{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-159044",
  "citation": "Res. 00001-2017 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Competencias de SUTEL y homologación de terminales móviles",
  "title_en": "SUTEL's Powers and Mobile Device Homologation",
  "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección VI, analiza las competencias de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SUTEL) en relación con la homologación y venta de teléfonos móviles, a raíz de una demanda presentada por un particular. El demandante alegaba omisiones de SUTEL en la fiscalización de la venta de terminales no homologados por comercios como \"Casa Blanca\", tras adquirir un dispositivo que presentó fallas. El Tribunal delimita que la SUTEL solo puede regular, fiscalizar y sancionar a \"operadores\" y \"proveedores\" de servicios de telecomunicaciones, definidos en la Ley General de Telecomunicaciones (No. 8642). Concluye que los comerciantes que simplemente venden teléfonos, sin ofrecer el servicio de telefonía, no son sujetos regulados por la SUTEL, sino que están bajo el régimen general de protección al consumidor (Ley No. 7472). Si bien SUTEL impone un trámite de homologación a operadores para garantizar la conectividad, no puede exigirlo a terceros comerciantes. Además, basándose en jurisprudencia constitucional, el fallo confirma que el usuario final es libre de adquirir y activar terminales no homologados, siempre que cumplan características técnicas ya aprobadas, asumiendo los riesgos de su decisión. Por tanto, la demanda contra SUTEL es declarada sin lugar.",
  "summary_en": "The Administrative Court, Section VI, analyzed the powers of the Telecommunications Superintendency (SUTEL) regarding the homologation and sale of mobile phones, prompted by a lawsuit filed by an individual. The plaintiff alleged SUTEL's omissions in overseeing the sale of non-homologated devices by businesses like \"Casa Blanca,\" after purchasing a faulty device. The Court limited SUTEL's authority to regulate, supervise, and sanction only \"operators\" and \"providers\" of telecommunications services, as defined by the General Telecommunications Law (No. 8642). It concluded that merchants who merely sell phones, without offering the telephony service, are not regulated entities under SUTEL but fall under general consumer protection law (Law No. 7472). While SUTEL may require operators to homologate devices to ensure connectivity, it cannot impose this requirement on third-party merchants. Citing Constitutional Chamber precedent, the ruling confirms that end users are free to buy and activate non-homologated devices if they meet previously approved technical specifications, assuming the risks. The lawsuit against SUTEL was therefore dismissed.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI",
  "date": "2017",
  "year": "2017",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "SUTEL",
    "homologación de terminales",
    "operadores y proveedores de telecomunicaciones",
    "Ley General de Telecomunicaciones No. 8642",
    "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor No. 7472",
    "ARESEP"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 60",
      "law": "Ley 7593"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 73 inciso m",
      "law": "Ley 7593"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 1",
      "law": "Ley 8642"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 6 inciso 12",
      "law": "Ley 8642"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 6 inciso 16",
      "law": "Ley 8642"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 45",
      "law": "Ley 8642"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 41 inciso j",
      "law": "Ley 8660"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 46",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "SUTEL",
    "homologación",
    "terminales móviles",
    "Ley General de Telecomunicaciones",
    "protección al consumidor",
    "ARESEP",
    "competencia administrativa",
    "telefonía celular"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "SUTEL",
    "homologation",
    "mobile devices",
    "General Telecommunications Law",
    "consumer protection",
    "ARESEP",
    "administrative authority",
    "cellular telephony"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "VI.- Sobre el trámite de homologación de terminales móviles. (...) Si bien en virtud del campo de acción de la Ley No. 8642, la SUTEL puede exigir al operador de redes públicas o proveedor de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público, la comercialización de terminales homologadas, esa exigencia no puede aplicarse, como pretende el accionante a los terceros comerciantes que no son operadores o proveedores regulados, sin que pueda desprenderse de la Ley No. 8642 o de la Ley No. 7593, la asignación de una competencia expresa conferida a la SUTEL para regular la venta de aparatos móviles celulares por parte de quienes no tengan concesión o autorización para operar el servicio de telecomunicaciones. Se trata de una actividad comercial no restringida, que si bien se encuentra sujeta a las reglas normales del derecho de consumo, no puede ser fiscalizada de manera inmediata y directa por el órgano persona accionado.\n\nVII.- Las anteriores consideraciones ponen en evidencia que el requisito de homologación que ha impuesto la SUTEL es válido y aplicable exclusivamente para los operadores y proveedores, más no así para aquellas personas (físicas o jurídicas) que tengan como parte de una actividad comercial legítima, la venta de este tipo de dispositivos móviles, sin ofrecer al público la conectividad a la red de telefonía celular, pues para tales efectos, se insiste, requieren de habilitación administrativa concedida por la Superintendencia mencionada, y en tales casos, sí es exigible y razonable el requerimiento de venta de aparatos homologados. (...) De lo expuesto por la Sala Constitucional se desprende que el usuario puede conectar a la red una terminal que no haya sido homologada previamente, siempre y cuando cumpla con las mismas características (identidad de marca, modelo, versión de hardware, software, firmware, sistema operativo, entre otros) de otras terminales que hayan sido homologadas por la SUTEL.",
  "excerpt_en": "VI.- On the mobile device homologation process. (...) Although by virtue of the scope of Law No. 8642, SUTEL may require public network operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to market only homologated devices, this requirement cannot be applied, as the plaintiff intends, to third-party merchants who are not regulated operators or providers, nor can an express power be derived from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593 granting SUTEL authority to regulate the sale of mobile devices by those without a concession or authorization to operate telecommunications services. This is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, while subject to ordinary consumer protection rules, cannot be directly and immediately supervised by the defendant body.\n\nVII.- The foregoing considerations show that the homologation requirement imposed by SUTEL is valid and applicable exclusively to operators and providers, but not to those individuals or legal entities engaged in a legitimate commercial activity of selling such mobile devices, without offering connectivity to the cellular network to the public, since for those purposes, they require an administrative authorization granted by the Superintendency, and in such cases, the requirement to sell homologated devices is indeed enforceable and reasonable. (...) From the Constitutional Chamber's holdings, it follows that a user may connect a non-homologated device to the network, provided it shares the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, etc.) as other devices previously homologated by SUTEL.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Dismissed",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Court dismissed the lawsuit against SUTEL, finding it lacks legal authority to regulate the sale of mobile devices by businesses that are not telecommunications operators or providers.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal declaró sin lugar la demanda contra la SUTEL, determinando que carece de competencia legal para regular la venta de terminales móviles por parte de comercios no operadores o proveedores de telecomunicaciones."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando V",
      "quote_en": "SUTEL's powers, insofar as they extend only to operators and providers of telecommunications services, do not include merchants engaged in the sale of mobile phones, unless those devices are traded by a service operator or provider",
      "quote_es": "las competencias de SUTEL, en la medida en que se extiende únicamente a los operadores y proveedores de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, no incluye a los comerciantes que se dedican a la venta de teléfonos móviles, salvo que esos dispositivos sean transados por un operador o proveedor de servicios"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VII",
      "quote_en": "the decision to acquire a homologated device or one without that condition rests exclusively with the end user, who is entitled to choose the equipment of their preference (...) and assumes the consequences of the risks of that decision",
      "quote_es": "la decisión de adquirir un dispositivo homologado o uno sin esa condición, atañe exclusivamente al usuario final, pues se encuentra facultado para elegir el equipo de su preferencia (...) asume las consecuencias de los riesgos de su decisión"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI (citando voto 2011-003089 Sala Constitucional)",
      "quote_en": "the requirement imposed by the Telecommunications Superintendency regarding the absolute prohibition on connecting terminal devices lacking said label to cellular networks (...) becomes a general prohibition that (...) fails to satisfy 'proportionality in the strict sense'",
      "quote_es": "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 (...) se convierte en una prohibición de alcance general que (...) no alcanza a satisfacer la 'proporcionalidad en sentido estricto'"
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-26314",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 7593  Art. 60"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-63431",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 8642  Art. 1"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-63786",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 8660  Art. 41 inciso j"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-159044",
  "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-63786",
