{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-391606",
  "citation": "Res. 35684-2026 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Amenaza de desalojo sin respaldo objetivo",
  "title_en": "Eviction Threat Without Objective Support",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional concluyó que no se acreditó una amenaza cierta, concreta e inminente de desalojo contra las personas que ocupaban las fincas en conflicto: las intervenciones policiales documentadas atendieron incidentes relacionados con delitos ambientales, tala y transporte ilegal de madera, alteraciones del orden público u otras situaciones, y no se probó que anunciaran o ejecutaran un desalojo.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) concluded that no certain, concrete, and imminent eviction threat against the people occupying the disputed properties had been established: the documented police interventions addressed incidents related to environmental offenses, logging and illegal timber transport, public-order disturbances, or other situations, and there was no evidence that an eviction had been announced or carried out.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "17/09/2026",
  "year": "2026",
  "topic_ids": [],
  "primary_topic_id": null,
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "recurso de amparo",
    "Fuerza Pública",
    "desalojo",
    "amenaza cierta, concreta e inminente",
    "delitos ambientales",
    "tala ilegal",
    "prueba indiciaria"
  ],
  "article_citations": [],
  "keywords_es": [
    "recurso de amparo",
    "amenaza de desalojo",
    "Fuerza Pública",
    "fincas en conflicto",
    "delitos ambientales",
    "tala ilegal",
    "transporte ilegal de madera",
    "amenaza cierta e inminente",
    "prueba indiciaria"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "amparo proceeding",
    "eviction threat",
    "Public Force",
    "disputed properties",
    "environmental offenses",
    "illegal logging",
    "illegal timber transport",
    "certain and imminent threat",
    "circumstantial evidence"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "No obstante, tales intervenciones estuvieron relacionadas con incidentes vinculados con delitos ambientales, tala y transporte ilegal de recursos maderables, alteración del orden público u otras situaciones semejantes, sin que se haya acreditado que, con ocasión de esas actuaciones, se hubiera comunicado, insinuado o ejecutado algún desalojo.\n\nAsí las cosas, no existe prueba directa ni indiciaria suficiente que permita tener por demostrada la amenaza denunciada por la parte recurrente.",
  "excerpt_en": "Nevertheless, those interventions were related to incidents involving environmental offenses, logging and illegal transport of timber resources, disturbances of public order, or similar situations, without it being established that any eviction had been communicated, suggested, or carried out in connection with those actions.\n\nAccordingly, there is no sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to consider the threat alleged by the applicant proven.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber denied the amparo because no eviction order, preparatory action, or objective and imminent threat was proven.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso porque no se demostró una orden, actuación preparatoria ni amenaza objetiva e inminente de desalojo."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "quote_en": "Amparo jurisdiction may intervene in response to threats to fundamental rights, but those threats must be supported by objective circumstances that make it reasonable to find that they exist, rather than by a merely hypothetical or contingent possibility.",
      "quote_es": "La jurisdicción de amparo puede intervenir frente a amenazas a derechos fundamentales, pero estas deben encontrarse sustentadas en circunstancias objetivas que permitan apreciar razonablemente su existencia, y no en una posibilidad meramente hipotética o eventual."
