{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-121335", "citation": "Res. 17341-2007 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Omisión municipal y del Ministerio de Salud ante estancamiento de aguas pluviales con riesgo de dengue", "title_en": "Municipal and Health Ministry omission regarding stormwater stagnation and dengue risk", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoció un amparo contra la Municipalidad de Corredores y el Ministerio de Salud por omisión ante el estancamiento de aguas pluviales en la urbanización Río Nuevo-Segunda Etapa, que generaba inundaciones en viviendas y riesgo de dengue. La Sala desarrolla el contenido de los derechos a la salud y al ambiente sano (arts. 21 y 50 constitucionales), recordando que el Estado debe actuar preventivamente mediante fiscalización directa para evitar daños. Respecto a la Municipalidad, determinó que pese a tener conocimiento desde junio 2007, no adoptó medidas concretas sino hasta la interposición del amparo, violando los derechos invocados, máxime cuando no existía alcantarillado pluvial planificado. En cuanto al Ministerio de Salud, concluyó que incumplió su poder de policía sanitaria conforme a la Ley General de Salud, pues constatado el problema se limitó a asumir que la competencia era municipal, sin girar órdenes sanitarias ni medidas correctivas oportunas. Adicionalmente, declaró la violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, ya que las autoridades no resolvieron ni informaron sobre las denuncias presentadas. La Sala acogió el recurso con condena en costas, daños y perjuicios contra la Municipalidad y el Estado.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo against the Municipality of Corredores and the Ministry of Health for omission regarding stormwater stagnation in the Río Nuevo-Segunda Etapa urbanization, causing house flooding and dengue risk. The Chamber elaborated on the rights to health and a healthy environment (Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution), stressing the State's preventive duty through direct oversight to avert harm. It found the Municipality liable for failing to adopt concrete measures between June 2007 and the filing of the amparo, despite awareness, especially given the absence of planned stormwater drainage. As for the Ministry of Health, the Chamber held it breached its sanitary police powers under the General Health Law by merely assuming the Municipality was responsible after verifying the problem, without issuing any health orders or timely corrective actions. Additionally, the Chamber declared a violation of the right to a prompt and completed procedure, since neither authority resolved nor informed the petitioners about the complaints. The Court granted the appeal, ordering the Municipality and the State to pay costs, damages, and losses.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2007", "year": "2007", "topic_ids": [], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "recurso de amparo", "derecho a la salud", "ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado", "estancamiento de aguas pluviales", "poder de policía sanitaria", "alcantarillado pluvial", "procedimiento pronto y cumplido", "Ley General de Salud" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 1", "law": "Ley de Construcciones" }, { "article": "Art. 87", "law": "Ley de Construcciones" }, { "article": "Art. 75", "law": "Código Municipal" }, { "article": "Art. 285", "law": "Ley General de Salud" }, { "article": "Art. 286", "law": "Ley General de Salud" }, { "article": "Art. 314", "law": "Ley General de Salud" } ], "keywords_es": [ "amparo", "ambiente sano", "salud pública", "estancamiento aguas pluviales", "dengue", "Municipalidad de Corredores", "Ministerio de Salud", "omisión", "deber de fiscalización", "poder de policía sanitaria", "alcantarillado pluvial", "procedimiento pronto y cumplido" ], "keywords_en": [ "amparo", "healthy environment", "public health", "stormwater stagnation", "dengue", "Municipality of Corredores", "Ministry of Health", "omission", "duty of oversight", "sanitary police power", "stormwater drainage", "prompt and completed procedure" ], "excerpt_es": "En ese sentido, el Estado costarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando, mediante una fiscalización e intervención directa, la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, la cual está, inevitablemente, correlacionada con la obligación del Estado de velar por la preservación de la salud de sus habitantes.\n\nBajo tales circunstancias y dado que con fundamento en lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 y 87 de la Ley de Construcciones y 75 del Código Municipal, la Municipalidad es la encargada de ejercer vigilancia sobre las obras que se ejecuten en su jurisdicción y que, en caso de problemas de salud pública, está obligada a denunciar ante las autoridades de salud y colaborar con ellas para el cumplimiento de la Ley General de Salud, considera esta Sala que en la especie se produjo el quebranto a los derechos a la salud y a un ambiente equilibrado por parte de las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Corredores.\n\nDado el evidente e injustificado retardo en la oportuna atención de un problema de salud pública tan grave y urgente como el denunciado, porque, contrario a lo que presumiblemente entendieron las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de Corredores, no se limitaba a un problema de obstrucción de desagües de aguas pluviales, sino que se trataba de una situación de riesgo por contagio de dengue a la población de la zona, considera la Sala que el Ministerio recurrido quebrantó el derecho a la salud y a un ambienta sano.", "excerpt_en": "In that sense, the Costa Rican State has the obligation to act preventively, avoiding, through direct oversight and intervention, the performance of acts that harm the environment, which is inevitably correlated with the State's obligation to ensure the preservation of its inhabitants' health.