      "norm_num": "8660",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "08/08/2008"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“IV. Sobre las competencias de SUTEL y rol de tutela del\r\nservicio de telecomunicaciones. Mediante el artículo 41 aparte j) de la\r\nLey No. 8660 del 08 de agosto del 2008, se adicionó un capítulo XI, a la Ley de\r\nla Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, No. 7593, para incluir\r\nmediante reforma a los numerales 59 al 81, la creación de la SUTEL. Se trata de\r\nun órgano de desconcentración máxima adscrito a la ARESEP, con personalidad\r\njurídica instrumental para administrar el Fondo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones\r\n(art. 59). Desde ese plano, constituye la instancia rectora en el campo de las\r\ntelecomunicaciones, producto de lo cual, acorde al ordinal 60 de la Ley No.\r\n7593, ostenta las siguientes obligaciones derivadas de sus potestades de\r\nimperio: \"Son obligaciones fundamentales de la Sutel: a) Aplicar el\r\nordenamiento jurídico de las telecomunicaciones, para lo cual actuará en\r\nconcordancia con las políticas del Sector, lo establecido en el Plan nacional\r\nde desarrollo de las telecomunicaciones, la Ley general de telecomunicaciones,\r\nlas disposiciones establecidas en esta Ley y las demás disposiciones legales y\r\nreglamentarias que resulten aplicables. b) Administrar el Fondo Nacional de\r\nTelecomunicaciones y garantizar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de acceso y\r\nservicio universal que se impongan a los operadores de redes y proveedores de\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones. c) Promover la diversidad de los servicios de\r\ntelecomunicaciones y la introducción de nuevas tecnologías. d) Garantizar y\r\nproteger los derechos de los usuarios de las telecomunicaciones. e) Velar por\r\nel cumplimiento de los deberes y derechos de los operadores de redes y\r\nproveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones. f) Asegurar, en forma objetiva,\r\nproporcional, oportuna, transparente, eficiente y no discriminatoria, el acceso\r\na los recursos escasos asociados con la operación de redes y la prestación de\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones. g) Controlar y comprobar el uso eficiente del\r\nespectro radioeléctrico, las emisiones radioeléctricas, así como la inspección,\r\ndetección, identificación y eliminación de las interferencias perjudiciales y\r\nlos recursos de numeración, conforme a los planes respectivos. h) Asegurar el\r\ncumplimiento de las obligaciones de acceso e interconexión que se impongan a\r\nlos operadores de redes de telecomunicaciones, así como la interoperabilidad de\r\ndichas redes. i) Establecer y garantizar estándares de calidad de las redes y\r\nde los servicios de telecomunicaciones para hacerlos más eficientes y\r\nproductivos. j) Velar por la sostenibilidad ambiental en la explotación de las\r\nredes y la prestación de los servicios de telecomunicaciones. k) Conocer y\r\nsancionar las infracciones administrativas en que incurran los operadores de\r\nredes y los proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones; así como establecer\r\nla responsabilidad civil de sus funcionarios.\". Acorde a estas\r\ncompetencias, y atendiendo a los principios que impone la Ley General de\r\nTelecomunicaciones, No. 8642, la SUTEL se constituye como una instancia que\r\ningresa en una dinámica triangular, en la que concurren los operadores y\r\nproveedores de los servicios de telecomunicación, a quienes regula, fiscaliza y\r\ncontrola en lo referente al cumplimiento de los deberes y obligaciones\r\nasociados a esa condición y además, tutela los derechos de los usuarios de\r\nestos servicios. Esto hace surgir niveles de relaciones diversas que se\r\npresentan entre SUTEL-operadores (y proveedores), SUTEL-usuarios, y el control\r\nde las relaciones entre operador-usuario, operador-operador, a fin de que se\r\nsatisfagan debidamente los principios impuestos por el ordinal 3 de la Ley No.\r\n9462 (universalidad, solidaridad, beneficio al usuario, transparencia,\r\npublicidad, competencia efectiva, no discriminación, neutralidad tecnológica,\r\noptimización de recursos, privacidad de información y sostenibilidad\r\nambiental). Desde el plano de los usuarios, el canon 45 ejusdem establece la\r\nlista de derechos que le son propios como destinatarios de los servicios\r\naludidos; de igual manera, los mandatos 47 y 48 de ese cuerpo legal establecen\r\nel procedimiento de atención de reclamaciones de los usuarios, en el cual, se\r\ndetalla que deberán formular las reclamaciones ante el operador o proveedor,\r\nquien debe resolver en un plazo máximo de 10 días naturales, pudiendo pasar el\r\nconocimiento del caso a la SUTEL en los supuestos de falta de respuesta,\r\nresolución negativa o insuficiente. Cabe destacar que cuando la reclamación sea\r\nfundada, sin perjuicio de las sanciones pertinentes, la Sutel dictará las\r\ndisposiciones pertinentes para que se corrijan las anomalías y, cuando en\r\nderecho corresponda, ordenará resarcir los daños y perjuicios en sede\r\nadministrativa. Estas decisiones serán vinculantes para las partes involucradas,\r\nsin detrimento de la posibilidad de su impugnación administrativa o\r\ncuestionamiento en sede judicial contencioso-administrativa. Esta potestad de\r\nregulación lleva implícita la de sanción, misma que viene reconocida a partir\r\ndel ordinal 65 ibídem, tema que no se amerita ponderar en este proceso. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- Sujetos obligados frente a las competencias de la\r\nSUTEL. Ahora bien, para efectos de este proceso, es necesario tener claridad\r\nde los sujetos a quienes aplican las regulaciones de la SUTEL acorde al marco\r\nnormativo señalado y a los que por ende, son extensibles las competencias de\r\nese órgano administrativo. En ese sentido, la Ley No. 8642 en su numeral\r\nprimero, referente al objeto y ámbito de aplicación, establece en el párrafo\r\nsegundo: \"...Están sometidas a la presente Ley y a la jurisdicción\r\ncostarricense, las personas, físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas,\r\nnacionales o extranjeras, que operen redes o presten servicios de\r\ntelecomunicaciones que se originen, terminen o transiten por el territorio\r\nnacional.\" Desde ese plano, las regulaciones y competencias propias de\r\nla SUTEL se direccionan a los operadores y proveedores del sector de\r\ntelecomunicaciones, sea que cuenten con alguno de los títulos habilitantes que\r\nla ley estipula. Desde luego que estas competencias se extienden a los\r\noperadores o proveedores ilegítimos, respecto de los cuales podrían aplicarse\r\nlas acciones correctivas que correspondan. Esto exige precisar el contenido de\r\nesos conceptos. La misma ley se dedica a expresar estos conceptos, y señala que\r\nel operador es toda persona física o jurídica, pública o privada, que explota\r\nredes de telecomunicaciones con la debida concesión o autorización, las cuales\r\npodrán prestar o no servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público en\r\ngeneral (art. 6 inciso 12). Por su parte, define como proveedor a la persona\r\nfísica o jurídica, pública o privada, que proporciona servicios de\r\ntelecomunicaciones disponibles al público sobre una red de telecomunicaciones\r\ncon la debida concesión o autorización, según corresponda (art. 6 inciso 16). La\r\ndebida comprensión de las anteriores reglas permite concluir anticipadamente,\r\ncomo aspecto relevante para este proceso, que las competencias de SUTEL, en la\r\nmedida en que se extiende únicamente a los operadores y proveedores de los\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones, no incluye a los comerciantes que se dedican a\r\nla venta de teléfonos móviles, salvo que esos dispositivos sean transados por\r\nun operador o proveedor de servicios, como parte de las relaciones jurídicas que\r\nejercen a partir de la concesión o autorización administrativa otorgada; sea,\r\nque con la adquisición de servicios de telefonía móvil (caso que resulta\r\nimportante a esta causa), se negocie la entrega, arrendamiento o compra de un\r\ndispositivo de esa índole. Empero, en los supuestos de casas o establecimientos\r\ncomerciales que se dediquen a la venta de los teléfonos móviles, sin incluir el\r\nservicio de telefonía dentro de esa transacción, no encajan dentro del concepto\r\nde operador o proveedor del servicio, por lo que las regulaciones que en ese\r\ncampo emita la SUTEL, no son directamente aplicables, así como ese órgano no\r\nposee competencia legal para restringir, controlar o sancionar a ese giro\r\neconómico, salvo que se compruebe un ejercicio ilegítimo contrario a la Ley No.\r\n8642, lo que no se presenta en este caso. Vale precisar, que el contenido y\r\nalcance de las transacciones consistentes en compra y venta de dispositivos\r\nmóviles con casas comerciales que no sea operadores o proveedores (legítimos)\r\nde servicios de telecomunicaciones, así como la tutela de los derechos del\r\nconsumidor de esos productos, es un tema que si bien escapa de las competencias\r\nde la SUTEL, se encuentra regulada y comprendida en la Ley de Promoción de la\r\nCompetencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, No. 7472, misma que establece\r\nreglas especiales y específicas para este fin público, así como instancias\r\ninstitucionales, sea, la Comisión Nacional del Consumidor, a las cuales puede\r\nacudir la persona que estime lesionados sus derechos al adquirir teléfonos\r\nmóviles que no satisfagan sus expectativas de funcionalidad. \n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- Sobre el trámite de homologación de\r\nterminales móviles. No obstante, con la finalidad de concretar y satisfacer los\r\nprincipios ya señalados, que imperan y se imponen en el campo de las\r\ntelecomunicaciones, la SUTEL ha creado un trámite de homologación de\r\ndispositivos, lo que garantiza al usuario que el aparato que adquiere,\r\nfuncionará correctamente en cuanto a la conectividad con la red de\r\ntelecomunicaciones. En ese sentido, y al amparo del artículo 73, inciso m) de\r\nla Ley No. 7593, así como del numeral 17 del Reglamento sobre el Régimen de\r\nProtección al Usuario Final de los Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, y los\r\nartículos 13, 14, 15 y 16 del Reglamento de Prestación y Calidad de los\r\nServicios, la resolución RCS-332-2013, de las 11 :00 horas del 11 de diciembre,\r\npublicada en el diario oficial La Gaceta 247 del 23 de diciembre del 2013, fija\r\ny establece las condiciones mínimas de los terminales móviles que se deben\r\nverificar de previo a la comercialización por parte de los operadores y\r\nproveedores de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, con el fin de procurar el\r\ncorrecto y seguro funcionamiento de los equipos terminales y determinar que\r\ncumplan con estándares necesarios para operar en las redes móviles\r\ncostarricenses, y de esta forma garantizar la salud, la seguridad y los\r\nintereses económicos de los usuarios finales. Incluso, en el mismo acto\r\naludido, se señala en el por tanto número 11 que establece: \"...en el\r\ncaso de que los OBLIGADOS comercialicen, distribuyan o incluyan en sus planes\r\nterminales bloqueados, los OBLIGADOS deberán sustituirlos por terminales que se\r\nencuentren desbloqueados y debidamente homologados por parte de la SUTEL sin\r\nperjuicio del derecho de la SUTEL de tomar las acciones sancionatorias\r\ncorrespondientes...