{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-296488", "citation": "Res. 00006-2021 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Debido proceso y non bis in idem en procedimiento disciplinario de Hacienda Pública", "title_en": "Due Process and Double Jeopardy in Public Treasury Disciplinary Proceedings", "summary_es": "Esta sentencia del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo analiza un recurso contra una sanción disciplinaria impuesta por la Contraloría General de la República (CGR) a funcionarios públicos por presuntas irregularidades en un contrato de adquisición de tecnología para telecomunicaciones. El tribunal examina los principios del debido proceso en sede administrativa, en particular la necesidad de que el traslado de cargos sea preciso y detallado para garantizar el ejercicio del derecho de defensa. La resolución profundiza en las generalidades del procedimiento administrativo como garantía formal, revisa las normas aplicables de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y la Ley contra la Corrupción, y evalúa si existió una violación al principio de non bis in idem por la imposición de sanciones paralelas. El tribunal declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda, anulando algunas de las sanciones impuestas al considerar que el procedimiento administrativo no cumplió con los estándares mínimos de debido proceso y que en ciertos casos se incurrió en doble sanción por los mismos hechos. La decisión establece criterios importantes sobre el contenido mínimo del acto de traslado de cargos y los límites de la potestad sancionatoria de la CGR en el régimen de fiscalización de la Hacienda Pública.", "summary_en": "This ruling by the Administrative Litigation Tribunal reviews an appeal against disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) on public officials for alleged irregularities in a public contract to acquire telecommunications technology. The court examines due process principles in administrative proceedings, particularly the requirement that the statement of charges be precise and detailed to enable an effective defense. The decision delves into the general role of administrative procedure as a formal guarantee, analyzes applicable provisions of the General Public Administration Act and the Anti-Corruption Act, and assesses whether sanctions were imposed in violation of the principle of non bis in idem (double jeopardy). The tribunal partially grants the claim, annulling some sanctions after finding that the administrative procedure fell short of due process standards and that, in certain instances, duplicate penalties were imposed for the same facts. The ruling sets important criteria on the minimum content of the statement of charges and the limits of the CGR’s sanctioning power within the public treasury oversight regime.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI", "date": "2021", "year": "2021", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "traslado de cargos", "non bis in idem", "debido proceso", "procedimiento administrativo sancionatorio", "Contraloría General de la República", "potestad disciplinaria", "voto de mayoría" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 11", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 39", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 41", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 49", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 28", "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República" }, { "article": "Art. 68", "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República" }, { "article": "Art. 3", "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 38", "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública" } ], "keywords_es": [ "procedimiento administrativo disciplinario", "debido proceso administrativo", "non bis in idem", "sanción administrativa", "Contraloría General de la República", "traslado de cargos", "derecho de defensa", "Ley contra la Corrupción", "responsabilidad de funcionarios públicos", "CGR" ], "keywords_en": [ "disciplinary administrative procedure", "administrative due process", "double jeopardy", "administrative sanction", "Comptroller General of the Republic", "statement of charges", "right to defense", "Anti-Corruption Act", "public official liability", "CGR" ], "excerpt_es": "El procedimiento administrativo constituye un importante elemento formal de la conducta pública. Cumple una doble finalidad. Por un lado, establece el camino que ha de seguir la Administración para adoptar una determinada decisión, orientando su proceder. Por otro, se impone como un marco de referencia que permite al administrado, establecer un cotejo del proceder público, a fin de fijar un control de que sus actuaciones se hayan manifestado acorde a las normas que orientan ese proceder.", "excerpt_en": "The administrative procedure constitutes an important formal element of public conduct. It fulfills a dual purpose. On the one hand, it establishes the path that the Administration must follow to adopt a specific decision, guiding its actions. On the other, it serves as a reference framework that allows the individual to compare public actions, in order to ensure that the Administration's acts conform to the norms that govern such conduct.