{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-1011-307451",
  "citation": "Res. 00145-2020 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria y plazos ordenatorios",
  "title_en": "Prescription of disciplinary power and procedural time limits",
  "summary_es": "Este voto del Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, de fecha 20 de agosto de 2020, analiza el régimen disciplinario aplicable a los servidores públicos en Costa Rica, enfocándose en la prescripción de la potestad sancionatoria y los plazos del procedimiento administrativo. El tribunal aborda la diversidad de plazos según el régimen aplicable (Código de Trabajo, Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y Ley General de Policía) y establece que el plazo para ejercer la acción disciplinaria corre desde que el órgano competente conoce de los hechos hasta la notificación del traslado de cargos. Respecto a los plazos durante la etapa investigativa, aplica supletoriamente la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), que contempla un plazo de dos meses para tramitar el procedimiento pero los califica como plazos ordenatorios, cuyo vencimiento no acarrea nulidad ni impide dictar el acto final, según el artículo 329 de la LGAP. La caducidad solo se produce si el procedimiento se paraliza más de seis meses por causa imputable a la Administración y es alegada oportunamente.",
  "summary_en": "This ruling by the Administrative and Treasury Appeals Court, dated August 20, 2020, analyzes the disciplinary regime applicable to public servants in Costa Rica, focusing on the prescription of disciplinary power and procedural time limits. The court addresses the diversity of time limits depending on the applicable regime (Labor Code, Organic Law of the Judiciary, Organic Law of the Comptroller General, and General Police Law) and establishes that the period to exercise disciplinary action runs from the moment the competent body learns of the facts until notification of the statement of charges. Regarding time limits during the investigative stage, it subsidiarily applies the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), which provides a two-month period to process the procedure but classifies these as order deadlines; their expiration does not entail nullity or prevent the issuance of the final act, per Article 329 of the LGAP. Expiration only occurs if the procedure is stalled for more than six months due to the Administration and is timely alleged.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda",
  "date": "20/08/2020",
  "year": "2020",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "Potestad disciplinaria",
    "Plazos ordenatorios",
    "Caducidad",
    "Traslado de cargos",
    "Relaciones de sujeción especial",
    "Autointegración normativa",
    "LGAP"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política",
      "article": "39",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política 0",
      "article": "39",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil",
      "article": "51",
      "doc_id": "norm-32708",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 1581",
      "article": "51",
      "doc_id": "norm-32708",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código de Trabajo",
      "article": "603",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 2",
      "article": "603",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "article": "9",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6227",
      "article": "9",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "article": "261",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6227",
      "article": "261",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "article": "329",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6227",
      "article": "329",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "article": "340",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6227",
      "article": "340",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Policía",
      "article": "83",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7410",
      "article": "83",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "article": "71",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7428",
      "article": "71",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)",
      "article": "211",
      "doc_id": "norm-33635",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8",
      "article": "211",
      "doc_id": "norm-33635",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "Prescripción potestad disciplinaria",
    "Plazos ordenatorios",
    "Caducidad procedimiento administrativo",
    "Derecho disciplinario",
    "Servidores públicos",
    "Relaciones de sujeción especial",
    "Traslado de cargos",
    "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
    "Código de Trabajo",
    "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial",
    "Ley General de Policía"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "Prescription of disciplinary power",
    "Order deadlines",
    "Expiration of administrative procedure",
    "Disciplinary law",
    "Public servants",
    "Special subjection relations",
    "Statement of charges",
    "General Law of Public Administration",
    "Labor Code",
    "Organic Law of the Judiciary",