\". Si bien en virtud del campo de acción de la Ley\r\nNo. 8642, la SUTEL puede exigir al operador de redes públicas o proveedor de\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público, la comercialización de\r\nterminales homologadas, esa exigencia no puede aplicarse, como pretende el\r\naccionante a los terceros comerciantes que no son operadores o proveedores\r\nregulados, sin que pueda desprenderse de la Ley No. 8642 o de la Ley No. 7593,\r\nla asignación de una competencia expresa conferida a la SUTEL para regular la\r\nventa de aparatos móviles celulares por parte de quienes no tengan concesión o\r\nautorización para operar el servicio de telecomunicaciones. Se trata de una\r\nactividad comercial no restringida, que si bien se encuentra sujeta a las\r\nreglas normales del derecho de consumo, no puede ser fiscalizada de manera\r\ninmediata y directa por el órgano persona accionado. Así visto, en el presente\r\nasunto no se ha podido comprobar que el establecimiento comercial denominado\r\nCasa Blanca sea un sujeto regulado por la SUTEL, por lo que, el alegato del\r\nactor en cuanto a supuestas omisiones o inercias en el ejercicio de las\r\ncompetencias de fiscalización y control sobre el cumplimiento del contenido de\r\nlas resoluciones que imponen el trámite de homologación, no son atendibles. Ergo,\r\nlejos de lo que afirma el accionante, la Administración demandada no posee\r\ncompetencia legal para regular o sancionar la venta de terminales móviles no\r\nhomologados, en la medida en que, se insiste, esa competencias es propia de las\r\nrelaciones de consumo que se encuentran regidas por la Ley No. 7472, por lo que\r\nno le corresponde sancionar la venta de aparatos no homologados por este tipo\r\nde establecimientos, en lo que corresponde a la calidad y buen funcionamiento\r\ndel dispositivo en si mismo considerado. Ante ello, la alegación de que la\r\nSUTEL incurre en omisiones que potencian y propician la venta de teléfonos\r\ncelulares no homologados no encuentra respaldo, en la medida en que se expresa\r\nsobre la base de la supuesta experiencia del accionante de haber adquirido en\r\nun negocio no regulado por ese órgano, un aparato que ha presentado\r\ndeficiencias de operación y conectividad. En esa línea, cabe destacar que el\r\nmismo actor reconoce que sabía y fue informado en el negocio Casa Blanca, que\r\nel teléfono que adquiría no estaba homologado, inclinando su elección de\r\nconsumo sobre la base de un tema de costos (según su dicho). Asimismo, conocía\r\nque adquiría el dispositivo móvil de un agente comercial que no es operador de\r\nredes celulares. Desde esa arista de examen, las deficiencias de operación que\r\nalega ha tenido el citado aparato, no han de ser dirimidas ante la SUTEL, sino\r\nante las instancias de protección al consumidor ya referidas. Cabe destacar que\r\nla misma Sala Constitucional se ha referido al tema de la homologación\r\nrequerida por la SUTEL para los dispositivos distribuidos, entregados o\r\ntransados por los operadores o proveedores. En ese sentido, en el voto No.\r\n2011-003089 de las 08 horas 38 minutos del 11 de marzo del 2011, ese Tribunal\r\nConstitucional resolvió un recurso de amparo en el que ese cuestionaba la\r\nresolución número RCS-614-2009 del Consejo de la Superintendencia de\r\nTelecomunicaciones, publicada en el diario oficial La Gaceta del 25 de enero\r\ndel 2009, denominada \"Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales\r\nde Telefonía Móvil\". En ese fallo sobre el tema analizado indicó en lo\r\nrelevante: \"IV.- SOBRE LA OBLIGACION QUE TIENE UN OPERADOR O\r\nPROVEEDOR DE ACTIVAR EN SUS REDES UNICAMENTE TERMINALES HOMOLOGADAS POR LA\r\nSUPERINTENDENCIA DE TELECOMUNICACIONES . Como ya se indicó, el\r\ncitado procedimiento de homologación pretende resguardar la salud, seguridad e\r\nintereses económicos de los usuarios, al verificar el correcto y seguro\r\nfuncionamiento de los dispositivos o equipos terminales que se introducen el\r\npaís con la intención de conectarse a las redes de servicio de telefonía móvil.\r\nLo que, en principio, resulta razonable. Por otro lado debe destacarse que\r\ndicha obligación con el procedimiento de homologación resulta aplicable a las\r\nempresas operadoras o proveedores que ulteriormente obtienen el certificado de\r\nhomologación, 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 en particular\r\nadquiere, de forma lícita, un equipo o aparato terminal de telefonía celular\r\nque no cuenta con el distintivo de homologación a que hace referencia el\r\nconsiderando X, punto 6, de la resolución RCS-614-2009, pero la marca y modelo\r\nde su equipo, así como las versiones de hardware, software, firmware y sistema\r\noperativo que éste contiene, ya han sido analizadas y probadas por la SUTEL en\r\nocasiones anteriores y ya se ha determinado que sí son idóneos para conectarse\r\na las redes de telefonía celular, se le exija por una errónea interpretación\r\nnormativa, someter su aparato a todo el procedimiento de homologación\r\ndesarrollado en dicha resolución –para que así pueda obtener el mencionado\r\ndistintivo y así su aparato pueda ser conectado a la red de telefonía-. Situación\r\nque está ocurriendo actualmente, según lo informa el Presidente Ejecutivo del\r\nInstituto Costarricense de Electricidad. En tal caso, si el proveedor u\r\noperador del servicio puede establecer con certeza el origen lícito del aparato\r\ny que éste corresponde a una marca, modelo y versión de software, firmware y\r\nsistema operativo que ya ha sido previamente homologados por la\r\nSuperintendencia de Telecomunicaciones -en virtud de alguna solicitud de\r\nhomologación planteada por algún otro importador, distribuidor, proveedor,\r\noperador o particular-, y si además se cumplen los demás requisitos impuestos\r\npor el ordenamiento jurídico, no existe una justificación razonable para que se\r\nle deniegue el usuario la prestación del servicio, independientemente que el\r\naparato cuente o no con el citado distintivo. Máxime si el requisito para\r\nobtener el distintivo en cuestión es someter el aparato al referido\r\nprocedimiento de homologación. Ante tal hipótesis, se puede concluir que el\r\nrequerimiento impuesto por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, en cuanto\r\na la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las redes de telefonía celular aparatos\r\nterminales que no cuenten con el citado distintivo, independientemente que el\r\naparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y\r\nhomologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, se convierte en una\r\nprohibición de alcance general que, para este Tribunal, no alcanza a satisfacer\r\nla “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto” -como subprincipio del principio\r\nconstitucional de razonabilidad y que consiste en la determinación de la\r\nexistencia de un equilibrio o balance entre el medio empleado y el fin\r\nperseguido-. (...)\" El resaltado es propio. \n\r\n\r\n\nVII.- Las anteriores consideraciones ponen en evidencia que el requisito de\r\nhomologación que ha impuesto la SUTEL es válido y aplicable exclusivamente para\r\nlos operadores y proveedores, más no así para aquellas personas (físicas o\r\njurídicas) que tengan como parte de una actividad comercial legítima, la venta\r\nde este tipo de dispositivos móviles, sin ofrecer al público la conectividad a\r\nla red de telefonía celular, pues para tales efectos, se insiste, requieren de\r\nhabilitación administrativa concedida por la Superintendencia mencionada, y en\r\ntales casos, sí es exigible y razonable el requerimiento de venta de aparatos\r\nhomologados. Por otro lado, en esa misma resolución, la Sala Constitucional\r\ndestacó la ilegitimidad de requerir al usuario, como requisito de conectividad,\r\nla utilización exclusiva de dispositivos homologados. En esa línea, en el\r\nconsiderando V, indica: \"V.- SOBRE LA POLÍTICA DE LIBRE COMPETENCIA Y\r\nLA PROTECCIÓN AL CONSUMIDOR GARANTIZADA A NIVEL CONSTITUCIONAL. (...) Todo\r\nconsumidor, tiene derecho a elegir, dentro de su ámbito de libertad individual,\r\ny bajo el respeto de las regulaciones mínimas que garantizan los servicios de\r\ntelecomunicaciones, la forma y el medio de acceder libremente a los referidos\r\nbienes servicios. En particular, tienen que tener un abanico abierto de\r\nposibilidades para poder escoger el aparato que más le convenga, atendiendo al\r\nprecio y a sus necesidades personales, para solicitar la conexión del servicio.\r\n(...) En este punto resulta importante rescatar lo que dispone el artículo 46\r\nde la Constitución 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, que impida una\r\ncompetencia efectiva. El ejercicio de dicho poder, puede provocar la capacidad\r\nde eliminar o debilitar de forma importante la competencia existente, o impedir\r\nque competidores potenciales entre en el mercado. Por lo que este Tribunal\r\nentiende que la decisión de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de\r\nservicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan\r\nactivar en sus 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 por la\r\nSuperintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, supone una violación al principio\r\nconstitucional de razonabilidad o proporcionalidad –por contravenir el\r\nsubprincipio de “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del\r\nderecho de los consumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y\r\nservicios públicos de su interés.\" De ahí que este Tribunal comparta\r\nlas alegaciones de la SUTEL en cuanto indica que al socaire de esas\r\nconsideraciones, la decisión de adquirir un dispositivo homologado o uno sin\r\nesa condición, atañe exclusivamente al usuario final, pues se encuentra\r\nfacultado para elegir el equipo de su preferencia, no obstante, atendiendo a\r\nlas implicaciones de la homologación, cual es, establecer las condiciones\r\nmínimas de operación de los equipos terminales que se conectarán a las redes de\r\nlos operadores y proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al\r\npúblico, asume las consecuencias de los riesgos de su decisión. De lo expuesto\r\npor la Sala Constitucional se desprende que el usuario puede conectar a la red\r\nuna terminal que no haya sido homologada previamente, siempre y cuando cumpla\r\ncon las mismas características (identidad de marca, modelo, versión de\r\nhardware, software, firmware, sistema operativo, entre otros) de otras\r\nterminales que hayan sido homologadas por la SUTEL. Sin embargo, es evidente\r\nque los aparatos no homologados y que no poseen ninguna similitud con uno\r\npreviamente homologado, podrían presentar deficiencias de funcionamiento en\r\ncuanto a conectividad, pudiendo causar algún grado de interferencia o daño en\r\nla calidad e integridad de la red. Empero, se reitera, la adquisición y la utilización de una terminal con homologación o sin ella, es decisión\r\nlibre del usuario final. Incluso, tal y como\r\nse ha establecido en el elenco de hechos probados, como previsión a este aspecto,\r\ndentro el por tanto número 7 de la resolución número RCS-332-2013, acuerdo\r\n015-066-2013 -referida en el aparte previo-, se dispuso: \"7. Señalar\r\nque cuando un usuario final desee activar un dispositivo móvil no homologado,\r\nlos OBLIGADOS, con excepción de aquellos que realicen venta y distribución de\r\nterminales, deberán solicitar al usuario la respectiva documentación o prueba\r\nfehaciente y razonable que compruebe el origen licito del aparato y verificar\r\nque éste cuente con las mismas características técnicas (marca, modelo, versión\r\nde hardware, software/firmware y sistema operativo) que los equipos homologados\r\npor la SUTEL. Asimismo, el usuario deberá firmar, de previo a la activación de\r\nlos servicios, un documento donde manifieste que renuncia a futuras reclamaciones\r\npor problemas de calidad del servicio, de acuerdo con el siguiente formato:\r\n(...).\" (Imágenes 42-68 del expediente, en concreto, 46-47) Esta\r\ndisposición exige a los obligados que, de previo a conectar a la red un\r\ndispositivo no homologado, adquirido por medios lícitos, requieran al usuario\r\nla acreditación de su adquisición, y firmar un machote de renuncia de futuras\r\nreclamaciones, lo que hace colegir la posibilidad de elegir este tipo de\r\nmóviles. Cabe destacar que esta disposición fue analizada por la Sala\r\nConstitucional en el voto No. 2220-2013 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 19 de\r\nfebrero del 2013, respaldando ese machote al estimar que no lesionaba el\r\nDerecho de la Constitución. De nuevo, ello pone en evidencia la posibilidad de\r\nadquisición de aparatos no homologados, razón por la cual las afirmaciones del\r\naccionante carecen de sustento normativo […].”",