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The court partially annulled the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the CGR after finding that the statement of charges was insufficient to guarantee the right to defense and that, in certain respects, double penalties were imposed for the same facts.", "summary_es": "El tribunal anuló parcialmente las sanciones disciplinarias impuestas por la CGR al encontrar que el traslado de cargos fue insuficiente para garantizar el derecho de defensa y que en ciertos aspectos se aplicó una doble sanción por los mismos hechos." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "The administrative procedure constitutes an important formal element of public conduct. It fulfills a dual purpose. On the one hand, it establishes the path that the Administration must follow to adopt a specific decision, guiding its actions. On the other, it serves as a reference framework that allows the individual to compare public actions, in order to ensure that the Administration's acts conform to the norms that govern such conduct.", "quote_es": "El procedimiento administrativo constituye un importante elemento formal de la conducta pública. Cumple una doble finalidad. Por un lado, establece el camino que ha de seguir la Administración para adoptar una determinada decisión, orientando su proceder. Por otro, se impone como un marco de referencia que permite al administrado, establecer un cotejo del proceder público, a fin de fijar un control de que sus actuaciones se hayan manifestado acorde a las normas que orientan ese proceder." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-296488", "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-21629", "norm_num": "7428", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "06/10/2004" }, { "doc_id": "norm-54710", "norm_num": "32333", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "12/04/2005" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"VII.- Generalidades sobre el procedimiento administrativo.[...] El procedimiento administrativo constituye un importante elemento formal de la conducta pública. Cumple una doble finalidad. Por un lado, establece el camino que ha de seguir la Administración para adoptar una determinada decisión, orientando su proceder. Por otro, se impone como un marco de referencia que permite al administrado, establecer un cotejo del proceder público, a fin de fijar un control de que sus actuaciones se hayan manifestado acorde a las normas que orientan ese proceder.[...] Desde este plano, del análisis de los autos, se desprende que el objeto de la causa instruida en contra de los accionantes se da por la supuesta infracción a la normativa del régimen de fiscalización de Hacienda Pública, en concreto, por haber concurrido en conductas que, a juicio de la CGR, permitieron un giro anticipado del pago correspondiente a la Fase II del contrato derivado de la de Licitación Pública No. 2008LI-000051-PROV para la adquisición de un sistema móvil avanzado (SMA)-3G, pese a que no se había entregado la totalidad de radio bases pactadas y sin cumplir con el deber de acreditación de las condiciones que fija el ordinal 32 del Reglamento para esos efectos.\"", "body_en_text": "VII.- Generalities on the administrative procedure.[...] The administrative procedure constitutes an important formal element of public conduct. It serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it establishes the path that the Administration must follow to adopt a specific decision, guiding its actions. On the other, it imposes itself as a frame of reference that allows the administered party to compare public conduct, in order to establish control that its actions have been manifested in accordance with the norms that guide that conduct.[...] From this perspective, from the analysis of the case file, it emerges that the object of the proceeding initiated against the plaintiffs arises from the alleged violation of the regulatory regime for the oversight (fiscalización) of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), specifically, for having engaged in conduct that, in the judgment of the CGR, permitted an early disbursement (giro anticipado) of the payment corresponding to Phase II of the contract derived from Public Tender No. 2008LI-000051-PROV for the acquisition of an advanced mobile system (SMA)-3G, despite the fact that the entirety of the agreed-upon radio bases had not been delivered and without fulfilling the duty to certify the conditions established by Article 32 of the Regulation for those purposes.\n\n2008LI-000051-PROV for the acquisition of an advanced mobile system (SMA)-3G, despite the fact that the totality of the agreed-upon radio bases had not been delivered and without fulfilling the duty to accredit the conditions established by provision 32 of the Regulation for those purposes.