\n\nUnder such circumstances and based on Articles 1 and 87 of the Construction Law and Article 75 of the Municipal Code, the Municipality is responsible for supervising works undertaken in its jurisdiction and, in the event of public health problems, is obligated to report to health authorities and collaborate with them for the enforcement of the General Health Law. This Chamber finds that the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores violated the rights to health and a balanced environment.\n\nGiven the evident and unjustified delay in timely addressing such a serious and urgent public health problem as that reported—because, contrary to what the Ministry of Health authorities of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to an obstruction of stormwater drains, but involved a risk of dengue contagion to the local population—the Chamber considers that the respondent Ministry violated the right to health and a healthy environment.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The Chamber granted the amparo, ordering the Municipality of Corredores and the State to pay costs, damages, and losses, and compelled the authorities to remedy the stormwater stagnation threatening public health.", "summary_es": "La Sala declaró con lugar el amparo, ordenando a la Municipalidad de Corredores y al Estado el pago de costas, daños y perjuicios, y conminó a las autoridades a corregir el estancamiento de aguas pluviales que amenazaba la salud pública." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando I", "quote_en": "the Costa Rican State has the obligation to act preventively, avoiding, through direct oversight and intervention, the performance of acts that harm the environment, which is inevitably correlated with the State's obligation to ensure the preservation of its inhabitants' health.", "quote_es": "el Estado costarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando, mediante una fiscalización e intervención directa, la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, la cual está, inevitablemente, correlacionada con la obligación del Estado de velar por la preservación de la salud de sus habitantes." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "it was not until this amparo was filed that the municipal authorities carried out a new on-site inspection and decided to adopt measures to solve the stormwater stagnation problem.", "quote_es": "no fue sino con ocasión de la interposición del presente amparo que las autoridades municipales realizaron un nuevo reconocimiento en el lugar y decidieron adoptar medidas para solucionar el problema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "Given the evident and unjustified delay in timely addressing such a serious and urgent public health problem as that reported—because, contrary to what the Ministry of Health authorities of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to an obstruction of stormwater drains, but involved a risk of dengue contagion to the local population.", "quote_es": "Dado el evidente e injustificado retardo en la oportuna atención de un problema de salud pública tan grave y urgente como el denunciado, porque, contrario a lo que presumiblemente entendieron las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de Corredores, no se limitaba a un problema de obstrucción de desagües de aguas pluviales, sino que se trataba de una situación de riesgo por contagio de dengue a la población de la zona." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-121335", "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": [ { "doc_id": "norm-36307", "norm_num": "833", "norm_name": "Ley de Construcciones", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/11/1949" }, { "doc_id": "norm-40197", "norm_num": "7794", "norm_name": "Código Municipal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/04/1998" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6581", "norm_num": "5395", "norm_name": "Ley General de Salud", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/10/1973" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El recurrente acude en tutela de los\r\nderechos constitucionales a la salud y a un medio ambiente sano y equilibrado,\r\nreconocidos en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, debido a la\r\nomisión de las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Corredores y del Ministerio\r\nde Salud de dar una solución definitiva al problema de estancamiento de aguas\r\npluviales en una urbanización ubicada en Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa, producido\r\n–presuntamente- porque algunos vecinos han tapado los tubos y obstruido los\r\ndesagües por donde discurrían, con el agravante del riesgo por contagio de\r\ndengue que esa situación genera y de las inundaciones en algunas casas. Alega\r\nque en junio del presente año, planteó, en conjunto con otros vecinos, dos\r\nquejas, una, ante el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores y, otra, ante el\r\nMinisterio de Salud de esa Zona para que dieran una solución definitiva al\r\nproblema y cinco meses después no se ha hecho nada al respecto. Acusa también\r\nel quebranto al derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, toda vez, las\r\nautoridades recurridas no le han informado nada con respecto a sus denuncias.” \n\r\n\r\n\n“…I.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A LA SALUD\r\nY EL DERECHO A GOZAR DE UN AMBIENTE SANO. La salud pública y el\r\nderecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentran\r\nreconocidos constitucionalmente en los artículos 21, 50, 73 y 89 de la\r\nConstitución Política, así como a través de la normativa internacional. Específicamente,\r\nel artículo 50 constitucional reconoce de forma expresa el derecho de todos los\r\nhabitantes del país a disfrutar de un medio ambiente saludable y en perfecto\r\nequilibrio. Ese derecho es garantía fundamental para la protección de la vida y\r\nla salud pública. Esta disposición constitucional se complementa por lo\r\nestablecido en el numeral 11 del \"Protocolo Adicional a la Convención\r\nAmericana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y\r\nCulturales\". Asimismo, en relación con las obligaciones que\r\ntienen las autoridades públicas de garantizar el derecho a la salud y el derecho\r\na un ambiente sano, este Tribunal Constitucional mediante la sentencia\r\nNo.180-98 de 16:24 hrs. del 13 de enero de 1998 dispuso: \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\"...el Estado no solo tiene la\r\nresponsabilidad ineludible de velar para que la salud de cada una de las\r\npersonas que componen la comunidad nacional, no sufra daños por parte de\r\nterceros, en relación a estos derechos, sino que, además, debe asumir la\r\nresponsabilidad de lograr las condiciones sociales propicias a fin de que cada\r\npersona pueda disfrutar de su salud, entendido tal derecho, como una situación\r\nde bienestar físico, psíquico( o mental) y\r\nsocial.