  "body_en_text": "“IV. On the powers of SUTEL and the role of safeguarding the\ntelecommunications service. By Article 41, subsection j) of\nLaw No. 8660 of August 8, 2008, Chapter XI was added to the Law of the\nRegulatory Authority for Public Services, No. 7593, to include, through an amendment to\narticles 59 through 81, the creation of SUTEL. It is a\nmaximum deconcentration body (órgano de desconcentración máxima) attached to ARESEP, with instrumental legal personality to administer the National Telecommunications Fund (Fondo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones)\n(art. 59). From that standpoint, it constitutes the governing body in the field of\ntelecommunications, as a result of which, pursuant to article 60 of Law No.\n7593, it holds the following obligations derived from its authority of\nsovereignty: \"The fundamental obligations of Sutel are: a) To apply the\nlegal framework of telecommunications, for which it shall act in\naccordance with the policies of the Sector, the provisions of the National\nTelecommunications Development Plan, the General Telecommunications Law,\nthe provisions established in this Law, and any other applicable legal and\nregulatory provisions. b) To administer the National Telecommunications Fund\nand guarantee compliance with the universal access and service obligations\nimposed on network operators and telecommunications service providers. c) To promote the diversity of\ntelecommunications services and the introduction of new technologies. d) To guarantee and\nprotect the rights of telecommunications users. e) To ensure\ncompliance with the duties and rights of network operators and\ntelecommunications service providers. f) To ensure, in an objective,\nproportional, timely, transparent, efficient, and non-discriminatory manner, access\nto scarce resources associated with the operation of networks and the provision of\ntelecommunications services. g) To control and verify the efficient use of the\nradioelectric spectrum, radioelectric emissions, as well as the inspection,\ndetection, identification, and elimination of harmful interference and\nnumbering resources, in accordance with the respective plans. h) To ensure\ncompliance with the access and interconnection obligations imposed on\ntelecommunications network operators, as well as the interoperability of\nsaid networks. i) To establish and guarantee quality standards for networks and\ntelecommunications services to make them more efficient and\nproductive. j) To ensure environmental sustainability in the exploitation of\nnetworks and the provision of telecommunications services. k) To hear and\nsanction administrative infractions incurred by network operators\nand telecommunications service providers; as well as to establish\nthe civil liability of their officials.\" In accordance with these\npowers, and in compliance with the principles imposed by the General Telecommunications Law,\nNo. 8642, SUTEL is constituted as an entity that\nenters into a triangular dynamic, in which the telecommunications service operators and\nproviders concur, whom it regulates, inspects, and\ncontrols regarding compliance with the duties and obligations\nassociated with that condition and, furthermore, it safeguards the rights of the users of\nthese services. This gives rise to various levels of relationships that are\npresented between SUTEL-operators (and providers), SUTEL-users, and the control\nof the relationships between operator-user, operator-operator, in order that the\nprinciples imposed by article 3 of Law No.\n9462 (universality, solidarity, benefit to the user, transparency,\npublicity, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality,\nresource optimization, information privacy, and environmental\nsustainability) are duly satisfied. From the standpoint of the users, article 45 of the same law establishes the\nlist of rights that are proper to them as recipients of the\naforementioned services; likewise, mandates 47 and 48 of that legal body establish\nthe procedure for handling user claims, in which it is\ndetailed that they must file claims before the operator or provider,\nwho must resolve them within a maximum period of 10 calendar days, with the potential for the\ncase to be referred to SUTEL in cases of lack of response,\nnegative or insufficient resolution. It should be noted that when the claim is\nwell-founded, without prejudice to the pertinent sanctions, Sutel shall issue the\npertinent provisions to correct the anomalies and, when\nlegally appropriate, shall order compensation for the damages in the administrative\nvenue. These decisions shall be binding on the involved parties,\nwithout prejudice to the possibility of their administrative challenge or\njudicial review in the contentious-administrative venue. This regulatory\npower implicitly carries the power of sanction, which is recognized under\narticle 65 ibidem, a matter that does not merit consideration in this process.\n\n\nV.- Subjects obligated concerning SUTEL's\npowers. Now, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is necessary to be clear\nabout the subjects to whom SUTEL's regulations apply according to the indicated\nnormative framework and to whom, therefore, the powers of\nthat administrative body are extensible. In that sense, Law No. 8642 in its first\narticle, referring to the object and scope of application, establishes in the second\nparagraph: \"...The following are subject to this Law and to the Costa Rican\njurisdiction: natural or legal persons, public or private,\nnational or foreign, that operate networks or provide\ntelecommunications services that originate, terminate, or transit through the national\nterritory.\" From that standpoint, SUTEL's own regulations and\npowers are directed at the operators and providers of the\ntelecommunications sector, whether they possess one of the enabling titles\nstipulated by law. Of course, these powers extend to\nillegitimate operators or providers, with respect to whom the\ncorresponding corrective actions may be applied. This requires defining the content of\nthose concepts. The law itself dedicates itself to expressing these concepts and indicates that\nan operator is any natural or legal person, public or private, that exploits\ntelecommunications networks with the proper concession or authorization, which\nmay or may not provide telecommunications services available to the public in\ngeneral (art. 6, subsection 12). For its part, it defines a provider as the natural\nor legal person, public or private, that provides telecommunications services\navailable to the public over a telecommunications network\nwith the proper concession or authorization, as applicable (art. 6, subsection 16). The\nproper understanding of the foregoing rules allows one to conclude in advance,\nas a relevant aspect for this proceeding, that SUTEL's powers, to the\nextent that they extend solely to operators and providers of\ntelecommunications services, do not include merchants dedicated to the\nsale of mobile telephones, unless those devices are traded by\nan operator or service provider, as part of the legal relationships they\nexercise based on the concession or administrative authorization granted; that is,\nthat with the acquisition of mobile telephony services (a case that is\nimportant to this case), the delivery, lease, or purchase of a\ndevice of that nature is negotiated. However, in the cases of stores or commercial\nestablishments dedicated to the sale of mobile telephones, without including the\ntelephony service within that transaction, they do not fit within the concept\nof operator or service provider, and therefore, the regulations that\nSUTEL issues in that field are not directly applicable, and that body\ndoes not possess legal competence to restrict, control, or sanction that economic\nactivity, unless an illegitimate exercise contrary to Law No.\n8642 is proven, which is not the case here. It is worth specifying that the content and\nscope of transactions consisting of the purchase and sale of mobile\ndevices with commercial stores that are not (legitimate) operators or providers\nof telecommunications services, as well as the protection of the consumer rights\nfor those products, is a matter that, while escaping SUTEL's\npowers, is regulated and covered by the Law for the Promotion of\nCompetition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, No. 7472, which establishes\nspecial and specific rules for this public purpose, as well as institutional\nbodies, i.e., the National Consumer Commission (Comisión Nacional del Consumidor), to which\nthe person who considers their rights harmed when acquiring mobile\ntelephones that do not satisfy their functionality expectations may turn.\n\n\nVI.- On the homologation process for\nmobile terminals. However, for the purpose of concretizing and satisfying the\naforementioned principles, which prevail and are imposed in the field of\ntelecommunications, SUTEL has created a device homologation\nprocess, which guarantees to the user that the apparatus they acquire\nwill function correctly regarding connectivity with the\ntelecommunications network. In that sense, and under the protection of Article 73, subsection m) of\nLaw No. 7593, as well as article 17 of the Regulation on the Regime for\nProtection of the End User of Telecommunications Services, and\narticles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Regulation on the Provision and Quality of\nServices, resolution RCS-332-2013, of 11:00 a.m. on December 11,\npublished in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 of December 23, 2013, sets\nand establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be\nverified prior to commercialization by the operators and\nproviders of telecommunications services, in order to ensure the\ncorrect and safe operation of the terminal equipment and determine that they\ncomply with the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican\nmobile networks, and thereby guarantee the health, safety, and\neconomic interests of end users. Furthermore, in the same act\nreferred to, it is indicated in the \"Por tanto\" number 11 which establishes: \"...in\nthe event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include in their plans\nlocked terminals, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are\nunlocked and duly homologated by SUTEL without\nprejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding sanctioning\nactions...