    "General Police Law"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Conviene resaltar, el hecho de sobrepasar los plazos fijados en las normas de cita, no supone, per se, la nulidad de lo actuado, ni mucho menos inhibe a la Administración para ejercer la competencia debida y dictar el acto final, al tratarse de plazos ordenatorios. En relación establece el precepto 329 de la LGAP: “1. La Administración tendrá siempre el deber de resolver expresamente dentro de los plazos de esta ley. 2. El no hacerlo se reputará falta grave de servicio. 3.  El acto final recaído fuera de plazo será válido para todo efecto legal, salvo disposición en contrario de la ley”. Cabe agregar, la referida demora no implica la caducidad del procedimiento, la cual, únicamente, se produce cuando éste se paralice por más de seis meses consecutivos (canon 340 de la LGAP). Además, los efectos procedimentales de la caducidad, requieren que se haya solicitado o declarado dentro del procedimiento, precisamente para ponerle fin.",
  "excerpt_en": "It is worth highlighting that exceeding the deadlines set forth in the cited norms does not, per se, entail nullity of the proceedings, nor does it inhibit the Administration from exercising its due competence and issuing the final act, as they are order deadlines. In relation to this, Article 329 of the LGAP states: “1. The Administration shall always have the duty to expressly resolve within the time limits of this law. 2. Failure to do so shall be considered a serious breach of duty. 3. The final act issued after the deadline shall be valid for all legal purposes, unless otherwise provided by law.” It should be added that such delay does not imply expiration of the procedure, which only occurs when the procedure has been stalled for more than six consecutive months (Article 340 of the LGAP). Furthermore, the procedural effects of expiration require that it has been requested or declared within the procedure, precisely to put an end to it.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The court denies the appeal, confirming that the time limits to exercise disciplinary power had not been breached and that order deadlines do not entail nullity of the final act.",
    "summary_es": "El tribunal rechaza el recurso de casación presentado por la parte actora, confirmando que los plazos para ejercer la potestad disciplinaria no se habían transgredido y que los plazos ordenatorios no acarrean la nulidad del acto final."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "disciplinary law in general is based on the special relationship that exists between the State and public officials or servants, which has been called by doctrine 'special subjection relations'",
      "quote_es": "el derecho disciplinario en general tiene fundamento en la relación especial que existe entre el Estado y los funcionarios o servidores públicos, lo que ha sido denominado por la doctrina como “relaciones de sujeción especial”"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "the indicated time limits run from the moment when the competent body learns of the facts that could constitute a breach by the servant, that is, from when the Administration learns of the alleged irregularities committed by the official, until the notification of the statement of charges",
      "quote_es": "los plazos señalados corren a partir del momento cuando el órgano competente conoce de los hechos que pudieran constituir falta del servidor, es decir, desde que la Administración conoce de las presuntas irregularidades cometidas por el funcionario, hasta la notificación del traslado de cargos"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "exceeding the deadlines set forth in the cited norms does not, per se, entail nullity of the proceedings, nor does it inhibit the Administration from exercising its due competence and issuing the final act, as they are order deadlines",
      "quote_es": "el hecho de sobrepasar los plazos fijados en las normas de cita, no supone, per se, la nulidad de lo actuado, ni mucho menos inhibe a la Administración para ejercer la competencia debida y dictar el acto final, al tratarse de plazos ordenatorios"
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-871",
      "citation": "Constitución Política 0 (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 07/11/1949)",
      "title_en": "Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment — Article 50 of the Political Constitution",
      "title_es": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política",
      "doc_type": "constitution",
      "date": "07/11/1949",
      "year": "1949"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32708",
      "citation": "Ley 1581",
      "title_en": "Civil Service Statute",
      "title_es": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "30/05/1953",
      "year": "1953"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-8045",
      "citation": "Ley 5089",
      "title_en": "Labor Code",
      "title_es": "Código de Trabajo",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "29/08/1943",
      "year": "1943"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-13231",
      "citation": "Ley 6227",
      "title_en": "General Law of Public Administration",
      "title_es": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "02/05/1978",
      "year": "1978"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-66525",
      "citation": "Ley 7410",
      "title_en": "General Police Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Policía",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "26/05/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32708",
