{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-583306",
  "citation": "Res. 09795-2013 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Participación ciudadana en proyectos de moderado impacto ambiental",
  "title_en": "Public participation in moderate environmental impact projects",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional analiza un recurso de amparo presentado contra SETENA por la presunta violación al principio de participación ciudadana en la evaluación ambiental del proyecto \"Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados\" (Plaza Viva). El recurrente alegó que SETENA omitió notificar a la Municipalidad de Desamparados sobre el proyecto y que debió exigirse un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA) en lugar de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA), dada la magnitud de la obra. La Sala determinó que, al tratarse de un proyecto de moderado impacto ambiental (484 puntos de Significancia de Impacto Ambiental), el instrumento adecuado es un Plan de Gestión Ambiental y no un EsIA, según la clasificación técnica de SETENA, la cual no puede ser cuestionada en esta sede por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad. Respecto a la participación ciudadana, la Sala reiteró su importancia, pero concluyó que en este caso no hubo violación, ya que la Municipalidad tuvo conocimiento del proyecto mediante el certificado de uso de suelo y otros documentos, y se realizó un estudio de percepción social con encuestas a la población del área de influencia. Además, el recurrente pudo apersonarse al expediente y presentar sus objeciones. La Sala declaró sin lugar el recurso.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber analyzed an amparo appeal filed against SETENA for the alleged violation of the principle of public participation in the environmental assessment of the \"Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados\" (Plaza Viva) project. The appellant argued that SETENA failed to notify the Municipality of Desamparados about the project and that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should have been required instead of an Environmental Management Plan (P-PGA), given the project's scale. The Chamber determined that, as a moderate environmental impact project (484 Environmental Impact Significance points), the appropriate instrument is an Environmental Management Plan, not an EIS, according to SETENA's technical classification, which cannot be questioned in this venue as it involves a mere legality discussion. Regarding public participation, the Chamber reiterated its importance but concluded that no violation occurred, because the Municipality was aware of the project through the land-use certificate and other documents, and a social perception study with surveys of the population in the area of influence was conducted. Moreover, the appellant was able to join the administrative file and present objections. The Chamber dismissed the appeal.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "2013",
  "year": "2013",
  "topic_ids": [
    "environmental-law-7554",
    "procedural-environmental"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "procedural-environmental",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "participación ciudadana",
    "viabilidad ambiental",
    "Plan de Gestión Ambiental",
    "Estudio de Impacto Ambiental",
    "Significancia de Impacto Ambiental",
    "apersonamiento",
    "audiencia pública",
    "Comisión Plenaria"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 22",
      "law": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 17",
      "law": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 50",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 9",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 169",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 5",
      "law": "Código Municipal"
    },
    {
      "article": "",
      "law": "Decreto 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "participación ciudadana",
    "SETENA",
    "viabilidad ambiental",
    "Plan de Gestión Ambiental",
    "Estudio de Impacto Ambiental",
    "amparo ambiental",
    "artículo 22 Ley Orgánica del Ambiente",
    "audiencia pública",
    "Significancia de Impacto Ambiental",
    "proyecto comercial Desamparados"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "public participation",
    "SETENA",
    "environmental viability",
    "Environmental Management Plan",
    "Environmental Impact Study",
    "environmental amparo",
    "Article 22 Organic Environmental Law",
    "public hearing",
    "Environmental Impact Significance",
    "Desamparados commercial project"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "De manera que, no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad.\n\nEn el caso concreto, el recurrente estima violentado tal derecho, por cuanto señala que la autoridad recurrida omitió notificar a la Municipalidad correspondiente de la existencia del proyecto en cuestión, lo que trae como consecuencia que el municipio no ponga en conocimiento de la comunidad la obra pretendida, para que puedan emitir su opinión al respecto o intervenir como lo consideren pertinente. No obstante, de las pruebas aportadas a los autos, se tiene que el Proyecto aludido no está calificado de alto impacto, motivo por el cual no requiere de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y como tal, cualquier solicitud de audiencia, requiere ser valorada de previo por la Comisión Plenaria. En cuanto a la falta de conocimiento del municipio que alega el recurrente, del expediente se desprende que desde el momento en que el gestionante presentó ante SETENA el proyecto a su conocimiento, se adjuntó el certificado de uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia al plano donde se realizará el proyecto y sus eventuales consecuencias.",
