{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-138565", "citation": "Res. 02637-2011 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Homologación de terminales móviles y proporcionalidad", "title_en": "Mobile terminal homologation and proportionality", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional analiza un recurso de amparo contra la exigencia de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SUTEL) de que los operadores solo activen en sus redes equipos terminales que porten un sello de homologación, incluso cuando el modelo ya hubiera sido previamente homologado. La Sala declara que el procedimiento de homologación en sí es razonable y conforme al artículo 46 de la Constitución, pues protege la salud, seguridad e intereses de los usuarios y promueve la sostenibilidad ambiental al evitar la importación de basura tecnológica. Sin embargo, considera que la prohibición absoluta de activar terminales sin el sello, a pesar de que sus características técnicas ya hayan sido revisadas y aprobadas, vulnera el principio de razonabilidad en su subprincipio de proporcionalidad en sentido estricto. La restricción al derecho de los consumidores a elegir libremente sus dispositivos y acceder a los servicios públicos es desproporcionada respecto al fin buscado. Por ello, acoge parcialmente el amparo solo contra la SUTEL por esa prohibición absoluta, y desestima los alegatos contra el ICE, que se limitó a cumplir las disposiciones del ente regulador. Se condena a la SUTEL al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber reviews an amparo action challenging the requirement by the Telecommunications Superintendency (SUTEL) that operators only activate network terminals bearing a homologation seal, even when the model had already been homologated. The Chamber holds that the homologation procedure itself is reasonable and consistent with Article 46 of the Constitution, as it protects users' health, safety, and economic interests and promotes environmental sustainability by preventing the importation of technological waste. However, it finds that the absolute prohibition on activating terminals without the seal, despite their technical characteristics having already been reviewed and approved, violates the principle of reasonableness in its sub-principle of strict proportionality. The restriction on consumers' right to freely choose their devices and access public services is disproportionate to the aim pursued. Consequently, the amparo is partially granted only against SUTEL for that absolute prohibition, while the claims against ICE are dismissed since it merely complied with the regulatory agency's provisions. SUTEL is ordered to pay costs, damages, and losses.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2011", "year": "2011", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "homologación", "SUTEL", "principio de razonabilidad", "proporcionalidad en sentido estricto", "basura tecnológica" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 46", "law": "Constitución Política" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Sala Constitucional", "homologación de terminales", "Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones", "SUTEL", "proporcionalidad en sentido estricto", "razonabilidad", "derechos del consumidor", "telefonía móvil", "basura tecnológica", "sostenibilidad ambiental", "artículo 46 Constitución Política", "libre competencia" ], "keywords_en": [ "Constitutional Chamber", "terminal homologation", "Telecommunications Superintendency", "SUTEL", "strict proportionality", "reasonableness", "consumer rights", "mobile telephony", "technological waste", "environmental sustainability", "Article 46 Constitution", "free competition" ], "excerpt_es": "Ante tal hipótesis, se puede concluir válidamente que el requerimiento impuesto por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, en cuanto a la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las redes de telefonía celular aparatos terminales que no cuenten con el citado distintivo, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, se convierte en una prohibición de alcance general que, para este Tribunal, no alcanza a satisfacer la “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto” -como subprincipio del principio constitucional de razonabilidad y que consiste en la determinación de la existencia de un equilibrio o balance entre el medio empleado y el fin perseguido-.\n\nEste Tribunal Constitucional entiende que la decisión de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan activar en sus redes, aquellos equipos terminales que cuenten con el respectivo identificador de homologación, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas, supone una violación al principio constitucional de razonabilidad o proporcionalidad –por contravenir el subprincipio de “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del derecho de los consumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y servicios públicos de su interés.", "excerpt_en": "Under such hypothesis, it can be validly concluded that the requirement imposed by the Telecommunications Superintendency, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting to cellular telephone networks terminal devices that do not bear the aforementioned distinctive, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Telecommunications Superintendency, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not satisfy the \"strict proportionality\" standard —as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness, which consists in determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued—.