      "citation": "Ley 1581",
      "title_en": "Civil Service Statute",
      "title_es": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "30/05/1953",
      "year": "1953"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-66525",
      "citation": "Ley 7410",
      "title_en": "General Police Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Policía",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "26/05/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-871",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Constitución Política"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-32708",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-8045",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Código de Trabajo"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-13231",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de la Administración Pública"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-66525",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de Policía"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-21629",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República"
      }
    ],
    "external": [
      {
        "ref_id": "norm-33635",
        "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=33635&strTipM=FN",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)",
        "norm_id": "33635"
      }
    ]
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-1011-307451",
  "tier": 2,
  "is_environmental": false,
  "_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": [
    {
      "art_num": "39",
      "art_scij": "4887",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949",
      "norm_name": "Constitución Política",
      "norm_num": "0",
      "norm_ver": "125322",
      "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "51",
      "art_scij": "149119",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-32708",
      "norm_fecha": "30 May 1953",
      "norm_name": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil",
      "norm_num": "1581",
      "norm_ver": "126804",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "603",
      "art_scij": "47630",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943",
      "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo",
      "norm_num": "2",
      "norm_ver": "127872",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "9",
      "art_scij": "77077",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_ver": "127653",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "261",
      "art_scij": "77328",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_ver": "127653",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "329",
      "art_scij": "77396",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_ver": "127653",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "340",
      "art_scij": "77407",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_ver": "127653",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "83",
      "art_scij": "64",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_fecha": "26 May 1994",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_ver": "128235",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "71",
      "art_scij": "112684",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_fecha": "07 Sep 1994",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_ver": "114407",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "211",
      "art_scij": "194547",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-33635",
      "norm_fecha": "29 Nov 1937",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)",
      "norm_num": "8",
      "norm_ver": "122531",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    }
  ],
  "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-32708",
      "norm_num": "1581",
      "norm_name": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "30/05/1953"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "26/05/1994"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Plazos para ejercer la potestad sancionatoria y notificación del traslado de cargos"
        },
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Servidor público y relaciones de sujeción especial"
        }
      ],
      "id": 2,
      "nombre": "Procedimiento disciplinario"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Relaciones de sujeción especial y servidores públicos"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Plazos para ejercer la potestad sancionatoria y notificación del traslado de cargos"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "Derecho disciplinario"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Enunciado de las relaciones de sujeción especial"
        }
      ],
      "id": 3,
      "nombre": "Procedimiento administrativo disciplinario"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Relaciones de sujeción especial y servidores públicos"
        }
      ],
      "id": 4,
      "nombre": "Sanción disciplinaria"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Plazos para ejercer la potestad sancionatoria y notificación del traslado de cargos"
        }
      ],
      "id": 5,