\" \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n En ese sentido, el Estado\r\ncostarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando,\r\nmediante una fiscalización e intervención directa, la realización de actos que\r\nlesionen el medio ambiente, la cual está, inevitablemente, correlacionada con\r\nla obligación del Estado de velar por la preservación de la salud de sus\r\nhabitantes. La normativa infraconstitucional\r\ndesarrolla este derecho y, en este sentido, la Ley General de Salud autoriza al\r\nMinisterio de Salud para tomar las medidas sanitarias correspondientes e\r\nimponer las sanciones con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente y el derecho a\r\nla salud de las personas. Cabe señalar que este Tribunal como garante de los\r\nderechos fundamentales, se erige como un contralor del cumplimiento de las\r\nobligaciones que derivan de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21 y 50\r\nconstitucionales, que constriñen al Estado no sólo a reconocer los derechos\r\nseñalados, sino además a utilizar los medios material y jurídicamente legítimos\r\npara garantizarlos. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- SOBRE LA OMISIÓN QUE SE ACUSA EN\r\nRELACIÓN CON LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CORREDORES. De la relación de hechos se desprende que desde el\r\n12 de junio del 2007, las autoridades municipales tuvieron conocimiento de la\r\ndenuncia planteada por el recurrente y otras personas más en relación con un\r\ngrave y urgente problema de salud pública, a saber, el estancamiento de aguas\r\npluviales que provoca inundaciones en algunas viviendas y que pone en riesgo de\r\ncontagio por dengue a la comunidad de Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa. En virtud de lo\r\nanterior, autoridades municipales realizaron, el 21 de ese mismo mes, un\r\nreconocimiento conjuntamente con funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud de la\r\nZona y determinaron que existía el problema denunciado. Observa este Tribunal\r\nque pese a lo anterior, no fue sino con ocasión de la interposición del\r\npresente amparo que las autoridades municipales realizaron un nuevo\r\nreconocimiento en el lugar y decidieron adoptar medidas para solucionar el\r\nproblema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales. De ahí que hayan transcurrido\r\ninjustificadamente cinco meses desde que se planteó la denuncia, plazo durante\r\nel cual las autoridades municipales no dispusieron ninguna medida concreta para\r\nsolucionar definitivamente el referido problema de salud pública. A lo anterior\r\ncabe añadir que en virtud del análisis efectuado con posterioridad a la\r\ninterposición del presente amparo, el Encargado de Catastro de la Municipalidad\r\nde Corredores también determinó que en los planos de diseño del sitio no consta\r\nque exista un alcantarillado pluvial o que se haya planificado. Bajo tales\r\ncircunstancias y dado que con fundamento en lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 y 87\r\nde la Ley de Construcciones y 75 del Código Municipal, la Municipalidad es la\r\nencargada de ejercer vigilancia sobre las obras que se ejecuten en su\r\njurisdicción y que, en caso de problemas de salud pública, está obligada a\r\ndenunciar ante las autoridades de salud y colaborar con ellas para el\r\ncumplimiento de la Ley General de Salud, considera esta Sala que en la especie\r\nse produjo el quebranto a los derechos a la salud y a un ambiente equilibrado\r\npor parte de las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Corredores, porque, a la\r\nfecha, han omitido adoptar medidas concretas, oportunas y eficaces para\r\nresolver el grave problema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales denunciado por\r\nel recurrente desde junio del presente año. \n\r\n\r\n\nII.- SOBRE EL QUEBRANTO QUE SE ALEGA EN\r\nRELACIÓN CON EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD. Como se señaló anteriormente, la normativa infra constitucional ha dotado al Ministerio de Salud de un\r\npoder de policía para prevenir y garantizar situaciones como la acusada por el\r\nrecurrente. Al respecto, el artículo 2 de la Ley General de Salud dispone que\r\nal Poder Ejecutivo, a través del Ministerio de Salud, le corresponde la\r\ndefinición de la política nacional de salud, la normación,\r\nplanificación y coordinación de todas las actividades públicas y privadas\r\nrelativas a salud, así como la ejecución de aquellas actividades que le\r\ncompeten conforme a la ley. En ese sentido, la propia Ley General de Salud\r\ndispone en el artículo 314 que dentro de sus atribuciones, le corresponde al\r\nMinisterio de Salud ordenar y tomar las medidas especiales que habilita la ley\r\npara evitar el riesgo o daño a la salud de las personas o que éstos se difundan\r\no se agraven y para inhibir la continuación o reincidencia en la infracción de\r\nlos particulares. Específicamente, relativo al tema que nos ocupa, la Ley\r\nGeneral de Salud, en el Libro 1, título 3, Capítulo 3 De las obligaciones y\r\nrestricciones para la evacuación sanitaria de aguas pluviales, dispone, en lo\r\nconducente: \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo 285.- \n\r\n\r\n\nLas\r\nexcretas, las aguas negras, las servidas y las pluviales, deberán ser\r\neliminadas adecuada y sanitariamente a fin de evitar la contaminación del suelo\r\ny de las fuentes naturales de agua para el uso y consumo humano, la formación\r\nde criaderos de vectores y enfermedades y la contaminación del aire mediante\r\ncondiciones que atenten contra su pureza o calidad.” \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo\r\n286.