\n\nThis Constitutional Court understands that the decision of the Telecommunications Superintendency to require operators or providers of telecommunications services available to the public to only activate in their networks those terminal equipment that bear the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality —by contravening the sub-principle of \"strict proportionality\"—, to the detriment of consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The amparo is partially granted against the Telecommunications Superintendency for its disproportionate requirement to only activate previously homologated terminals with a seal, and dismissed as to the ICE.", "summary_es": "Se declara parcialmente con lugar el amparo contra la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones por la exigencia desproporcionada de un sello de homologación para activar terminales ya homologados, y se desestima contra el ICE." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "It also seeks to protect environmental sustainability by preventing the importation of \"technological waste.\"", "quote_es": "También se pretender resguardar la sostenibilidad ambiental, el evitarse la importación de “basura tecnológica”." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "What is neither coherent nor reasonable is that if a user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal device that does not bear the homologation distinctive (...) they are required, through an erroneous interpretation of the rules, to submit their device to the entire homologation procedure.", "quote_es": "Lo que no resulta coherente, ni razonable, es que si un usuario adquiere, de forma lícita, un equipo o aparato terminal de telefonía celular que no cuenta con el distintivo de homologación, (...) se le exija por una errónea interpretación normativa, someter su aparato a todo el procedimiento de homologación." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "the absolute prohibition of connecting to cellular telephone networks terminal devices that do not bear the aforementioned distinctive (...) does not satisfy the \"strict proportionality\" standard.", "quote_es": "la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las redes de telefonía celular aparatos terminales que no cuenten con el citado distintivo (...) no alcanza a satisfacer la “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "the decision of the Telecommunications Superintendency (...) constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality —by contravening the sub-principle of 'strict proportionality'—, to the detriment of consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.", "quote_es": "la decisión de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (...) supone una violación al principio constitucional de razonabilidad o proporcionalidad –por contravenir el subprincipio de “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del derecho de los consumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y servicios públicos de su interés." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-138565", "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-26314", "norm_num": "7593", "norm_name": "Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "09/08/1996" }, { "doc_id": "norm-63431", "norm_num": "8642", "norm_name": "Ley General de Telecomunicaciones", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/06/2008" }, { "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_num": "0", "norm_name": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política", "norm_fecha": "07/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“II. Sobre la homologación de equipos terminales para el uso de\r\ntelefonía móvil.- Del análisis de la prueba aportada a los autos, así como\r\ndel estudio de los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas, concluye\r\nesta Sala que, en general, el procedimiento desarrollado en las resoluciones\r\nnúmero RCS-614-2009 y número RCS-427\r\ndel Consejo de la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones, resulta congruente con lo dispuesto en el artículo 46 de\r\nla Constitución\r\n Política, por cuanto mediante dicho procedimiento se procura\r\ngarantizar los equipos que se pretenden conectar, a la red de telefonía móvil,\r\ncumplan condiciones o estándares mínimos, de forma que se garantice la salud,\r\nla seguridad y los intereses económicos de los propios usuarios. Las\r\ndisposiciones contenidas en dichas resoluciones sustentadas en el Reglamento\r\nsobre el Régimen de protección al consumidor y en la leyes N°\r\n7593 y N° 8642, tienen como fundamento, además de las\r\nnormas jurídicas diversas razones comerciales, técnicas y sociales. Entre\r\nlas razones de índole técnico se incluyen, entre otras, asegurar que los\r\nequipos terminales permitan al usuario el poder elegir y cambiar libremente al\r\nproveedor de servicios, recibir el servicio en forma continua y equitativa,\r\ntener acceso a las mejoras que el proveedor implemente, recibir servicios de\r\ncalidad en los términos estipulados previamente y pactados con el proveedor, y\r\npoder acceder a la información en idioma español. Dentro de las razones\r\nsociales se incluyen, a su vez, medidas tendientes a proteger la seguridad del\r\nusuario, frente a radiaciones no ionizantes y ante posibles ataques a la\r\nprivacidad de las comunicaciones. También se pretender resguardar la sostenibilidad ambiental, el evitarse la importación de\r\n“basura tecnológica”. Todos estos aspectos justifican, debidamente, el\r\nProcedimiento para la Homologación\r\nde Terminales de Telefonía Móvil desarrollado por el ente regulador mediante\r\nlas citadas resoluciones número RCS-614-2009 y número\r\nRCS-427-2010. Por lo expuesto, en cuanto a este\r\nextremo lo procedente es desestimar el recurso.