      "nombre": "Notificación"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"VI.- Como último agravio, el casacionista acusa prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria al considerar que luego de la emisión del informe emitido por el Órgano Director, y hasta la notificación del despido, transcurrieron más de dos meses, lo que transgrede el numeral 603 del Código de Trabajo. De previo a resolver el fondo del reparo, interesa tener claro lo siguiente: el derecho disciplinario en general tiene fundamento en la relación especial que existe entre el Estado y los funcionarios o servidores públicos, lo que ha sido denominado por la doctrina como “relaciones de sujeción especial”, es decir, aquellas que se establecen entre un sujeto y una Administración Pública, en razón de una condición o título especial y diferenciado que ostenta ese sujeto frente a esa entidad, en razón de la cual adquiere particulares derechos y obligaciones. Cabe destacar, dentro de las principales obligaciones de todo servidor público, se encuentra la de responder disciplinariamente por sus acciones u omisiones, cuando éstas sean consideradas una infracción o falta, en detrimento de la atención del público al que asisten. Tratándose de funcionarios públicos, el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense contempla diversos regímenes en materia disciplinaria, pues las exigencias de protección de los bienes jurídicos relativos a la correcta prestación del servicio son distintas en cada caso y así, de forma dispersa, se han regulado. Dependiendo del régimen disciplinario, podría ser diversa la regulación del plazo para ejercer y ejecutar la potestad sancionadora administrativa. En lo que respecta a la acción disciplinaria, conforme al canon 603 del Código de Trabajo, aplicable a los servidores sujetos al Estatuto del Servicio Civil por remisión expresa del cardinal 51 (de dicho Estatuto), el patrono dispone de un mes para ejercer dicha acción. Por su parte, el ordinal 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, establece el plazo de cinco años para imponer responsabilidad administrativa a un funcionario de la hacienda pública. Por último, la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en su mandato 211, establece en torno al tema: \"La acción para investigar las faltas deberá iniciarse, dentro del mes siguiente a la fecha en que quien deba levantar la investigación tenga conocimiento de ellas (…)”. Cabe señalar también, con la promulgación de la Ley General de Policía (LGP) el 26 de mayo de 1994 (no. 7410), se aprobó el “Estatuto Policial” (contenido en el Título III de esa Ley), el cual vino a regular la relación entre los miembros de las fuerzas policiales que lo integran y el Estado como patrono. El Capítulo VII de dicho Estatuto reglamenta el régimen disciplinario aplicable a los miembros de los cuerpos de policía (tipos de faltas, sanciones, prescripciones, procedimiento en investigación disciplinaria, actuación administrativa en caso de proceso penal, entre otros). En lo de interés, el artículo 83 de la LGP señala que el ejercicio legítimo y oportuno de la potestad para disciplinar las infracciones de los miembros de las fuerzas policiales “prescribe” en dos años para las faltas graves. Tales plazos refieren al límite temporal máximo para que la Administración ejerza la potestad disciplinaria. Ahora bien, derivado de esos cánones (603 del CT, 211 de la LOPJ y 71 de la LOCGR), debe entenderse como un principio general que, los plazos señalados corren a partir del momento cuando el órgano competente conoce de los hechos que pudieran constituir falta del servidor, es decir, desde que la Administración conoce de las presuntas irregularidades cometidas por el funcionario, hasta la notificación del traslado de cargos. Interesa señalar, la notificación del traslado de cargos al servidor, es la actuación que marca el inicio del procedimiento. La finalidad de ésta comunicación estriba en poner en conocimiento del interesado el acaecimiento de un acto o hecho de relevancia jurídica, a fin de que ejerza su derecho de defensa (ordinal 39 de la Constitución Política). Mediante ese acto se formaliza la imputación, con expreso señalamiento de las conductas reprochables, aspectos de modo, tiempo y lugar, prueba de cargo, derechos del servidor, entre otros. Ahora bien, en cuanto a la segunda etapa, correspondiente a la etapa investigativa o intermedia, conforme al principio de autointegración normativa del derecho administrativo (ordinal 9 de la LGAP), en ausencia de disposición especial, resulta necesario aplicar los plazos y términos establecidos por el Libro Segundo de la LGAP, en particular aquellos referidos al procedimiento ordinario administrativo (cardinal 366 ibíd). Así, al amparo de los numerales 261 y 340 de la LGAP, el procedimiento debe tramitarse dentro de los dos meses posteriores a su iniciación. Cuando este se paralice por más de seis meses en virtud de causa imputable a la Administración que lo haya iniciado, se producirá su caducidad. Conviene resaltar, el hecho de sobrepasar los plazos fijados en las normas de cita, no supone, per se, la nulidad de lo actuado, ni mucho menos inhibe a la Administración para ejercer la competencia debida y dictar el acto final, al tratarse de plazos ordenatorios. En relación establece el precepto 329 de la LGAP: “1. La Administración tendrá siempre el deber de resolver expresamente dentro de los plazos de esta ley. 2. El no hacerlo se reputará falta grave de servicio. 