- \n\r\n\r\n\nToda\r\npersona, natural o jurídica, está obligada a realizar las obras de drenaje que\r\nla autoridad de salud ordene a fin de precaver la formación de focos insalubres\r\ny de infección, o de sanear los que hubiere en predios de su propiedad.\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nSi\r\nel propietario fuere renuente en el cumplimiento de tales órdenes, la autoridad\r\nde salud podrá hacerlos a costa del omiso. \n\r\n\r\n\nEn\r\nlos casos en que el interés público, la naturaleza y envergadura de las obras\r\nde drenaje lo justificare, todo propietario de inmueble está obligado a\r\nconstituir servidumbre en favor del Estado para que la autoridad de salud\r\nconstruya, tales obras pudiendo decretarse la expropiación del terreno cuando\r\nla servidumbre fuere incompatible con su utilización. \n\r\n\r\n\nEl\r\nmantenimiento y operación, si procedieren, estará a cargo de los beneficiarios\r\nde tales obras.” \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo\r\n290.- \n\r\n\r\n\nSe\r\nprohíbe a toda persona destruir o dañar los sistemas de desagües públicos o\r\nprivados u obstruir su funcionamiento.” \n\r\n\r\n\nPor su\r\nparte, en el Capítulo 6, De los deberes y restricciones relativos a las\r\nurbanizaciones y salubridad de la vivienda, dispone lo siguiente: \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo\r\n309.- \n\r\n\r\n\nLas\r\npersonas, naturales y jurídicas, que se ocupen de la urbanización de terrenos\r\ndeberán presentar a la autoridad de salud competente para su estudio previo el\r\nanteproyecto correspondiente y sólo podrán iniciar sus trabajos una vez\r\naprobado el proyecto definitivo. \n\r\n\r\n\nLa\r\naprobación será concedida si el proyecto de urbanización está ubicado en área\r\npermitida por la reglamentación vigente o en su defecto por el Ministerio y\r\ndispone de sistemas sanitarios adecuados de suministro de agua potable, de\r\ndesagüe de aguas pluviales, de disposición de excretas, aguas negras y aguas\r\nservidas.” \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo\r\n313.- \n\r\n\r\n\nToda\r\nvivienda individual, familiar o multifamiliar, deberá cumplir con los\r\nsiguientes requisitos sanitarios: \n\r\n\r\n\n(…)\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n8.\r\nMedios de saneamiento básico: \n\r\n\r\n\n(…) \n\r\n\r\n\nb)\r\nSistemas adecuados de eliminación de excretas, de aguas negras, servidas y\r\npluviales aprobados por la autoridad de salud.” \n\r\n\r\n\n De\r\nla misma normativa se colige la obligación de las autoridades del Ministerio de\r\nSalud de velar por la aplicación y el control del cumplimiento de las\r\ndisposiciones de esa ley y de su reglamentación, sin perjuicio de las\r\nfacultades y obligaciones que leyes especiales otorguen e impongan a otros\r\norganismos públicos dentro de sus respectivos campos de acción (artículo 337). Asimismo,\r\nle corresponde sancionar a los que infrinjan la normativa sanitaria. En virtud\r\nde las obligaciones que la normativa le impone al Ministerio de Salud en\r\nmateria de salud pública, concretamente, en cuanto a fiscalización de los\r\nsistemas de eliminación de aguas pluviales, con el objeto, entre otras cosas,\r\nque no se ponga en riesgo la salud y vida de las personas por problemas de\r\ninundaciones o contaminación que favorezcan la proliferación de vectores,\r\nconsidera este Tribunal que –en la especie- también incurrió en el quebranto a\r\nlos derechos a la salud y al ambiente, en perjuicio del recurrente y de quienes\r\nsufren del estancamiento de aguas pluviales en la comunidad de Río Nuevo-\r\nSegunda Etapa. Al respecto, de la relación de hechos se desprende que desde el\r\n19 de junio del 2007, las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores\r\nfueron informadas, por el recurrente y las demás personas que plantearon la\r\ncorrespondiente denuncia, del referido problema de salud pública. Pese a lo\r\nanterior, y al hecho que mediante un reconocimiento efectuado el 21 de junio\r\ndel 2007, comprobaron la existencia del problema denunciado no adoptaron\r\nmedidas concretas oportunas para solucionarlo. De hecho no consta en el\r\nexpediente, en este momento, que las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud hayan\r\ngirado orden sanitaria alguna o hayan dispuesto alguna otra medida con el fin\r\nde solventar el problema planteado por el accionante,\r\nsimplemente, se limitaron en el informe que remitieron a esta Sala ha indicar\r\nque habían asumido que era la Municipalidad la competente para resolver el\r\ncaso, por lo que a la fecha no habían dispuesto medida correctiva alguna. Dado\r\nel evidente e injustificado retardo en la oportuna atención de un problema de\r\nsalud pública tan grave y urgente como el denunciado, porque, contrario a lo\r\nque presumiblemente entendieron las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de\r\nCorredores, no se limitaba a un problema de obstrucción de desagües de aguas\r\npluviales, sino que se trataba de una situación de riesgo por contagio de\r\ndengue a la población de la zona, considera la Sala que el Ministerio recurrido\r\nquebrantó el derecho a la salud y a un ambienta sano, en perjuicio del\r\nrecurrente y de quienes deben tolerar las inundaciones en sus viviendas y la\r\nproliferación de vectores que pueden dañar severamente su salud. \n\r\n\r\n\nVI.