-\n\r\n\r\n\n III.-\r\nSobre la obligación que tiene un operador o proveedor de activar en sus redes\r\núnicamente terminales homologadas por la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones. Como ya se indicó, el citado procedimiento de homologación\r\npretende resguardar la salud, seguridad e intereses económicos de los usuarios,\r\nal verificar el correcto y seguro funcionamiento de los dispositivos o equipos\r\nterminales que se introducen el país con la intención de conectarse a las redes\r\nde servicio de telefonía móvil. Lo que, en principio, resulta razonable. Por\r\notro lado debe destacarse que dicha obligación con el procedimiento de\r\nhomologación resulta aplicable a las empresas operadoras o\r\nproveedores que ulteriormente obtienen el certificado de homologación, los\r\ncuales deben enviar las listas de los equipos móviles previo a su\r\ndistribución o comercialización a nivel nacional. Exigencia que también es\r\nrazonable, cuando se trata de empresas que se dedican a ese giro comercial. Lo\r\nque no resulta coherente, ni razonable, es que si un usuario adquiere, de forma\r\nlícita, un equipo o aparato terminal de telefonía\r\ncelular que no cuenta con el distintivo de homologación, (según el considerando\r\nX, punto 6, de la resolución RCS-614-2009), pero la\r\nmarca y modelo de su equipo, así como las versiones de hardware, software, firmware y sistema operativo que éste contiene, y han sido\r\nanalizadas y probadas por la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones en ocasiones anteriores y se ha determinado que sí son\r\nidóneos para conectarse a las redes de telefonía celular, se le exija por una\r\nerrónea interpretación normativa, someter su aparato a todo el procedimiento de\r\nhomologación desarrollado en dicha resolución. Ello va en contra de lo\r\ndispuesto en el artículo 17 del Reglamento de protección al usuario final de\r\nlos servicios de telecomunicaciones, dispone: \"(...) Adicionalmente,\r\nlos operadores está obligados a activar los equipos terminales que se\r\nencuentren homologados por la SUTEL\r\ny habilitados para funcionar en su red (...)\" y en el último\r\npárrafo de dicha norma se indica: \"Para aquellos casos en los\r\nque el usuario compre tanto el equipo terminal así\r\ncomo otros que sean necesarios para adquirir algún serviciio\r\nde telecomunicaciones, estos no pueden considerarse como activos de los\r\noperadores o proveedores de servicio.\". Dicha exigencia de la Superintendencia\r\nestá vigente, según lo informa el Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto\r\nCostarricense de Electricidad; en virtud de la resolución RCS-614-2009.\r\nEn tal caso, si el proveedor u operador del servicio puede establecer con\r\ncerteza el origen lícito del aparato y que éste corresponde a una marca, modelo\r\ny versión de software, firmware y sistema operativo\r\nque ya ha sido previamente homologados por la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones -en virtud de alguna solicitud de homologación planteada\r\npor algún otro importador, distribuidor, proveedor, operador o particular-, y\r\nsi además se cumplen los demás requisitos impuestos por el ordenamiento\r\njurídico, no existe una justificación razonable para que se le deniegue el\r\nusuario la prestación del servicio, independientemente que el aparato cuente o\r\nno con el citado distintivo. Máxime si el requisito para obtener el distintivo\r\nen cuestión es someter el aparato al referido procedimiento de homologación.\r\nAnte tal hipótesis, se puede concluir válidamente que el requerimiento impuesto\r\npor la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones, en cuanto a la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las\r\nredes de telefonía celular aparatos terminales que no cuenten con el citado\r\ndistintivo, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas\r\nque ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones, se convierte en una prohibición de alcance general que,\r\npara este Tribunal, no alcanza a satisfacer la “proporcionalidad en sentido\r\nestricto” -como subprincipio del principio\r\nconstitucional de razonabilidad y que consiste en la\r\ndeterminación de la existencia de un equilibrio o balance entre el medio\r\nempleado y el fin perseguido-. \n\r\n\r\n\n IV.-\r\nSobre la política de libre competencia y la protección al Consumidor\r\ngarantizada a nivel constitucional. La libre competencia es uno de los pilares\r\nsobre los que se asienta la economía de libre mercado, siendo que la actividad\r\neconómica se basa en tres aspectos: necesidades crecientes, medios escasos para\r\nsatisfacer esas necesidades y uso alternativo de esos medios. Así, la libre\r\ncompetencia busca garantizar la máxima satisfacción de necesidades, mediante un\r\nuso eficiente de los recursos, las cuales no se circunscriben a cuestiones\r\npuramente materiales, sino también a necesidades intangibles, en particular los\r\nderechos inherentes a la persona. El objeto de la libre competencia es\r\ngarantizar el libre acceso al mercado de los operadores económicos, sin que\r\nencuentren barreras injustificadas, evitando prácticas que de algún modo\r\nrestrinjan o limiten la oferta en unos pocos agente\r\neconómicos. La anterior filosofía impacta, con mayor razón, el tema de las\r\ntelecomunicaciones en una sociedad globalizada en donde se requiere, por parte\r\nde los usuarios y consumidores, garantías de acceso a los diferentes servicios.