3. El acto final recaído fuera de plazo será válido para todo efecto legal, salvo disposición en contrario de la ley”. Cabe agregar, la referida demora no implica la caducidad del procedimiento, la cual, únicamente, se produce cuando éste se paralice por más de seis meses consecutivos (canon 340 de la LGAP). Además, los efectos procedimentales de la caducidad, requieren que se haya solicitado o declarado dentro del procedimiento, precisamente para ponerle fin. Ello conlleva a que la decisión administrativa dictada luego de una inercia de seis meses atribuible con exclusividad a la Administración, cuando no se haya alegado o declarado, sea totalmente válida. Queda claro entonces, la única sanción establecida por el ordenamiento jurídico administrativo (concretamente la LGAP), en caso de incumplimiento a los referidos plazos ordenatorios, lo es la caducidad del procedimiento, condicionada a la paralización de éste último por más de seis meses y que, el administrado así lo reclame en sede administrativa, pues la posibilidad de hacerlo posteriormente estaría precluída\".",
  "body_en_text": "\"VI.- As a final grievance, the appellant alleges the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power, considering that more than two months elapsed between the issuance of the report by the Investigating Body (Órgano Director) and the notification of the dismissal, which violates Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). Before resolving the merits of the objection, it is important to be clear about the following: disciplinary law in general is based on the special relationship that exists between the State and public officials or servants, what has been termed by doctrine as “special subjection relationships” (relaciones de sujeción especial), that is, those established between an individual and a Public Administration, by reason of a special and differentiated condition or title held by that individual before that entity, by reason of which they acquire particular rights and obligations. It is worth noting that among the main obligations of every public servant is that of being disciplinarily liable for their actions or omissions, when these are considered an infraction or fault, to the detriment of the service to the public they assist. In the case of public officials, the Costa Rican legal system contemplates various regimes in disciplinary matters, since the requirements for protecting the legal interests related to the correct provision of service differ in each case and have thus been regulated in a dispersed manner. Depending on the disciplinary regime, the regulation of the time limit to exercise and execute the administrative sanctioning power may be diverse. Regarding the disciplinary action, according to Article 603 of the Labor Code, applicable to servants subject to the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) by express referral of Article 51 (of said Statute), the employer has one month to exercise said action. For its part, Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) establishes a five-year time limit to impose administrative liability on a public treasury official. Finally, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial), in its Article 211, establishes on the subject: \"The action to investigate faults must be initiated within the month following the date on which the person who must initiate the investigation becomes aware of them (…)”. It should also be noted that with the enactment of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía, LGP) on May 26, 1994 (No. 7410), the “Police Statute” (Estatuto Policial) (contained in Title III of that Law) was approved, which came to regulate the relationship between the members of the police forces that comprise it and the State as employer. Chapter VII of said Statute regulates the disciplinary regime applicable to members of police forces (types of faults, sanctions, statutes of limitations, procedure in disciplinary investigations, administrative action in the event of a criminal proceeding, among others). In what is of interest, Article 83 of the LGP states that the legitimate and timely exercise of the power to discipline infractions by members of the police forces \"prescribes\" in two years for serious faults. Such time limits refer to the maximum temporal limit for the Administration to exercise the disciplinary power.\n\nNow, derived from these canons (Article 603 of the CT, Article 211 of the LOPJ, and Article 71 of the LOCGR), it must be understood as a general principle that the indicated time limits run from the moment when the competent body becomes aware of the facts that could constitute a fault by the servant, that is, from when the Administration learns of the alleged irregularities committed by the official, until the notification of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos). It is important to point out that the notification of the statement of charges to the servant is the action that marks the beginning of the proceeding. The purpose of this communication is to inform the interested party of the occurrence of an act or fact of legal relevance, so that they may exercise their right of defense (Article 39 of the Political Constitution). Through this act, the accusation is formalized, with express indication of the objectionable conduct, aspects of manner, time, and place, evidence for the prosecution, the servant's rights, among others.