-\r\nSOBRE EL DERECHO A UN PROCEDIMIENTO PRONTO Y CUMPLIDO. El recurrente acusa el quebranto a\r\neste derecho fundamental porque, tanto el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores, como\r\nlas autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de esa Zona, no han resuelto las\r\ndenuncias que planteó, conjuntamente con otros vecinos, en junio del 2007. De\r\nla relación de hechos probados se infiere que las autoridades recurridas no\r\nsolo no han resuelto dichas denuncias, sino que tampoco han informado a los\r\ninteresados del resultado de los reconocimientos que han efectuado en el sitio\r\ny, en general, del estado de esas gestiones. Bajo tales circunstancias,\r\nconsidera este Tribunal que –en la especie- se produjo, además, el acusado\r\nquebranto al derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, ya que el silencio\r\nque ha imperado entre las autoridades recurridas en cuanto al trámite y\r\nresultado de las denuncias planteadas por el recurrente, motivó la\r\ninterposición del presente amparo. Sobre el particular, obsérvese que en su\r\ninforme el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores manifiesta que no se ha informado al\r\nrecurrente sobre los procedimientos seguidos, pues al haber presentado una\r\ndenuncia informal, no señaló lugar para recibir notificaciones (folio 31). De\r\nlos autos se desprende que no lleva razón el indicado funcionario, pues en el\r\nmemorial que se presentó el 12 de junio del 2007, en la Municipalidad de\r\nCorredores (folio 5), el recurrente indicó un número de fax para recibir\r\nnotificaciones. \n\r\n\r\n\nVII.- CONCLUSIÓN. Como corolario de lo expuesto, se\r\nimpone declarar con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que se detallarán\r\nen la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.”", "body_en_text": "**I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The appellant seeks protection of the constitutional rights to health and to a healthy and balanced environment, recognized in articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution, due to the failure of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores and the Ministry of Health to provide a definitive solution to the problem of rainwater ponding in a housing development located in Río Nuevo - Segunda Etapa, caused –presumably– because some neighbors have blocked the pipes and obstructed the drains through which the water flowed, with the aggravating factor of the risk of dengue infection that this situation generates and of flooding in some houses. He alleges that in June of this year, he filed, jointly with other neighbors, two complaints, one before the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and another before the Ministry of Health of that Zone, for them to provide a definitive solution to the problem, and five months later nothing has been done about it. He also accuses the breach of the right to a swift and completed procedure, given that the respondent authorities have not informed him of anything regarding his complaints.\n\n…**I.- ON THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND THE RIGHT TO ENJOY A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.** Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized in articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Constitution, as well as through international regulations. Specifically, article 50 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the right of all inhabitants of the country to enjoy a healthy and perfectly balanced environment. This right is a fundamental guarantee for the protection of life and public health. This constitutional provision is complemented by what is established in numeral 11 of the \"Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales\". Likewise, in relation to the obligations of public authorities to guarantee the right to health and the right to a healthy environment, this Constitutional Tribunal, through judgment No. 180-98 of 4:24 p.m. on January 13, 1998, ordered:\n\n\"...the State not only has the unavoidable responsibility to ensure that the health of each of the persons that make up the national community does not suffer harm from third parties, in relation to these rights, but must also assume the responsibility of achieving the social conditions conducive to each person being able to enjoy their health, this right being understood as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being.\"\n\nIn this sense, the Costa Rican State has the obligation to act preventively, avoiding, through direct supervision and intervention, the performance of acts that harm the environment, which is inevitably correlated with the State's obligation to ensure the preservation of its inhabitants' health. The infra-constitutional regulations develop this right and, in this regard, the General Health Law authorizes the Ministry of Health to take the corresponding sanitary measures and impose sanctions in order to protect the environment and the right to health of individuals. It should be noted that this Tribunal, as guarantor of fundamental rights, stands as a controller of compliance with the obligations derived from the provisions of articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution, which compel the State not only to recognize the aforementioned rights but also to use materially and legally legitimate means to guarantee them.\n\n**IV.- ON THE OMISSION ACCUSED IN RELATION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORREDORES.** From the recitation of facts, it is clear that since June 12, 2007, the municipal authorities were aware of the complaint filed by the appellant and other persons in relation to a serious and urgent public health problem, namely, rainwater ponding causing flooding in some homes and putting the community of Río Nuevo - Segunda Etapa at risk of dengue infection. By virtue of the foregoing, municipal authorities conducted, on the 21st of that same month, an inspection jointly with officials of the Ministry of Health of the Zone, and determined that the reported problem existed. This Tribunal observes that despite the foregoing, it was only on the occasion of the filing of this amparo that the municipal authorities conducted a new on-site inspection and decided to adopt measures to solve the rainwater ponding problem. Hence, five months have unjustifiably elapsed since the complaint was filed, a period during which the municipal authorities did not order any concrete measure to definitively solve the referred public health problem. To the foregoing, it should be added that by virtue of the analysis carried out after the filing of this amparo, the Head of the Cadastre of the Municipality of Corredores also determined that the site design plans do not show that a rainwater drainage system exists or was planned. Under such circumstances, and given that based on the provisions of articles 1 and 87 of the Construction Law and 75 of the Municipal Code, the Municipality is responsible for exercising oversight over works executed in its jurisdiction and, in the case of public health problems, is obligated to report to the health authorities and collaborate with them for compliance with the General Health Law, this Chamber considers that in the case at hand, a breach of the rights to health and a balanced environment occurred on the part of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores, because, to date, they have omitted adopting concrete, timely, and effective measures to resolve the serious problem of rainwater ponding reported by the appellant since June of this year.