\" Although, by virtue of the field of application of Law\nNo. 8642, SUTEL may require the operator of public networks or provider of\ntelecommunications services available to the public to commercialize\nhomologated terminals, that requirement cannot be applied, as the\nclaimant intends, to third-party merchants who are not regulated operators or\nproviders, without it being possible to derive from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593\nthe assignment of an express power conferred on SUTEL to regulate the\nsale of cellular mobile devices by those who do not have the concession or\nauthorization to operate the telecommunications service. It is an\nunrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the\nnormal rules of consumer law, cannot be supervised immediately\nand directly by the sued public entity. Viewed this way, in the present\nmatter it has not been possible to prove that the commercial establishment called\nCasa Blanca is a subject regulated by SUTEL, and therefore, the\nclaimant's argument regarding alleged omissions or inaction in the exercise of\nthe supervision and control powers over compliance with the content of\nthe resolutions that impose the homologation process are not admissible. Ergo,\nfar from what the claimant affirms, the defendant Administration does not have\nlegal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of non-homologated\nmobile terminals, insofar as, it is insisted, that competence is proper to the\nconsumer relations that are governed by Law No. 7472, and therefore,\nit is not its role to sanction the sale of non-homologated devices by this type\nof establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning\nof the device considered in itself. In view of this, the allegation that\nSUTEL incurs in omissions that promote and foster the sale of\nnon-homologated cellular telephones finds no support, insofar as it is expressed\non the basis of the claimant's alleged experience of having acquired, in\na business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented\noperation and connectivity deficiencies. Along these lines, it should be noted that the\nclaimant himself acknowledges that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that\nthe telephone he was acquiring was not homologated, leaning his\nconsumer choice based on a matter of cost (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew\nhe was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a\ncellular network operator. From this angle of examination, the operation deficiencies he\nalleges the said device has had must not be resolved before SUTEL, but rather\nbefore the consumer protection bodies already referred to. It is worth noting that\nthe Constitutional Court (Sala Constitucional) itself has referred to the matter of the\nhomologation required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or\ntraded by the operators or providers. In that sense, in ruling No.\n2011-003089 of 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that\nConstitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal questioning\nresolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendency of\nTelecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta on January 25,\n2009, called \"Procedure for the Homologation of Mobile\nTelephony Terminals (Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil)\". In that ruling on the analyzed topic, it indicated, in the\nrelevant part: \"IV.- ON THE OBLIGATION THAT AN OPERATOR OR\nPROVIDER HAS TO ACTIVATE ON ITS NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS HOMOLOGATED BY THE\nSUPERINTENDENCY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. As already indicated, the\naforementioned homologation procedure aims to protect the health, safety, and\neconomic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe\noperation of the terminal devices or equipment that are introduced into the\ncountry with the intention of connecting to mobile telephony service networks.\nWhich, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it should be noted that\nsaid obligation with the homologation procedure is applicable to the\ncompanies that are operators or providers that subsequently obtain the\nhomologation certificate and must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to their\ndistribution or commercialization at the national level. A requirement that is also\nreasonable, when dealing with companies dedicated to that line of business, yet\nwhat is not coherent or reasonable is that if a particular user\nlawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device\nthat does not bear the homologation label referred to in\nrecital (considerando) X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009, but the brand and model\nof their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating\nsystem versions it contains, have already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on\nprevious occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable for connecting\nto cellular telephony networks, they are required, by an erroneous normative\ninterpretation, to subject their device to the entire homologation procedure\ndeveloped in said resolution –so that they can thus obtain the aforementioned\nlabel and their device can be connected to the telephony network-. A situation\nthat is currently occurring, according to the report of the Executive President of the\nCosta Rican Electricity Institute (ICE). In such a case, if the service\nprovider or operator can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device\nand that it corresponds to a brand, model, and software, firmware, and\noperating system version that has already been previously homologated by the\nSuperintendency of Telecommunications -by virtue of a\nhomologation request made by any other importer, distributor, provider,\noperator, or individual-, and if the other requirements imposed\nby the legal system are also met, there is no reasonable justification for the\nuser to be denied the provision of the service, regardless of whether the\ndevice has the aforementioned label or not. Especially if the requirement to\nobtain the label in question is to submit the device to the referred\nhomologation procedure. Given such a hypothesis, it can be concluded that the\nrequirement imposed by the Superintendency of Telecommunications, regarding\nthe absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the\naforementioned label to cellular telephony networks, regardless of whether the\ndevice presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and\nhomologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications, becomes a\nprohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not manage to satisfy\n'strict proportionality' (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto) -as a sub-principle of the constitutional\nprinciple of reasonableness and which consists of determining the\nexistence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the\npurpose pursued-. (...)\" Highlighting is our own.\n\n\nVII.- The foregoing considerations demonstrate that the\nhomologation requirement that SUTEL has imposed is valid and applicable exclusively for\noperators and providers, but not for those persons (natural or\nlegal) that have, as part of a legitimate commercial activity, the sale\nof this type of mobile device, without offering the public connectivity\nto the cellular telephony network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require\nadministrative authorization granted by the aforementioned Superintendency, and in\nsuch cases, the requirement to sell homologated\ndevices is indeed admissible and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Court\nhighlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement,\nthe exclusive use of homologated devices. Along those lines, in\nrecital V, it states: \"V.- ON THE FREE COMPETITION POLICY AND\nCONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL. (...) Every\nconsumer has the right to choose, within their sphere of individual freedom,\nand under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee\ntelecommunications services, the form and the means of freely accessing the referred\ngoods and services. In particular, they must have an open range of\npossibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering\nthe price and their personal needs, to request the connection of the service.\n(...) At this point, it is important to highlight what Article 46\nof the Political Constitution provides, in terms of enshrining several principles and rights\nrelated to business freedom and the protection of\nconsumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is\nintended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that prevents\neffective competition. The exercise of such power can cause the capacity\nto eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent\npotential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court\nunderstands that the decision to require the operators or providers of\ntelecommunications services available to the public to only be able to\nactivate on their networks those terminal equipment that have the respective\nhomologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents\ntechnical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the\nSuperintendency of Telecommunications, constitutes a violation of the constitutional\nprinciple of reasonableness or proportionality –for contravening the\nsub-principle of 'strict proportionality' (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto)–, to the detriment of the\nconsumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and\nservices of their interest.\" Hence, this Court shares\nthe arguments of SUTEL insofar as it indicates that, in light of those\nconsiderations, the decision to acquire a homologated device or one without\nthis condition falls exclusively upon the end user, since they are\nempowered to choose the equipment of their preference, however, attending to\nthe implications of homologation, which is to establish the minimum\noperating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of\noperators and providers of telecommunications services available to the\npublic, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what has been stated\nby the Constitutional Court, it follows that the user can connect to the network\na terminal that has not been previously homologated, provided that it meets\nthe same characteristics (identical brand, model,\nhardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other\nterminals that have been homologated by SUTEL. However, it is evident\nthat non-homologated devices that bear no similarity to one\npreviously homologated could present operational deficiencies in\nterms of connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to\nthe quality and integrity of the network. Nevertheless, it is reiterated, the acquisition and the use of a terminal with or without homologation is a\nfree decision of the end user. Indeed, as\nhas been established in the list of proven facts, as a provision for this aspect,\nwithin the \"Por tanto\" number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement\n015-066-2013 -referred to in the previous section-, it was ordered: \"7. To indicate\nthat when an end user wishes to activate a non-homologated mobile device,\nthe OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those engaged in the sale and distribution of\nterminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or\nreliable and reasonable proof verifying the lawful origin of the device and verify\nthat it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model,\nhardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as equipment homologated\nby SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of\nthe services, a document stating that they waive future claims\nfor service quality problems, in accordance with the following format:\n(...).