    },
    {
      "context": "Por tanto",
      "quote_en": "The amparo is denied.",
      "quote_es": "Se declara sin lugar el recurso."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-391606",
  "tier": 2,
  "is_environmental": true,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "DESALOJO"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "PROPIEDAD"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "035684-26.\nAcusa que existe riesgo de desalojo de familias campesinas que ocupan\nfincas en conflicto sobre las que existen procesos judiciales\npendientes solicita suspender cualquier desalojo y garantizar el\ndebido proceso antes de adoptar medidas en su contra. RGS09/2026\n\n“(…)\nLa parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra el Ministerio\nde Seguridad Pública, al considerar que oficiales de la Fuerza\nPública de Los Chiles han amenazado con desalojar a un grupo de\ncampesinos que ocupan las fincas 260430 y 355095, sin exhibir orden\njudicial ni administrativa. Sostiene que ello constituye una amenaza\nreal e inminente a sus derechos fundamentales y solicita que se\ndeclare con lugar el recurso. (…)”\n\n“8…)\nCiertamente, consta que funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública atendieron\ndiversos incidentes en esos inmuebles los días 6,\n26, 27 y 28 de julio, así como 10, 14, 15, 17 y 21 de agosto de\n2026.\nNo obstante, tales intervenciones estuvieron relacionadas con\nincidentes vinculados con delitos ambientales, tala y transporte\nilegal de recursos maderables, alteración del orden público u otras\nsituaciones semejantes, sin que se haya acreditado que, con ocasión\nde esas actuaciones, se hubiera comunicado, insinuado o ejecutado\nalgún desalojo.\n\n Así las\ncosas, no\nexiste prueba directa ni indiciaria suficiente que permita tener por\ndemostrada la amenaza denunciada por la parte recurrente.\nLa sola afirmación de que determinados funcionarios policiales\nhabrían anunciado verbalmente un eventual desalojo, sin otros\nelementos objetivos que la respalden y frente a los informes rendidos\nbajo juramento que descartan la existencia de una orden, trámite o\nactuación encaminada a ese propósito, no resulta suficiente para\ntener por configurada una amenaza cierta, concreta e inminente\nsusceptible de tutela en esta vía constitucional. La jurisdicción\nde amparo puede intervenir frente a amenazas a derechos\nfundamentales, pero estas deben encontrarse sustentadas en\ncircunstancias objetivas que permitan apreciar razonablemente su\nexistencia, y no en una posibilidad meramente hipotética o eventual.\n\n En\nconsecuencia, al no comprobarse que exista orden de desalojo alguna,\nni actuación material o preparatoria dirigida a desalojar al\nrecurrente o a las demás personas ocupantes de los inmuebles\nmencionados, no\nse advierte una amenaza o afectación actual a los derechos\nfundamentales invocados.\nPor ende, lo procedente es declarar\nsin lugar el recurso,\ncomo en efecto se dispone. (…)”\n\n“(…)\nSe declara sin lugar el recurso. –”",
  "body_en_text": "035684-26.\nIt is alleged that there is a risk that peasant families occupying disputed farms, which are the subject of pending judicial proceedings, will be evicted. The request is to suspend any eviction and guarantee due process before taking measures against them. RGS09/2026\n\n“(…)\nThe applicant files an amparo proceeding against the Ministry of Public Security, considering that officers of the Fuerza Pública (Public Force) in Los Chiles have threatened to evict a group of peasant farmers occupying farms 260430 and 355095 without producing a judicial or administrative order. The applicant maintains that this constitutes a real and imminent threat to their fundamental rights and asks that the amparo application be granted. (…)”\n\n“8…)\nIt is true that the record shows that Fuerza Pública officials responded to various incidents on those properties on 6, 26, 27, and 28 July, and on 10, 14, 15, 17, and 21 August 2026.\nHowever, those interventions related to incidents involving environmental offenses, illegal logging and transport of timber resources, disturbances of public order, or similar situations, and it has not been established that any eviction was communicated, suggested, or carried out in connection with those actions.\n\nAccordingly, there is no sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the threat alleged by the applicant.\nThe mere assertion that certain police officers allegedly announced verbally that an eviction might occur, without other objective evidence to support it and in the face of reports submitted under oath ruling out the existence of an order, proceeding, or action aimed at that purpose, is not sufficient to establish a certain, specific, and imminent threat that may be addressed through this constitutional remedy. The amparo jurisdiction may intervene in response to threats to fundamental rights, but those threats must be supported by objective circumstances that make it reasonable to find that they exist, and not by a merely hypothetical or possible eventuality.\n\nConsequently, since it has not been established that any eviction order exists, or that any material or preparatory action has been taken to evict the applicant or the other people occupying the aforementioned properties, no current threat to or impairment of the fundamental rights invoked is apparent.\nTherefore, the appropriate course is to declare the amparo application without merit, as is hereby ordered. (…)”\n\n“(…)\nThe amparo application is declared without merit. –”"
}