\n\n**II.- ON THE BREACH ALLEGED IN RELATION TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH.** As noted previously, the infra-constitutional regulations have endowed the Ministry of Health with police power to prevent and guarantee situations such as the one accused by the appellant. In this regard, article 2 of the General Health Law provides that the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, is responsible for defining the national health policy, the regulation, planning, and coordination of all public and private activities related to health, as well as the execution of those activities that fall within its competence according to the law.\n\nIn that sense, the General Health Law itself provides in article 314 that within its powers, the Ministry of Health is responsible for ordering and taking the special measures that the law enables to prevent risk or harm to people's health or to prevent them from spreading or worsening, and to inhibit the continuation or recurrence of the infringement by private individuals. Specifically, regarding the matter at hand, the General Health Law, in Book 1, Title 3, Chapter 3, On the obligations and restrictions for the sanitary evacuation of stormwater, provides, as relevant:\n\n“Article 285.-\n\nExcreta, sewage, wastewater, and stormwater must be disposed of adequately and sanitarily in order to avoid the contamination of soil and natural sources of water for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and diseases, and air contamination through conditions that threaten its purity or quality.”\n\n“Article 286.-\n\nEvery person, natural or legal, is obligated to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to remedy those that may exist on their property.\n\nIf the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may carry them out at the expense of the person in default.\n\nIn cases where the public interest, the nature, and scale of the drainage works justify it, every property owner is obligated to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority may construct such works; the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use.\n\nMaintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works.”\n\n“Article 290.-\n\nEvery person is prohibited from destroying or damaging public or private drainage systems or obstructing their operation.”\n\nFor its part, Chapter 6, On the duties and restrictions relating to subdivisions (urbanizaciones) and housing health, provides the following:\n\n“Article 309.-\n\nNatural and legal persons engaged in the subdivision (urbanización) of land must submit the corresponding preliminary project to the competent health authority for prior study and may only begin their work once the definitive project has been approved.\n\nApproval shall be granted if the subdivision (urbanización) project is located in an area permitted by current regulations or, failing that, by the Ministry, and it has adequate sanitary systems for the supply of potable water, for the drainage of stormwater, and for the disposal of excreta, sewage, and wastewater.”\n\n“Article 313.-\n\nEvery individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements:\n\n(…)\n\n8. Basic sanitation means:\n\n(…)\n\nb) Adequate systems for the disposal of excreta, sewage, wastewater, and stormwater approved by the health authority.”\n\nFrom the same regulations, the obligation of the Ministry of Health authorities to ensure the application and control of compliance with the provisions of that law and its regulations can be inferred, without prejudice to the powers and obligations that special laws grant and impose on other public bodies within their respective fields of action (article 337). Likewise, it is responsible for sanctioning those who violate health regulations. By virtue of the obligations that the regulations impose on the Ministry of Health regarding public health, specifically, concerning the inspection of stormwater disposal systems, with the purpose, among other things, of ensuring that people's health and lives are not put at risk due to flooding or contamination problems that favor the proliferation of vectors, this Court considers that – in this case – it also incurred in a violation of the rights to health and the environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who suffer from the stagnation of stormwater in the community of Río Nuevo-Segunda Etapa. In this regard, it is clear from the account of facts that since June 19, 2007, the authorities of the Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores were informed by the petitioner and the other persons who filed the corresponding complaint, of the aforementioned public health problem. Despite the foregoing, and the fact that through an inspection carried out on June 21, 2007, they verified the existence of the denounced problem, they did not adopt timely, concrete measures to solve it. In fact, it is not recorded in the file, at this time, that the Ministry of Health authorities issued any sanitary order or ordered any other measure to resolve the problem raised by the petitioner; they simply limited themselves, in the report sent to this Chamber, to indicating that they had assumed it was the Municipality that was competent to resolve the case, and therefore, to date, they had not ordered any corrective measure. Given the evident and unjustified delay in the timely attention of a public health problem as serious and urgent as the one denounced, because, contrary to what the Ministry of Health authorities of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to a problem of obstructed stormwater drains, but rather was a risk situation due to the spread of dengue to the population of the area, the Chamber considers that the respondent Ministry violated the right to health and to a healthy environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who must tolerate flooding in their homes and the proliferation of vectors that can severely harm their health.