\" (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47) This\nprovision requires the obligated parties, prior to connecting to the network a\nnon-homologated device acquired by lawful means, to require the user\nto provide proof of its acquisition and to sign a waiver form for future\nclaims, which suggests the possibility of choosing this type of\nmobile. It should be noted that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Court\nin ruling No. 2220-2013 of 2:30 p.m. on February 19,\n2013, endorsing that form by considering that it did not harm\nConstitutional rights. Again, this demonstrates the possibility of\nacquiring non-homologated devices, which is why the\nclaimant's assertions lack normative support […].”\n\nIn this regard, it constitutes the governing body in the field of telecommunications, and as a result, in accordance with article 60 of Law No. 7593, it holds the following obligations derived from its sovereign powers: \"<i>The fundamental obligations of Sutel are: a) To apply the legal framework of telecommunications, for which it shall act in accordance with the Sector's policies, the provisions of the National Telecommunications Development Plan, the General Telecommunications Law, the provisions established in this Law, and other applicable legal and regulatory provisions. b) To administer the National Telecommunications Fund and guarantee compliance with the universal access and service obligations imposed on network operators and telecommunications service providers. c) To promote the diversity of telecommunications services and the introduction of new technologies. d) To guarantee and protect the rights of telecommunications users. e) To ensure compliance with the duties and rights of network operators and telecommunications service providers. f) To ensure, in an objective, proportional, timely, transparent, efficient, and non-discriminatory manner, access to scarce resources associated with the operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. g) To control and verify the efficient use of the radio spectrum and radio emissions, as well as the inspection, detection, identification, and elimination of harmful interference and numbering resources, in accordance with the respective plans. h) To ensure compliance with the access and interconnection obligations imposed on telecommunications network operators, as well as the interoperability of said networks. i) To establish and guarantee quality standards for telecommunications networks and services to make them more efficient and productive. j) To ensure environmental sustainability (sostenibilidad ambiental) in the operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. k) To hear and sanction administrative infractions incurred by network operators and telecommunications service providers; as well as to establish the civil liability of their officials.</i>\". In accordance with these powers, and attending to the principles imposed by the General Telecommunications Law, No. 8642, SUTEL is constituted as an entity that enters a triangular dynamic, in which the telecommunications service operators and providers concur, whom it regulates, supervises, and controls regarding compliance with the duties and obligations associated with that condition, and it also protects the rights of the users of these services. This gives rise to diverse levels of relationships that occur between SUTEL-operators (and providers), SUTEL-users, and the control of the relationships between operator-user, and operator-operator, so that the principles imposed by article 3 of Law No. 9462 (universality, solidarity, benefit to the user, transparency, publicity, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality, optimization of resources, information privacy, and environmental sustainability) are duly satisfied. From the users' perspective, canon 45 ejusdem establishes the list of rights that belong to them as recipients of the aforementioned services; likewise, mandates 47 and 48 of that legal body establish the procedure for handling user claims, in which it is detailed that they must file claims before the operator or provider, who must resolve them within a maximum period of 10 calendar days, with the case potentially being referred to SUTEL in cases of lack of response, or a negative or insufficient resolution. It should be noted that when the claim is well-founded, without prejudice to the pertinent sanctions, Sutel shall issue the pertinent provisions to correct the anomalies and, when legally appropriate, shall order compensation for damages and losses in the administrative venue. These decisions shall be binding for the involved parties, without detriment to the possibility of their administrative appeal or challenge in the contentious-administrative judicial venue. This regulatory power implicitly carries the power to sanction, which is recognized from article 65 ibidem, a matter that does not merit consideration in this proceeding.\n\n**V.- Subjects obligated before SUTEL's powers.** Now then, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is necessary to have clarity regarding the subjects to whom SUTEL's regulations apply according to the indicated regulatory framework and to whom, therefore, the powers of that administrative body are extendable. In that sense, Law No. 8642, in its first article, referring to the object and scope of application, establishes in the second paragraph: \"<i>...The following are subject to this Law and to Costa Rican jurisdiction: natural or legal persons, public or private, national or foreign, that operate networks or provide telecommunications services that originate, terminate, or transit through the national territory.</i>\" In this regard, SUTEL's own regulations and powers are directed at the operators and providers of the telecommunications sector, whether they hold any of the enabling titles stipulated by law. Naturally, these powers extend to illegitimate operators or providers, against whom the corresponding corrective actions may be applied. This requires specifying the content of these concepts. The law itself is dedicated to expressing these concepts and indicates that the operator is any natural or legal person, public or private, that operates telecommunications networks with the proper concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización), which may or may not provide telecommunications services available to the general public (art. 6 subsection 12). For its part, it defines a provider as the natural or legal person, public or private, that provides telecommunications services available to the public over a telecommunications network with the proper concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización), as applicable (art. 6 subsection 16). The proper understanding of the foregoing rules allows one to conclude in advance, as a relevant aspect for this proceeding, that SUTEL's powers, insofar as they extend only to the operators and providers of telecommunications services, do not include merchants engaged in the sale of mobile phones, unless those devices are transacted by a service operator or provider, as part of the legal relationships they exercise based on the granted administrative concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización); that is, when, along with the acquisition of mobile phone services (a case that is important to this cause), the delivery, lease, or purchase of a device of that nature is negotiated. However, in the cases of commercial houses or establishments engaged in the sale of mobile phones, without including the phone service within that transaction, they do not fit within the concept of an operator or service provider, so the regulations that SUTEL issues in that field are not directly applicable, just as that body does not possess the legal competence to restrict, control, or sanction that economic activity, unless an illegitimate exercise contrary to Law No. 8642 is proven, which is not the case here. It is worth clarifying that the content and scope of transactions consisting of the purchase and sale of mobile devices with commercial houses that are not (legitimate) operators or providers of telecommunications services, as well as the protection of the consumer rights for those products, is a matter that, although it escapes SUTEL's powers, is regulated and covered under the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, which establishes special and specific rules for this public purpose, as well as institutional bodies, that is, the National Consumer Commission, to which a person who deems their rights violated when acquiring mobile phones that do not meet their functionality expectations may resort.\n\n**VI.- Regarding the approval (homologación) process for mobile terminals.** Notwithstanding, for the purpose of concretizing and satisfying the principles already mentioned, which prevail and are imposed in the field of telecommunications, SUTEL has created an approval (homologación) process for devices, which guarantees the user that the device they acquire will function correctly in terms of connectivity with the telecommunications network. In this sense, and under the protection of Article 73, subsection m) of Law No. 7593, as well as article 17 of the Regulation on the Protection Regime for the End User of Telecommunications Services, and Articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Regulation for the Provision and Quality of Services, resolution RCS-332-2013, dated 11:00 a.m. on December 11, published in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 on December 23, 2013, sets and establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be verified prior to commercialization by operators and providers of telecommunications services, in order to ensure the correct and safe operation of terminal equipment and determine that it meets the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican mobile networks, and thereby guarantee the health, safety, and economic interests of end users. Indeed, in the same aforementioned act, operative clause number 11 states: \"<i>...in the event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include locked terminals in their plans, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are unlocked and duly approved (homologados) by SUTEL, without prejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding sanctioning actions...