\r\nTodo consumidor tiene derecho a elegir, dentro de su ámbito de libertad\r\nindividual, y bajo el respeto de las regulaciones mínimas que garantizan los\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones, la forma y el medio de acceder libremente a\r\nlos referidos bienes y servicios. En particular, tienen que tener un abanico\r\nabierto de posibilidades para poder escoger el aparato que más le convenga, atendiendo\r\nal precio y a sus necesidades personales, para solicitar la conexión del\r\nservicio. En consecuencia, el consumidor, respetando las normas legales y las\r\nexigencias técnicas que el legislador fija con criterios de razonabilidad\r\ny proporcionalidad para la prestación de un servicio público, podría solicitar\r\nla activación de un servicio de telefonía móvil. En ese sentido, es preciso\r\nindicar, el grado de satisfacción o cumplimiento del bien constitucional, cual,\r\nes proteger el servicio público y la calidad del servicio público brindado, no\r\nes equiparable con la restricción que se le impone al cliente o usuario. En\r\neste aspecto en concreto, es donde alcanza relevancia la regla que las\r\nafectaciones de derechos fundamentales deben ser lo más restringida, posibles\r\ny, consecuencia las mínimas necesarias para alcanzar su finalidad, los Organos Públicos, sin renunciar a sus potestades, no deben\r\nexcederse en su ejercicio, con el establecimiento de disposiciones que transgredan esa regla y el obligado equilibro entre la\r\nfinalidad que busca lograr con la medida y la restricción, limitación, o\r\nafectación de derechos fundamentales que se produce para lograrlo. En este\r\npunto resulta importante rescatar lo que dispone el artículo 46 de la Constitución\r\n Política, en cuanto consagra varios principios y derechos,\r\nrelacionados con la libertad empresarial y la protección de los derechos del\r\nconsumidor. Con la puesta en marcha de dicha disposición constitucional, se\r\npretende evitar el ejercicio de una posición dominante, o prácticas monopólicas que impidan una competencia efectiva. El\r\nejercicio de dicho poder, puede provocar la capacidad de eliminar o debilitar\r\nde forma importante la competencia existente, o impedir que competidores\r\npotenciales entren en el mercado. Este Tribunal Constitucional entiende que la\r\ndecisión de la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de servicios\r\nde telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan activar en\r\nsus redes, aquellos equipos terminales que cuenten con el respectivo\r\nidentificador de homologación, independientemente que el aparato presente\r\ncaracterísticas técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas, supone una\r\nviolación al principio constitucional de razonabilidad\r\no proporcionalidad –por contravenir el subprincipio\r\nde “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del derecho de los\r\nconsumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y servicios públicos\r\nde su interés. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- En cuanto\r\nal caso en concreto del teléfono BlackBerry. De los informes\r\nrendidos bajo juramento se extrae que el terminal que\r\nmenciona el recurrente, sea un BlackBerry, el cual “es\r\nuna solución inalámbrica líder que se soporta sobre el servicio de telefonía\r\ncelular que permite a los usuarios permanecer conectados a su correo personal o\r\nempresarial” que permite la sincronización de correo electrónico, el envío\r\ny recepción de mensajería SMS y MMS,\r\nla navegación WEB, visualización de archivos adjuntos, utilizar su dispositivo\r\ncomo módem, utilizar su terminal como una agenda u\r\norganizador, utilizar mensajería instantánea e internet,\r\npor lo que los terminales de esta gama deben cumplir con una serie de pruebas\r\nestablecidas en el procedimiento de homologación de terminales de telefonía\r\nmóvil para comprobar su correcto funcionamiento. Como bien se mencionó\r\nanteriormente, el proceso de homologación resulta razonable, lo que no resulta\r\nrazonable es el hecho de negar la activación de un modelo de Terminal que ya\r\nfue previamente homologado, y que por el hecho de no portar el sello de Sutil,\r\nal usuario se le niega la activación del mismo, a pesar de cumplir con todos\r\nlos otros requisitos legales necesarios para su activación. \n\r\n\r\n\n VI.-\r\nEn conclusión. En razón de lo anterior, procede acoger parcialmente el amparo,\r\núnicamente respecto a la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones por su determinación de exigirle a los operadores o\r\nproveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que\r\núnicamente puedan activar en sus redes aquellos aparatos o equipos terminales\r\nque cuenten con el respectivo identificador de homologación, independientemente\r\nque el aparato presente características técnicas (marca, modelo y versión de\r\nhardware, software, firmware y sistema operativo) que\r\nya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia\r\nde Telecomunicaciones. Respecto a los demás alegatos y la actuación del\r\nInstituto Costarricense de Electricidad procede desestimar el amparo en\r\nestudio, por cuanto este se ha limitado a cumplir su obligación de ajustarse a\r\nlas disposiciones emitidas por el ente regulador en materia de\r\ntelecomunicaciones.”", "body_en_text": "II. On the homologation (homologación) of terminal equipment for mobile telephone use.