\n\nVI.- ON THE RIGHT TO A SWIFT AND FULFILLED PROCEDURE. The petitioner accuses the violation of this fundamental right because both the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and the authorities of the Ministry of Health of that Zone have not resolved the complaints he filed, jointly with other neighbors, in June 2007. From the account of proven facts, it is inferred that the respondent authorities have not only failed to resolve said complaints, but have also not informed the interested parties of the results of the inspections they have carried out at the site and, in general, of the status of those proceedings. Under such circumstances, this Court considers that – in this case – the alleged violation of the right to a swift and fulfilled procedure occurred as well, since the silence that has prevailed among the respondent authorities regarding the processing and result of the complaints filed by the petitioner motivated the filing of this amparo. On this matter, it is noted that in his report, the Municipal Mayor of Corredores states that the petitioner has not been informed about the procedures followed, since, having filed an informal complaint, he did not indicate a place to receive notifications (folio 31). It is clear from the case file that the indicated official is incorrect, because in the brief presented on June 12, 2007, at the Municipality of Corredores (folio 5), the petitioner indicated a fax number to receive notifications.\n\nVII.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary to the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal to have merit, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.”\n\nFrom the statement of facts, it is clear that since June 12, 2007, the municipal authorities had knowledge of the complaint filed by the petitioner and other individuals regarding a grave and urgent public health problem, namely, the stagnation of rainwater causing flooding in some homes and putting the community of Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa at risk of dengue infection. By virtue of the foregoing, municipal authorities carried out an on-site inspection on the 21st of that same month, jointly with officials of the Ministry of Health of the Zone, and determined that the reported problem existed. This Court observes that despite the above, it was not until the occasion of the filing of this amparo that the municipal authorities carried out a new on-site inspection and decided to adopt measures to solve the problem of rainwater stagnation. Hence, five months have passed unjustifiably since the complaint was filed, a period during which the municipal authorities did not order any concrete measure to definitively solve the aforementioned public health problem. To the foregoing, it should be added that by virtue of the analysis carried out after the filing of this amparo, the Head of the Cadastre of the Municipality of Corredores also determined that the site's design plans do not show that a storm sewer exists or was planned. Under such circumstances and given that, based on the provisions of articles 1 and 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and 75 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the Municipality is responsible for exercising oversight over the works executed in its jurisdiction and that, in cases of public health problems, it is obliged to report to the health authorities and collaborate with them for the enforcement of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), this Chamber considers that in the instant case, a violation of the rights to health and a balanced environment occurred on the part of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores, because, to date, they have omitted to adopt concrete, timely, and effective measures to resolve the grave problem of rainwater stagnation reported by the petitioner since June of this year.\n\n**II.- REGARDING THE VIOLATION ALLEGED IN RELATION TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH**. As noted previously, the infra-constitutional regulations have endowed the Ministry of Health with police power to prevent and guarantee against situations such as the one alleged by the petitioner. In this regard, article 2 of the General Health Law provides that the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, is responsible for defining the national health policy, the regulation, planning, and coordination of all public and private activities related to health, as well as the execution of those activities that fall within its competence according to the law. In that sense, the General Health Law itself provides in article 314 that within its powers, the Ministry of Health is responsible for ordering and taking the special measures enabled by law to avoid risk or damage to the health of individuals or to prevent them from spreading or worsening, and to inhibit the continuation or recurrence of the infraction by private parties. Specifically, regarding the matter at hand, the General Health Law, in Book 1, Title 3, Chapter 3, On the obligations and restrictions for the sanitary evacuation of rainwater, provides, as relevant:\n\n\"**Article 285.-**\n\nExcreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater shall be eliminated adequately and sanitarily to avoid the contamination of the soil and natural water sources for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and disease, and air contamination through conditions that threaten its purity or quality.\"\n\n\"**Article 286.