</i>\". While it is true that, by virtue of the scope of Law No. 8642, SUTEL can require the operator of public networks or the provider of telecommunications services available to the public to commercialize approved (homologadas) terminals, this requirement cannot be applied, as the plaintiff intends, to third-party merchants who are not regulated operators or providers, without an express competence assigned to SUTEL to regulate the sale of cell phone devices by those who do not have a concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización) to operate the telecommunications service being able to be derived from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593. It is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the normal rules of consumer law, cannot be supervised immediately and directly by the sued administrative body. Thus seen, in the present matter, it has not been possible to prove that the commercial establishment called Casa Blanca is a subject regulated by SUTEL; therefore, the plaintiff's allegation regarding supposed omissions or inaction in the exercise of supervisory and control powers over compliance with the content of the resolutions that impose the approval (homologación) process are not addressable. Ergo, contrary to what the plaintiff affirms, the defendant Administration does not possess the legal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of non-approved (no homologados) mobile terminals, to the extent that, it is insisted, this competence belongs to consumer relations governed by Law No. 7472; therefore, it is not its responsibility to sanction the sale of non-approved devices by this type of establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning of the device in and of itself considered. Given this, the allegation that SUTEL incurs omissions that potentiate and foster the sale of non-approved (no homologados) cell phones lacks support, to the extent that it is expressed based on the plaintiff's supposed experience of having acquired a device in a business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented operation and connectivity deficiencies. Along these lines, it should be noted that the plaintiff himself recognizes that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that the phone he was acquiring was not approved (homologado), inclining his consumer choice based on a cost issue (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew he was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a cellular network operator. From this angle of examination, the operation deficiencies that the cited device allegedly has had should not be resolved before SUTEL, but before the consumer protection bodies already mentioned. It should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber itself has addressed the topic of the approval (homologación) required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or transacted by operators or providers. In this sense, in ruling No. 2011-003089 at 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that Constitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal in which resolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendence of Telecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta on January 25, 2009, called \"<i>Procedure for the Approval of Mobile Phone Terminals (Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil)</i>\", was questioned. In that judgment on the analyzed topic, it indicated, relevantly: \"<b><i>IV.- ON THE OBLIGATION OF AN OPERATOR OR PROVIDER TO ACTIVATE ON THEIR NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS APPROVED (HOMOLOGADAS) BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS</i></b><i> . As already indicated, the cited approval (homologación) procedure aims to protect the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe operation of terminal devices or equipment that are introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile phone service networks. Which, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it must be highlighted that said obligation with the approval (homologación) procedure is applicable to operating or providing companies that subsequently obtain the approval (homologación) certificate, and must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to its distribution or commercialization at the national level. A requirement that is also reasonable when dealing with companies engaged in that commercial line, <u>what is not coherent or reasonable is that if a private user, in a lawful manner, acquires a cell phone terminal equipment or device that does not have the approval (homologación) distinctive referred to in 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 already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on previous occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable for connecting to cell phone networks, they are required, by an erroneous regulatory interpretation, to submit their device to the entire approval (homologación) procedure developed in said resolution –so that they can thus obtain the mentioned distinctive and thus their device can be connected to the telephone network-. </u>A situation that is currently occurring, as reported by the Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute. In such a case, if the provider or operator of the service 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 approved (homologados) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications –by virtue of an approval (homologación) request filed by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or private individual-, and if, in addition, the other requirements imposed by the legal framework are met, there is no reasonable justification for denying the user the provision of the service, regardless of whether or not the device has the cited distinctive. Especially if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to submit the device to the referenced approval (homologación) procedure. Given such a hypothesis, <u>it can be concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the cited distinctive to cell phone networks, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not satisfy \"strict proportionality\" –as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued</u>-. </i><i>(...)</i>\" The highlighting is ours.\n\n**VII.-** The foregoing considerations reveal that the approval (homologación) requirement that SUTEL has imposed is valid and applicable exclusively to operators and providers, but not for those persons (natural or legal) that have the sale of this type of mobile device as part of a legitimate commercial activity, without offering the public connectivity to the cell phone network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require administrative authorization (habilitación administrativa) granted by the aforementioned Superintendence, and in such cases, the requirement to sell approved (homologados) devices is demandable and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Chamber highlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement, the exclusive use of approved (homologados) devices. Along those lines, in considerando V, it indicates: \"<b>V.- ON THE FREE COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.</b> (...) <i>Every consumer has the right to choose, within their scope of individual freedom, and under the respect of minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and means of freely accessing the referenced goods and services. In particular, they must have an open range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering price and their personal needs, to request service connection. (...) At this point, it is important to highlight what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, in that it enshrines several principles and rights related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that impedes effective competition. The exercise of said power may cause the capacity to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court understands that the decision to demand from operators or providers of telecommunications services available to the public that they can only activate on their networks those terminal equipment that has the respective approval (homologación) identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, constitutes 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 consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.\"</i> Hence, this Court agrees with SUTEL's allegations when it indicates that, under the cover of those considerations, the decision to acquire an approved (homologado) device or one without that condition pertains exclusively to the end user, since they are empowered to choose the equipment of their preference, however, considering the implications of the approval (homologación), which is to establish the minimum operating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of operators and providers of telecommunications services available to the public, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber, it follows that the user can connect a terminal that has not been previously approved (homologada) to the network, provided it meets the same characteristics (identical brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other terminals that have been approved (homologadas) by SUTEL. However, it is evident that non-approved (no homologados) devices that have no similarity to a previously approved (homologado) one could present operating deficiencies in terms of connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to the quality and integrity of the network. Nevertheless, it is reiterated that the acquisition and **the use of a terminal with or without approval (homologación) is a free decision of the end user.** Indeed, as established in the set of proven facts, as foresight on this aspect, within operative clause number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement 015-066-2013 –referenced in the previous section–, it was provided: \"<i>7. To indicate that when an end user wishes to activate a non-approved (no homologado) mobile device, the OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those that sell and distribute terminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or reliable and reasonable proof that proves the lawful origin of the device and verify that it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as equipment approved (homologados) by SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of services, a document stating that they waive future claims for service quality problems, in accordance with the following format: (...).</i>\" (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47). This provision requires the obligated parties that, prior to connecting a non-approved (no homologado) device, acquired by lawful means, to the network, they require the user to provide proof of its acquisition, and to sign a boilerplate waiver of future claims, which leads to the conclusion that the possibility of choosing this type of mobile phone exists. It should be noted that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber in ruling No. 2220-2013 at 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2013, endorsing that boilerplate, considering that it did not violate the Rights of the Constitution.\n\nOnce again, this highlights the possibility of acquiring non-homologated devices, which is why the petitioner's assertions lack any regulatory basis […].”</span><o:p></o:p></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>\n\n</div>\n\n</body>\n\n</html>\n\n7593, as well as numeral 17 of the Regulation on the Regime for the Protection of the End User of Telecommunications Services, and Articles 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Regulation on Service Provision and Quality, resolution RCS-332-2013, at 11:00 a.m. on December 11, published in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 of December 23, 2013, sets and establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be verified prior to commercialization by telecommunications service operators and providers, in order to ensure the correct and safe functioning of terminal equipment and to determine that they meet the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican mobile networks, thereby guaranteeing the health, safety, and economic interests of end users. Indeed, in the same act referenced, operative paragraph number 11 is indicated, which establishes: <i>\"...in the event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include locked terminals in their plans, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are unlocked and duly approved (homologados) by SUTEL, without prejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding punitive actions...