\"\n\nJURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Administrative Procedure||Disciplinary Administrative Procedure\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Administrative Procedure||Disciplinary Administrative Sanction\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Administrative Procedure||Due Process in Administrative Proceedings\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Administrative Procedure||Principle of Defense in Administrative Proceedings\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Sources of Administrative Law\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Administrative Law||Sources of Administrative Law||Duty of Probity in Public Service\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Constitutional Law\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Constitutional Law||Constitutional Principles\",\n \"JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER||Constitutional Law||Constitutional Principles||Constitutional Right Against Double Jeopardy (non bis in idem)\"\n ],\n \"sentenciasRelacionadas\": [\n \"sen-1-0007-83512\",\n \"sen-1-0007-84812\",\n \"sen-1-0034-597653\",\n \"sen-1-0034-601560\",\n \"sen-1-0034-659057\",\n \"sen-1-0034-717661\",\n \"sen-1-0034-753363\"\n ],\n \"sinonimos\": [\n \"Sanctioning Administrative Procedure (Procedimiento administrativo sancionatorio)\",\n \"Non bis in idem\"\n ],\n \"sourceName\": \"Documentos\",\n \"subNumeroDocumento\": \"1\",\n \"TemasYSubtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 2,\n \"nombre\": \"Administrative Procedure (Procedimiento administrativo)\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Generalities and Content of Due Process in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Minimum Content of the Statement of Charges (traslado de cargos) in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 3,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 7,\n \"nombre\": \"Constitutional Right Against Double Jeopardy (non bis in idem)\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 4,\n \"nombre\": \"Due Process in Administrative Proceedings\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Generalities and Content of Due Process in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Minimum Content of the Statement of Charges (traslado de cargos) in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 3,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 5,\n \"nombre\": \"Principle of Defense in Administrative Proceedings\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Generalities and Content of Due Process in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Minimum Content of the Statement of Charges (traslado de cargos) in Administrative Procedure\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 3,\n \"nombre\": \"Disciplinary Administrative Sanction\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Generalities and Content of Due Process in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Minimum Content of the Statement of Charges (traslado de cargos) in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 3,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Disciplinary Administrative Procedure\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Generalities and Content of Due Process in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Minimum Content of the Statement of Charges (traslado de cargos) in Administrative Procedure\"\n },\n {\n \"id\": 2,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"id\": 6,\n \"nombre\": \"Duty of Probity in Public Service\",\n \"Subtemas\": [\n {\n \"id\": 1,\n \"nombre\": \"Liability of Public Servants for Violations of Public Finance Oversight Regulations\"\n }\n ]\n }\n ],\n \"tipoContenido\": \"Majority Decision (Voto de mayoría)\",\n \"tipoDocumento\": \"EXT\",\n \"tipoInformacion\": \"Judicial Resolution\",\n \"tipoResolucion\": \"On the Merits (De Fondo)\",\n \"tipoTexto\": \"1\",\n \"previousdocs\": [],\n \"nextdocs\": [],\n \"html\": \"

\\\"II.- Generalities on Administrative Procedure. [...] The administrative procedure constitutes an important formal element of public conduct.

\n\nIt serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it establishes the path that the Administration must follow in order to adopt a specific decision, guiding its conduct. On the other, it is imposed as a frame of reference that allows the individual subject to the Administration to conduct a comparison of public conduct, in order to establish a control that its actions have been carried out in accordance with the norms that guide that conduct.[...] From this standpoint, from the analysis of the case file, it is evident that the subject matter of the proceedings brought against the claimants arises from the alleged violation of the regulatory regime for the oversight of the Public Treasury, specifically, for having engaged in conduct that, in the judgment of the CGR, allowed an early disbursement of the payment corresponding to Phase II of the contract derived from Public Tender No. 2008LI-000051-PROV for the acquisition of an advanced mobile system (SMA)-3G, despite the fact that the entirety of the agreed-upon radio base stations had not been delivered and without complying with the duty to certify the conditions established in article 32 of the Regulation for those purposes.\" 

\\n\\n\\r\\n\"" }