-**\n\nEvery person, natural or legal, is obliged to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to clean up those that exist on their property.\n\nIf the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may carry them out at the expense of the non-compliant party.\n\nIn cases where the public interest, the nature, and magnitude of the drainage works justify it, every property owner is obliged to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority can construct such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use.\n\nThe maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works.\"\n\n\"**Article 290.-**\n\nEvery person is prohibited from destroying or damaging public or private drainage systems or obstructing their functioning.\"\n\nFor its part, Chapter 6, On the duties and restrictions relating to developments and the healthiness of housing, provides the following:\n\n\"**Article 309.-**\n\nNatural and legal persons engaged in the development of land must submit the corresponding preliminary project to the competent health authority for prior study and may only begin their work once the definitive project has been approved.\n\nApproval shall be granted if the development project is located in an area permitted by current regulations or, failing that, by the Ministry, and has adequate sanitary systems for the supply of potable water, for the drainage of rainwater, and for the disposal of excreta, black water, and gray water.\"\n\n\"**Article 313.-**\n\nEvery individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements:\n\n(…)\n\n8. Basic sanitation means:\n\n(…)\n\nb) Adequate systems for the elimination of excreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater approved by the health authority.\"\n\nFrom the same regulations, the obligation of the authorities of the Ministry of Health to ensure the application and control of compliance with the provisions of that law and its regulations is inferred, without prejudice to the faculties and obligations that special laws grant and impose on other public bodies within their respective fields of action (article 337). Likewise, it is responsible for sanctioning those who infringe the sanitary regulations. By virtue of the obligations that the regulations impose on the Ministry of Health in matters of public health, specifically, regarding the oversight of rainwater elimination systems, with the purpose, among other things, of ensuring that the health and life of people are not put at risk by flooding problems or contamination that favor the proliferation of vectors, this Court considers that – in the instant case – it also incurred in the violation of the rights to health and the environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those suffering from the stagnation of rainwater in the community of Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa. In this regard, from the statement of facts, it is clear that since June 19, 2007, the authorities of the Corredores Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores) were informed, by the petitioner and the other persons who filed the corresponding complaint, of the aforementioned public health problem. Despite the above, and the fact that through an on-site inspection carried out on June 21, 2007, they verified the existence of the reported problem, they did not adopt timely concrete measures to solve it. In fact, there is no evidence in the case file, at this time, that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have issued any sanitary order or have ordered any other measure in order to resolve the problem raised by the plaintiff; simply, they limited themselves in the report they sent to this Chamber to indicating that they had assumed that the Municipality was the competent entity to resolve the case, and therefore, to date, they had not ordered any corrective measure. Given the evident and unjustified delay in the timely attention to a public health problem as grave and urgent as the one reported, because, contrary to what the authorities of the Ministry of Health of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to a problem of obstructed rainwater drains, but rather was a risk situation due to dengue infection for the population of the area, the Chamber considers that the respondent Ministry violated the right to health and a healthy environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who must tolerate the flooding in their homes and the proliferation of vectors that can severely damage their health.\n\n**VI.- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO A PROMPT AND FULFILLED PROCEDURE.** The petitioner alleges the violation of this fundamental right because both the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and the authorities of the Ministry of Health of that Zone have not resolved the complaints he filed, jointly with other neighbors, in June 2007. From the statement of proven facts, it is inferred that the respondent authorities have not only not resolved said complaints but also have not informed the interested parties of the result of the on-site inspections they have carried out and, in general, of the status of those procedures. Under such circumstances, this Court considers that – in the instant case –, additionally, the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled procedure occurred, since the silence that has prevailed among the respondent authorities regarding the processing and result of the complaints filed by the petitioner motivated the filing of this amparo. On this matter, it is noted that in his report, the Municipal Mayor of Corredores states that the petitioner has not been informed about the procedures followed, since having filed an informal complaint, he did not indicate a place to receive notifications (folio 31). From the case file, it is clear that the indicated official is not correct, because in the brief that was filed on June 12, 2007, with the Municipality of Corredores (folio 5), the petitioner indicated a fax number to receive notifications.\n\n**VII.- CONCLUSION**. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the amparo with merit, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.”" }