</i>\". Although by virtue of the scope of Law No. 8642, SUTEL may require the operator of public networks or provider of publicly available telecommunications services to commercialize approved (homologados) terminals, that requirement cannot be applied, as the plaintiff intends, to third-party merchants that are not regulated operators or providers, without it being possible to derive from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593 the assignment of an express competence conferred upon SUTEL to regulate the sale of cellular mobile devices by those who do not have a concession or authorization to operate telecommunications services. This is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the normal rules of consumer law, cannot be immediately and directly supervised by the sued entity. Seen in this light, in the present matter it has not been possible to verify that the commercial establishment named Casa Blanca is an entity regulated by SUTEL, and therefore, the plaintiff's complaint regarding alleged omissions or inaction in the exercise of supervisory and control powers over compliance with the content of resolutions that impose the approval (homologación) process is not admissible. Ergo, contrary to what the plaintiff claims, the sued Administration has no legal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of unapproved (no homologados) mobile terminals, insofar as, it is insisted, such competences are intrinsic to consumer relations governed by Law No. 7472; thus, it is not its responsibility to sanction the sale of unapproved (no homologados) devices by this type of establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning of the device considered in itself. Given this, the allegation that SUTEL incurs in omissions that promote and encourage the sale of unapproved (no homologados) cellular phones finds no support, insofar as it is expressed based on the plaintiff's alleged experience of having acquired, in a business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented operational and connectivity deficiencies. In this vein, it is worth noting that the plaintiff himself acknowledges that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that the phone he was acquiring was not approved (homologado), directing his consumer choice based on a matter of cost (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew he was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a cellular network operator. From this perspective of examination, the operational deficiencies he alleges the mentioned device has had are not to be resolved before SUTEL, but rather before the consumer protection instances already referred to. It is noteworthy that the Constitutional Chamber itself has addressed the topic of approval (homologación) required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or traded by operators or providers. In that sense, in vote No. 2011-003089 at 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that Constitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal in which resolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendence of Telecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta of January 25, 2009, called \"<i>Procedure for the Approval of Mobile Telephony Terminals</i>\" was questioned. In that ruling on the analyzed topic, it indicated in the relevant part: <b>\"<i>IV.- REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF AN OPERATOR OR PROVIDER TO ACTIVATE ON THEIR NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS</i></b><i> . As already indicated, the aforementioned approval (homologación) procedure aims to safeguard 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. Which, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it must be noted that said obligation with the approval (homologación) procedure is applicable to operating or provider companies that subsequently obtain the approval certificate and must send the lists of mobile equipment before their distribution or commercialization nationwide. A requirement that is also reasonable, when it concerns companies dedicated to that commercial activity, <u>what is not coherent or reasonable is that if a particular user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device that does not have the approval (homologación) distinctive referred to in 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 already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on previous occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable to connect to cellular telephone networks, they be required, due to an erroneous normative interpretation, to subject their device to the entire approval (homologación) procedure developed in said resolution – so that they may thus obtain the mentioned distinctive and thus their device can be connected to the telephone network-. </u>A situation that is currently occurring, according to what the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad reports. 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 approved (homologados) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications -by virtue of some approval (homologación) request filed by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or 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 cited distinctive or not. Especially if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to subject the device to the referenced approval (homologación) procedure. Given such a hypothesis, <u>it can be concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the cited distinctive to cellular telephone networks, regardless of whether the device has technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not manage to satisfy 'proportionality in the strict sense' -as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued</u>-. </i></span><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;\\r\\nline-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(...)</span></i><span\\r\\nlang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\\r\\nEN'>\" The highlighting is ours. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\\r\\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\\r\\n\\r\\n<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:\\r\\n11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>VII.- </span></b><span\\r\\nlang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\\r\\nEN'>The preceding considerations demonstrate that the approval (homologación) requirement imposed by SUTEL is valid and applicable exclusively to operators and providers, but not to those persons (individuals or legal entities) that have, as part of a legitimate commercial activity, the sale of this type of mobile devices, without offering the public connectivity to the cellular telephone network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require administrative authorization granted by the aforementioned Superintendence, and in such cases, the requirement to sell approved (homologados) devices is indeed enforceable and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Chamber highlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement, the exclusive use of approved (homologados) devices. In that vein, in considerando V, it indicates: \"<b>V.- REGARDING THE POLICY OF FREE COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.</b> (...) <i>Every consumer has the right to choose, within their scope of individual freedom, and under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and means of freely accessing the referenced goods and services. In particular, they must have an open 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. (...) At this point, it is important to rescue what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, insofar as it enshrines several principles and rights, related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that impedes effective competition. The exercise of said power can cause the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court understands that the decision to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to only be able to activate on their networks those terminal equipment that have the respective approval (homologación) identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, constitutes 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 consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest.\" </i>Hence, this Court shares SUTEL's allegations in indicating that under the shelter of these considerations, the decision to acquire an approved (homologado) device or one without that condition concerns exclusively the end user, since they are empowered to choose the equipment of their preference; nonetheless, attending to the implications of approval (homologación), which is to establish the minimum operating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of operators and providers of publicly available telecommunications services, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber, it is inferred that the user can connect a terminal to the network that has not been previously approved (homologada), provided it meets the same characteristics (identity of brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other terminals that have been approved (homologadas) by SUTEL. However, it is evident that unapproved (no homologados) devices that have no similarity to a previously approved (homologado) one could present functional deficiencies regarding connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to the quality and integrity of the network. But, it is reiterated, the acquisition and </span><b><span\\r\\nlang=EN style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\\r\\nEN'>the use of a terminal with or without approval (homologación) is the free decision of the end user. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;\\r\\nline-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Indeed, as has been established in the list of proven facts, as a provision for this aspect, within operative paragraph number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement 015-066-2013 -referred to in the previous section-, it was ordered: \"<i>7. To indicate that when an end user wishes to activate an unapproved (no homologado) mobile device, the OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those that carry out the sale and distribution of terminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or reliable and reasonable proof that verifies the lawful origin of the device and verify that it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as the equipment approved (homologados) by SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of the services, a document in which they state that they waive future claims for service quality problems, according to the following format: (...).</i>\" (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47) This provision requires the obligated parties that, prior to connecting an unapproved (no homologado) device to the network, acquired by lawful means, to require the user to provide proof of its acquisition, and sign a template of waiver of future claims, which leads to the inference of the possibility of choosing this type of mobile phones. It is worth noting that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber in vote No. 2220-2013 at 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2013, endorsing that template by considering that it did not harm Constitutional Rights. Again, this demonstrates the possibility of acquiring unapproved (no homologados) devices, for which reason the plaintiff's assertions lack normative support [...].\"</span><o:p></o:p></p>\\r\\n\\r\\n<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>\\r\\n\\r\\n</div>\\r\\n\\r\\n</body>\\r\\n\\r\\n</html>\\r\\n\"\n  }"
}