- From the analysis of the evidence provided in the case file, as well as the study of the reports rendered by the respondent authorities, this Chamber concludes that, in general, the procedure developed in resolutions number RCS-614-2009 and number RCS-427 of the Council of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, is consistent with the provisions of Article 46 of the Constitución Política, since this procedure seeks to ensure that the equipment intended to be connected to the mobile telephone network meets minimum conditions or standards, so as to guarantee the health, safety, and economic interests of the users themselves. The provisions contained in these resolutions, supported by the Reglamento sobre el Régimen de protección al consumidor and by Laws N° 7593 and N° 8642, are based, in addition to the legal norms, on various commercial, technical, and social reasons. Among the technical reasons are included, among others, ensuring that the terminal equipment allows the user to freely choose and change service providers, receive service continuously and equitably, have access to improvements implemented by the provider, receive quality services under the terms previously stipulated and agreed upon with the provider, and be able to access information in the Spanish language. Within the social reasons are included, in turn, measures aimed at protecting user safety against non-ionizing radiation and possible attacks on communication privacy. It also seeks to protect environmental sustainability (sostenibilidad ambiental), and to avoid the importation of \"technological waste.\" All these aspects duly justify the Procedure for the Homologation of Mobile Telephone Terminals developed by the regulatory entity through the cited resolutions number RCS-614-2009 and number RCS-427-2010. For the foregoing reasons, on this point, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal.-\n\n\nIII.- On the obligation of an operator or provider to activate on its networks only terminals homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. As already indicated, the aforementioned homologation procedure seeks to protect the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe functioning of the terminal devices or equipment introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile telephone service networks. This is, in principle, reasonable. On the other hand, it should be noted that this obligation with the homologation procedure is applicable to the operating or provider companies that subsequently obtain the homologation certificate, which must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to its distribution or commercialization at the national level. This requirement is also reasonable when dealing with companies dedicated to this commercial activity. What is not coherent, nor reasonable, is that if a user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device that does not have the homologation distinctive (distintivo de homologación) (according to Considerando X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009), but the brand and model of their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating system versions it contains, have been analyzed and tested by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones on previous occasions and it has been determined that they are suitable for connecting to cellular telephone networks, they are required, due to an erroneous normative interpretation, to subject their device to the entire homologation procedure developed in that resolution. This goes against the provisions of Article 17 of the Reglamento de protección al usuario final de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, which states: \"(...) Additionally, operators are obligated to activate terminal equipment that is homologated by SUTEL and enabled to operate on their network (...)\" and the last paragraph of said norm indicates: \"For those cases in which the user purchases both the terminal equipment as well as other equipment necessary to acquire any telecommunications service, these cannot be considered as assets of the operators or service providers.\". This requirement of the Superintendencia is in force, according to the report of the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad; by virtue of resolution RCS-614-2009. In such a case, if the service provider or operator can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device and that it corresponds to a brand, model, and version of software, firmware, and operating system that has already been previously homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones - by virtue of a homologation request made by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or private individual -, and if the other requirements imposed by the legal system are also met, there is no reasonable justification for denying the user the provision of the service, regardless of whether the device has the aforementioned distinctive or not. This is especially true if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to subject the device to the referred homologation procedure. Given such a hypothesis, it can be validly concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the aforementioned distinctive to cellular telephone networks, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not satisfy \"proportionality in the strict sense\" (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto) - as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued -.\n\n\nIV.