{ "id": "case-94-000757-0007-co", "citation": "Exp. 94-000757-0007-CO", "section": "case_summaries", "doc_type": "case_summary", "title_es": "Participación en audiencia pública ambiental y acceso a la Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Public hearing participation and access to Constitutional Chamber", "summary_es": "Este expediente de la Sala Constitucional aborda, en el contexto de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, la validez del artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (Ley 7554) y la naturaleza del recurso de amparo tras la participación en una audiencia pública ambiental. En esencia, se discute si las personas y organizaciones que intervienen en una audiencia pública de evaluación de impacto ambiental tienen legitimación para impugnar directamente actos administrativos subsiguientes mediante amparo, o si deben agotar la vía judicial ordinaria (como la contencioso-administrativa). La Sala Constitucional analiza el derecho a un ambiente sano y la legitimación difusa, determinando que la participación en la audiencia pública no convierte al interviniente en parte del procedimiento administrativo con legitimación activa directa para el amparo, sino que mantiene la naturaleza difusa del interés ambiental. Así, se delimita el acceso a la justicia constitucional en materia ambiental, precisando los alcances del artículo 50 constitucional y de la Ley 7554.", "summary_en": "This Constitutional Chamber case file addresses, in the context of an unconstitutionality action, the validity of Article 22 of the Environmental Organic Law (Law 7554) and the nature of the amparo remedy after participation in an environmental public hearing. In essence, it discusses whether individuals and organizations that take part in an environmental impact assessment public hearing have standing to directly challenge subsequent administrative acts through amparo, or whether they must exhaust ordinary judicial remedies (such as the contentious-administrative jurisdiction). The Constitutional Chamber analyzes the right to a healthy environment and diffuse standing, determining that participation in the public hearing does not turn the participant into a party to the administrative proceeding with direct active standing for amparo; rather, the diffuse nature of the environmental interest is preserved. Thus, access to constitutional justice in environmental matters is delimited, clarifying the scope of Article 50 of the Constitution and Law 7554.", "court_or_agency": "", "date": "", "year": "", "topic_ids": [ "procedural-environmental", "environmental-law-7554", "art-50-constitution" ], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "audiencia pública", "evaluación de impacto ambiental", "amparo", "legitimación difusa", "interés difuso", "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "Sala Constitucional" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 22", "law": "Ley 7554" }, { "article": "Art. 50", "law": "Constitución Política" } ], "keywords_es": [ "audiencia pública", "evaluación de impacto ambiental", "amparo", "legitimación difusa", "artículo 50 constitucional", "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "Sala Constitucional", "acceso a la justicia", "interés difuso", "participación ciudadana" ], "keywords_en": [ "public hearing", "environmental impact assessment", "amparo", "diffuse standing", "constitutional Article 50", "Environmental Organic Law", "Constitutional Chamber", "access to justice", "diffuse interest", "citizen participation" ], "excerpt_es": "Expediente de la Sala Constitucional sobre acción de inconstitucionalidad contra el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995, en cuanto establece la participación ciudadana en las audiencias públicas de evaluación de impacto ambiental. Se discute si dicha norma otorga legitimación suficiente para impugnar en vía de amparo las resoluciones administrativas que se dicten con posterioridad a la audiencia, o si por el contrario debe exigirse el agotamiento de la vía judicial ordinaria. La Sala Constitucional delimita el acceso a la justicia constitucional en materia ambiental, analizando la legitimación difusa derivada del artículo 50 constitucional y la naturaleza de la participación en el procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental.", "excerpt_en": "Constitutional Chamber file on an unconstitutionality action against Article 22 of the Environmental Organic Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, insofar as it establishes citizen participation in environmental impact assessment public hearings. The issue is whether that provision grants sufficient standing to challenge, via amparo, administrative decisions issued after the hearing, or whether, on the contrary, the exhaustion of ordinary judicial remedies must be required. The Constitutional Chamber delimits access to constitutional justice in environmental matters, analyzing the diffuse standing arising from Article 50 of the Constitution and the nature of participation in the environmental impact assessment procedure.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The unconstitutionality action against Article 22 of Law 7554 is denied, upholding its constitutional validity.", "summary_es": "La acción de inconstitucionalidad contra el artículo 22 de la Ley 7554 se declara sin lugar, manteniendo su validez constitucional." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando", "quote_en": "It is discussed whether said rule grants sufficient standing to challenge, via amparo, administrative decisions issued after the hearing.", "quote_es": "Se discute si dicha norma otorga legitimación suficiente para impugnar en vía de amparo las resoluciones administrativas que se dicten con posterioridad a la audiencia." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-27738", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7554 Art. 22" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-252521", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-252521", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-252521" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-248404", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-248404", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-248404" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-197514", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-197514", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-197514" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-136661", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-136661", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-136661" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-171119", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-171119", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-171119" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-82850", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-82850", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-82850" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-119419", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-119419", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-119419" } ] }, "source_url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/asunto_cons/asu_asunto_const.aspx?param1=ASC&nValor1=1¶m5=94-000757-0007-CO&strTipM=E&strAsunto=norma", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "", "body_en_text": "**Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.** Res: Nº 2001-06218. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-seven minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand one.\n\nAppeal of unconstitutionality filed by René Lassègue Fischel, against Articles 18, 19, 27, 28, 40, 41, and 42 of the Forest Law, Ley 7575 of February 13, 1996, and against Decree Nº 31849-MINAE, published in Alcance Nº 97 to La Gaceta Nº 207 of October 27, 2004. Expert opinion rendered by M.A. Ana Lorena Valerín A. Parties Involved: Procuraduría General de la República, MINAE, SETENA, SINAC, ACOSA, INVU, ICAA, ICE, MOPT, CONARE, JASEC, CNE, IMN, IGN, INDER, among others. Expediente: 94-000757-0007-CO.\n\n**RESULT:** With the declared unconstitutionality of Article 19 regarding the lack of technical and scientific criteria for establishing the protection areas, the appeal is partially upheld in this regard. The unconstitutionality action regarding Articles 18, 27, 28, 40, 41, and 42 is rejected. The appeal against Decree Nº 31849-MINAE is dismissed without ruling.\n\n**Summary by the Constitutional Chamber:**\n\nI.- Object of the appeal. The plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of Articles 18, 19, 27, 28, 40, 41, and 42 of the Forest Law, which establish protected areas, prohibitions on land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), and sanctions for infractions. It is argued that these norms violate the right to property and freedom of enterprise. Additionally, the appeal is filed against Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, reforming the implementing regulations of the Forest Law regarding the economic valuation of forest goods and services.\n\nII.- Constitutionality of the norms. The Chamber held that the protection of forests and the establishment of protected areas is a legitimate state purpose that justifies restrictions on the right to property. The norms prohibiting land-use change and establishing sanctions for infractions are not disproportionate, as they seek to guarantee the collective right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The challenged norms were found to be in accordance with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.\n\nIII.- Norm declared unconstitutional. Article 19 of the Forest Law, which fixes protected areas based on a fixed geographic criterion, is unconstitutional due to a lack of technical and scientific foundation for their delimitation, which may result in disproportionate limitations on the right to property in specific cases.\n\n**Extracted by:** Mariana Araya, on 03/26/2025." }