\n\nNow, regarding the second stage, corresponding to the investigative or intermediate phase, in accordance with the principle of normative self-integration of administrative law (Article 9 of the LGAP), in the absence of a special provision, it is necessary to apply the time limits and terms established by the Second Book of the LGAP, particularly those referring to the ordinary administrative procedure (Article 366 ibid). Thus, under Articles 261 and 340 of the LGAP, the procedure must be processed within two months following its initiation. When it is suspended for more than six months due to a cause attributable to the Administration that initiated it, its expiration (caducidad) will occur.\n\nIt is worth emphasizing that exceeding the time limits set in the cited norms does not, per se, imply the nullity of the actions taken, much less inhibits the Administration from exercising the due competence and issuing the final act, as these are directive time limits. In this regard, Article 329 of the LGAP establishes: “1. The Administration shall always have the duty to expressly resolve within the time limits of this law. 2. Failure to do so shall be deemed a serious service fault. 3. The final act issued outside the time limit shall be valid for all legal purposes, unless the law provides otherwise.” It should be added that the aforementioned delay does not imply the expiration of the procedure, which only occurs when the procedure is suspended for more than six consecutive months (Article 340 of the LGAP). Furthermore, the procedural effects of expiration require that it have been requested or declared within the procedure, precisely to put an end to it. This means that an administrative decision issued after six months of inaction attributable exclusively to the Administration, when it has not been alleged or declared, is fully valid. It is clear, therefore, that the only sanction established by the administrative legal system (specifically the LGAP) in the event of non-compliance with the referred directive time limits is the expiration of the procedure, conditioned upon the suspension of the latter for more than six months and that the administrated party so claims it in the administrative venue, as the possibility of doing so later would be foreclosed.\"\n\n7410), the “Police Statute” (Estatuto Policial) was approved (contained in Title III of that Law), which came to regulate the relationship between the members of the police forces that comprise it and the State as employer. Chapter VII of said Statute regulates the disciplinary regime applicable to members of the police forces (types of offenses, sanctions, statutes of limitations (prescripciones), procedure for disciplinary investigations, administrative actions in the event of criminal proceedings, among others). In what is of interest, Article 83 of the LGP indicates that the legitimate and timely exercise of the power to discipline infractions by members of the police forces “prescribes (prescribe)” in two years for serious offenses. These terms refer to the maximum time limit for the Administration to exercise disciplinary authority. Now, derived from those canons (603 of the CT, 211 of the LOPJ, and 71 of the LOCGR), it must be understood as a general principle that the indicated terms run from the moment when the competent body becomes aware of the facts that could constitute an offense by the public servant (servidor), that is, from when the Administration becomes aware of the alleged irregularities committed by the official, until the notification of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos). It is important to note that the notification of the statement of charges to the public servant is the action that marks the beginning of the procedure. The purpose of this communication is to inform the interested party of the occurrence of an act or fact of legal relevance, so that they may exercise their right to defense (section 39 of the Political Constitution). Through this act, the imputation is formalized, with express indication of the reprehensible conduct, aspects of manner, time, and place, evidence for the prosecution, the public servant’s rights, among others. Now, regarding the second stage, corresponding to the investigative or intermediate stage, in accordance with the principle of normative self-integration of administrative law (section 9 of the LGAP), in the absence of a special provision, it is necessary to apply the terms and deadlines (plazos) established by Book Two of the LGAP, particularly those referring to the ordinary administrative procedure (Article 366 ibid). Thus, under the protection of numerals 261 and 340 of the LGAP, the procedure must be processed within two months following its initiation. When it is paralyzed for more than six months by virtue of a cause attributable to the Administration that initiated it, its expiration (caducidad) will occur. It should be highlighted that exceeding the deadlines set in the cited norms does not, per se, imply the nullity of the proceedings, much less inhibit the Administration from exercising its due competence and issuing the final act, as these are procedural deadlines (plazos ordenatorios). In this regard, precept 329 of the LGAP establishes: “1. The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the deadlines of this law. 2. Failure to do so shall be considered a serious breach of service. 