- On the policy of free competition and Consumer protection guaranteed at the constitutional level. Free competition is one of the pillars upon which the free market economy rests, with economic activity being based on three aspects: growing needs, scarce means to satisfy those needs, and the alternative use of those means. Thus, free competition seeks to guarantee the maximum satisfaction of needs through the efficient use of resources, which are not limited to purely material matters but also extend to intangible needs, in particular the inherent rights of the person. The object of free competition is to guarantee free access to the market for economic operators, without them encountering unjustified barriers, avoiding practices that in some way restrict or limit supply to a few economic agents. The preceding philosophy impacts, with even greater reason, the subject of telecommunications in a globalized society where users and consumers require guarantees of access to various services. Every consumer has the right to choose, within their sphere of individual freedom, and under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and the means of freely accessing the referred goods and services. In particular, they must have a wide range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering the price and their personal needs, to request the connection of the service. Consequently, the consumer, respecting the legal norms and the technical requirements that the legislator establishes with criteria of reasonableness and proportionality for the provision of a public service, could request the activation of a mobile telephone service. In that sense, it is necessary to indicate that the degree of satisfaction or fulfillment of the constitutional good, which is protecting the public service and the quality of the public service provided, is not comparable with the restriction imposed on the client or user. It is in this specific aspect that the rule becomes relevant that affectations of fundamental rights must be as restricted as possible, and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose; Public Bodies, without renouncing their powers, must not exceed their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought to be achieved by the measure and the restriction, limitation, or affectation of fundamental rights that occurs to achieve it. At this point, it is important to reiterate what is provided in Article 46 of the Constitución Política, as it enshrines various principles and rights related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. The implementation of that constitutional provision seeks to prevent the exercise of a dominant position, or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can lead to the capacity to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court understands that the decision of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services that they may only activate on their networks those terminal equipment that bear the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, represents a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality – for contravening the sub-principle of “proportionality in the strict sense” –, to the detriment of the right of consumers to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.\n\n\nV.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry telephone. From the reports rendered under oath, it is extracted that the terminal mentioned by the appellant, a BlackBerry, which “is a leading wireless solution supported over the cellular telephone service that allows users to remain connected to their personal or corporate email” and which enables email synchronization, the sending and receiving of SMS and MMS messaging, WEB browsing, viewing attachments, using their device as a modem, using their terminal as an agenda or organizer, and using instant messaging and internet, mean that terminals of this range must comply with a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct functioning. As was well mentioned previously, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying the activation of a terminal model that was previously homologated, and because it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied its activation, despite complying with all other legal requirements necessary for its activation.\n\n\nVI.- In conclusion. By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services that they may only activate on their networks those terminal devices or equipment that bear the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model, and version of hardware, software, firmware, and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. Regarding the other allegations and the actions of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, it is appropriate to dismiss the amparo under study, since it has limited itself to fulfilling its obligation to comply with the provisions issued by the regulatory entity in the matter of telecommunications.”\n\nIn this specific aspect, the rule gains relevance that impairments of fundamental rights must be as restricted as possible and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose. Public Bodies (Órganos Públicos), without renouncing their powers, must not exceed them in their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought to be achieved with the measure and the restriction, limitation, or impairment of fundamental rights that occurs to achieve it. At this point, it is important to recall what is provided in Article 46 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), insofar as it enshrines several principles and rights related to entrepreneurial freedom and the protection of consumer rights. The implementation of said constitutional provision is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position, or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can cause the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) understands that the decision of the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones) to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness (razonabilidad) or proportionality –for contravening the subprinciple (subprincipio) of “proportionality in the strict sense”–, to the detriment of consumers’ right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.

