indicates: 'In biodiversity matters, and as long as no environmental jurisdiction exists, all controversies shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the contencioso administrativo jurisdiction. As exceptions to the previous rule, crimes against biodiversity shall be judged by the criminal jurisdiction; likewise, controversies arising between private parties, where no administrative act or public domain is involved, shall be under the jurisdiction of the agrarian jurisdiction.' From the above, it is concluded that, being in the presence of a process in which a private person raises a claim in relation to a natural resource, it is part of the material jurisdiction of the agrarian courts in accordance with the cited provision, and therefore the inhibition declared by the Court must be rejected."* TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto No. 15-C-13 of seven hours and thirty-four minutes of January eighteenth, two thousand thirteen.

**III.-** In the case before us, the interdicto is not filed by a private party, but by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, as an autonomous Institution of the State, raising the need to bring down three trees that could endanger not only people's lives, but also the telecommunications services located near the Central Telefónica de Playa Zancudo, administered by the same Institute, meaning they could affect a public domain good. Hence, in this case, the provisions of Article 108 of the Ley de Biodiversidad assigning material jurisdiction to the agrarian jurisdiction with respect to private parties are not applicable, with the matter instead being within the jurisdiction of the contencioso-administrativa jurisdiction. Consequently, the exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (falta de competencia por razón de la materia) is upheld and the case file is ordered to be sent to the Juzgado Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. In accordance with the provisions of Article 16(c) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the parties are informed that they have the possibility of raising a consultation (consulta) before the Sala Primera de Casación regarding what has been decided in this resolution within three days following its notification.- **POR TANTO:** The exception of lack of material jurisdiction (falta de competencia material) is upheld and the case file is ordered to be sent to the Juzgado Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. In accordance with the provisions of Article 16(c) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the parties are informed that they have the possibility of raising for consultation before the Sala Primera de Casación what has been decided in this resolution within three days following its notification.-

VOTO N° 22-C-16 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las quince horas y ocho minutos del dieciocho de enero de dos mil dieciséis.- PROCESO INTERDICTAL establecido por el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD, cédula jurídica CED1 - - , representado por su apoderado general judicial el señor Erick Picado Sancho, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Guadalupe, cédula de identidad número CED2 - - . Interviene en el proceso, la PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por José Barahona Vargas , mayor, divorciado, abogado, cédula de identidad número CED3 - - , en su condición de procurador asesor. Actúa como apoderada especial judicial del Instituto la licenciada Sabrina Francis Salazar, mayor, soltera, abogada, vecina de Escazú, cédula de identidad número CED4 - - . Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur.- Redacta el juez Ulate Chacón, y;

CONSIDERANDO

I.- El Procurador Asesor, licenciado José Joaquín Barahona Vargas, interpone la excepción de incompetencia en razón de la materia en el presente proceso sumario interdictal de derribo, argumentando que el asunto es de naturaleza contenciosa administrativa, toda vez que el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad es una institución autónoma del Estado, por lo que de conformidad con el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, su conocimiento corresponde al Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda cuya competencia es improrrogable (folios 22 y 23).- II.- Este Tribunal ha sostenido sobre la competencia material en interdictos de derribo de árboles en zona pública: "El interdicto de derribo procede cuando el mal estado de un edificio, construcción o árbol, constituyan una amenaza para los derechos de las personas poseedoras o transeúntes, o pueda perjudicar algún bien público. De la demanda se desprende, la peligrosidad alegada está vinculada con un árbol conocido como "orgullo de la india" , de una edad aproximada de ocho años, localizado en zona pública, concretamente en zona residencial, del cual constantemente se están desprendiendo ramas que caen al techo de la señora [Nombre1], generando el riesgo de caer en alguna casa de habitación y causar daños, e inclusive, provocar la muerte de alguna persona (folios 3 y 10). De lo expuesto se desprende que sí se está en presencia de un proceso competencia de la Jurisdicción Agraria debido a que los árboles constituyen recursos naturales parte de la biodiversidad nacional. Los árboles como recursos naturales, se encuentran regulados, entre otras normas, por la Ley de Biodiversidad, la cual dispone en el inciso 3 del artículo 11 que uno de los criterios de aplicación de esa normativa lo constituye el interés público ambiental. Concretamente, señala la norma: "El uso de los elementos de la biodiversidad deberá garantizar las opciones de desarrollo de las futuras generaciones, la seguridad alimentaria, la conservación de los ecosistemas, la protección de la salud humana y el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos". Tales aspectos deberán ser considerados para la resolución de este proceso, al estar de por medio un recurso natural; y la competencia material para tal determinación está reservada por ley a esta Jurisdicción. Básicamente, el numeral 108 de la Ley de Biodiversidad señala: "En materia de biodiversidad y mientras no exista una jurisdicción ambiental, toda controversia será competencia exclusiva de la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa. Como excepciones a la regla anterior, los delitos contra la biodiversidad serán juzgados por la jurisdicción penal; de igual modo, las controversias que se susciten entre particulares, donde no medie un acto administrativo ni del dominio público, serán competencia de la jurisdicción agraria". De lo expuesto se concluye, al estarse en presencia de un proceso en el cual una persona particular plantea un reclamo en relación con un recurso natural, el mismo es parte de la competencia material de los tribunales agraria conforme a la normativa citada, de ahí que deba improbarse la inhibitoria declarada por el Juzgado". TRIBUNAL AGRARIO, Voto No. 15-C-13 de las siete horas y treinta y cuatro minutos del dieciocho de enero de dos mil trece.

III.- En el caso que nos ocupa, el interdicto no lo plantea un particular, sino el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, como Institución autónoma del Estado, planteando la necesidad de derribar tres árboles que pueden poner en peligro no solamente la vida de las personas, sino también los servicios de telecomunicaciones que se encuentran aledaños a la Central Telefónica de Playa Zancudo, administrada por el mismo Instituto, es decir, afectar un bien de dominio público. De ahí que en este caso no es de aplicación lo dispuesto en el artículo 108 de la Ley de Biodiversidad le asigna la competencia material a la jurisdicción agraria, en cuanto a los particulares, siendo más bien competencia de la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. En consecuencia, se declara con lugar la excepción de falta de competencia por razón de la materia y se ordena remitir los autos al Juzgado Procesal Contencioo Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. De conformidad con lo establecido en el numeral 16 inciso c) de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, se indica que las partes tienen la posibilidad de elevar consulta ante la Sala Primera de Casación sobre lo decidido en esta resolución dentro de los tres días siguientes a la notificación de la misma.-

POR TANTO:

Se declara con lugar la excepción de falta de competencia material y se ordena remitir los autos al Juzgado Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. De conformidad con lo establecido en el numeral 16 inciso c) de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, se indica que las partes tienen la posibilidad de elevar a consulta ante la Sala Primera de Casación sobre lo decidido en esta resolución dentro de los tres días siguientes a la notificación de la misma.- [Nombre2] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre3] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A [Nombre4] – JUEZ/A DECISOR/A