3. The final act issued outside the deadline shall be valid for all legal effects, unless otherwise provided by law.” It should be added that the aforementioned delay does not imply the expiration of the procedure, which only occurs when it is paralyzed for more than six consecutive months (canon 340 of the LGAP). Furthermore, the procedural effects of expiration require that it has been requested or declared within the procedure, precisely to put an end to it. This means that the administrative decision issued after an inertia of six months attributable exclusively to the Administration, when it has not been alleged or declared, is entirely valid.\n\nIt is clear then, that the only penalty established by the administrative legal system (specifically the LGAP), in the event of non-compliance with the aforementioned ordering deadlines, is the expiration (caducidad) of the proceeding, conditioned upon the latter being halted for more than six months and the administered party so claiming in administrative proceedings, since the possibility of doing so later would be precluded.\"\n\nLastly, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in its mandate 211, establishes on the subject: \"The action to investigate faults must be initiated within the month following the date on which the person who must conduct the investigation becomes aware of them (…)\". It is also worth noting that, with the enactment of the General Police Law (LGP) on May 26, 1994 (no. 7410), the \"Police Statute\" (contained in Title III of that Law) was approved, which came to regulate the relationship between the members of the police forces that comprise it and the State as employer. Chapter VII of said Statute regulates the disciplinary regime applicable to members of the police forces (types of faults, sanctions, statutes of limitations (prescripciones), procedure in disciplinary investigation, administrative action in case of criminal proceedings, among others). Regarding what is of interest, article 83 of the LGP indicates that the legitimate and timely exercise of the power to discipline infractions by members of the police forces \"prescribes\" in two years for serious faults. Such terms refer to the maximum time limit for the Administration to exercise disciplinary authority. However, derived from those canons (603 of the CT, 211 of the LOPJ and 71 of the LOCGR), it must be understood as a general principle that, the indicated terms run from the moment when the competent body learns of the facts that could constitute a fault by the public servant (funcionario), that is, from when the Administration learns of the alleged irregularities committed by the official, until the notification of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos). It is important to note that the notification of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos) to the public servant is the action that marks the beginning of the procedure. The purpose of this communication is to inform the interested party of the occurrence of an act or fact of legal relevance, so that they may exercise their right to defense (ordinal 39 of the Political Constitution). Through that act, the accusation (imputación) is formalized, with an express indication of the reprehensible conduct, aspects of manner, time and place, evidence for the prosecution, rights of the public servant, among others. Now, regarding the second stage, corresponding to the investigative or intermediate stage, in accordance with the principle of normative self-integration of administrative law (ordinal 9 of the LGAP), in the absence of a special provision, it is necessary to apply the time limits and deadlines established by the Second Book of the LGAP, particularly those referring to the ordinary administrative procedure (cardinal 366 ibid). Thus, under the protection of numerals 261 and 340 of the LGAP, the procedure must be processed within the two months following its initiation. When it is paralyzed for more than six months by virtue of a cause attributable to the Administration that initiated it, its expiration (caducidad) will occur. It is worth highlighting that exceeding the terms set forth in the cited norms does not imply, per se, the nullity of the proceedings conducted, nor much less does it inhibit the Administration from exercising its due competence and issuing the final act, as these are procedural time limits (plazos ordenatorios). In this regard, precept 329 of the LGAP establishes: \"1. The Administration shall always have the duty to resolve expressly within the terms of this law. 2. Failure to do so shall be considered a serious fault of service.\"\n\n3. \"The final act issued outside the time limit shall be valid for all legal purposes, except as otherwise provided by law.\" It should be added that the aforementioned delay does not imply the expiration of the procedure, which occurs only when the latter is suspended for more than six consecutive months (canon 340 of the LGAP). Furthermore, the procedural effects of expiration require that it has been requested or declared within the procedure, precisely in order to terminate it. Consequently, the administrative decision issued after a six-month period of inactivity attributable exclusively to the Administration, when expiration has not been alleged or declared, is entirely valid. It is therefore clear that the sole sanction established by the administrative legal system (specifically the LGAP) for non-compliance with the aforementioned time limits is the expiration of the procedure, conditioned upon the suspension of the latter for more than six months and upon the interested party claiming it in the administrative venue (sede administrativa), since the possibility of doing so later would be precluded.\""
}