\n\n

V.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry phone. From the reports rendered under oath, it is extracted that the terminal (terminal) mentioned by the appellant, being a BlackBerry, which “is a leading wireless solution supported over cellular telephone service that allows users to stay connected to their personal or business email”, which allows email synchronization, sending and receiving SMS and MMS messaging, web browsing, viewing attachments, using the device as a modem, using the terminal (terminal) as an agenda or organizer, using instant messaging and internet, so that terminals in this range must comply with a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct operation. As was well mentioned previously, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying the activation of a Terminal model that was previously homologated, and due to the fact that it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied its activation, despite complying with all other legal requirements necessary for its activation.

\n\n

            VI.- In conclusion. By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones) for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal devices or equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model and version of hardware, software, firmware (firmware) and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications (Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones). Regarding the remaining allegations and the actions of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), it is appropriate to dismiss the amparo under study, insofar as it has limited itself to complying with its obligation to adhere to the provisions issued by the regulatory body in matters of telecommunications.”

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt is precisely in this specific aspect that the rule gains relevance—restrictions on fundamental rights must be as limited as possible and, consequently, the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose. Public bodies, without renouncing their powers, must not exceed in their exercise by establishing provisions that transgress that rule and the obligatory balance between the purpose sought by the measure and the restriction, limitation, or impairment of fundamental rights produced to achieve it. At this point, it is important to recall what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, insofar as it enshrines various principles and rights related to freedom of enterprise and consumer protection. The implementation of that constitutional provision seeks to prevent the exercise of a dominant position or monopolistic practices that impede effective competition. The exercise of such power can bring about the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. This Constitutional Court understands that the decision of the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality—by contravening the sub-principle of “proportionality in the strict sense”—to the detriment of consumers' right to freely choose and access the goods and public services of interest to them.\n\n**V.- Regarding the specific case of the BlackBerry telephone.** From the reports rendered under oath, it is gleaned that the terminal mentioned by the appellant is a BlackBerry, which *“is a leading wireless solution supported by cellular telephone service that allows users to stay connected to their personal or business email,”* enabling email synchronization, sending and receiving SMS and MMS messaging, web browsing, viewing attached files, using the device as a modem, using the terminal as an agenda or organizer, using instant messaging and the internet; therefore, terminals in this range must pass a series of tests established in the homologation procedure for mobile telephone terminals to verify their correct operation. As mentioned above, the homologation process is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the fact of denying activation for a terminal model that has already been previously homologated and, because it does not bear the SUTEL seal, the user is denied activation thereof, even though it meets all the other legal requirements necessary for its activation.\n\n**VI.- In conclusion.** By reason of the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the amparo, solely with respect to the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones for its determination to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to activate on their networks only those terminal devices or equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics (brand, model and hardware version, software, firmware, and operating system) that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones. With respect to the remaining allegations and the actions of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the amparo under study is to be dismissed, since ICE has merely complied with its obligation to adhere to the provisions issued by the regulatory body in telecommunications matters.”" }