  "excerpt_en": "Thus, this Court cannot question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it involves a mere legality discussion.\n\nIn the specific case, the appellant considers such right violated, pointing out that the appealed authority failed to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, resulting in the municipality not informing the community about the intended work, so they could express their opinion or intervene as they deemed appropriate. However, from the evidence provided, it is clear that the Project is not classified as high impact, which means it does not require an Environmental Impact Study and, as such, any request for a hearing must be previously assessed by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the appellant, the record shows that from the moment the proponent submitted the project to SETENA, the land-use conformity certificate and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, referring to the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber dismissed the amparo appeal, finding no violation of the principle of public participation or irregularity in the determination of the environmental assessment instrument for a moderate-impact commercial project.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el recurso de amparo, al no constatar violación al principio de participación ciudadana ni irregularidad en la determinación del instrumento de evaluación ambiental para un proyecto comercial de moderado impacto."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "The best way to address environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the relevant level.",
      "quote_es": "El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "public participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, (…) but also, in this new vision, that people are offered a real opportunity to contribute to political decision-making by the State, especially when these have national significance, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population.",
      "quote_es": "la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, (…) sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "this Court cannot question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it involves a mere legality discussion.",
      "quote_es": "no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los criterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere de un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en reiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción competente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el impacto ambiental que pueda producir un proyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de mera legalidad."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-53029",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Decreto 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-583306",
  "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": [],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "EXPEDIENTE N° 13-007375-0007-CO \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 13-007375-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\nExp:\r\n13-007375-0007-CO Res. Nº 2013009795 \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nSALA\r\nCONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas cero\r\nminutos del diecinueve de julio de dos mil trece. \n\r\n\r\n\nRecurso de amparo \r\nque se tramita \r\nen expediente número 13-007375-0007-CO, interpuesto por Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, mayor,\r\ncasado, con cédula de identidad 1-830-927, vecino de Desamparados, contra la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental. \n\r\n\r\n\nResultando: \n\r\n\r\n\n1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de\r\nla Sala a las 14:49 horas del 1 de julio de 2013, el \r\nrecurrente interpone recurso \r\nde amparo contra \r\nSETENA. Manifiesta que el 26 de noviembre\r\nde 2012, se presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional \r\nAmbiental el proyecto \r\n\"Centro Comercial San \r\nRafael Abajo de Desamparados\", al que se le asignó el\r\nnúmero de expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012-SETENA.\r\nExplica que el citado proyecto ocupa un área de 14.400 metros cuadrados,\r\ncon un costo de 14 millones de dólares. Agrega que el 24 de mayo de 2013, presentó ante la Secretaría Técnica\r\nNacional Ambiental -SETENA-una solicitud de apersonamiento al expediente administrativo,\r\nen la que hizo la observación de que la SETENA no había cumplido lo establecido\r\nen el párrafo segundo del artículo 22 de la\r\nLey Orgánica del Ambiente, que indica: \"Dentro de los cinco días\r\nhábiles siguientes al recibido de una evaluación de impacto ambiental, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional\r\nAmbiental remitirá un extracto de ella a las municipalidades en cuya\r\njurisdicción se realizará la obra, la actividad o \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nproyecto («)\". Añade que el mediante oficio\r\nSGDEA-1599-2013 del 31 de mayo del 2013, el \r\nSecretario General de la SETENA \r\nadmitió su solicitud \r\nde apersonamiento y le indicó que sus observaciones serían tomadas en cuenta. Expone que por oficio SG-1695-2013\r\ndel 7 de junio de 2013, el Secretario General de SETENA le indicó que de\r\nconformidad con los decretos ejecutivos 31849\r\ny 32966 (Reglamento de Procedimientos de la SETENA y su reforma), el desarrollador\r\ndel proyecto es el que debe entregar a SETENA la declaratoria de impacto\r\nambiental con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad del Cantón. Destaca que\r\nel artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente ordena que toda actividad humana que altere o destruya elementos\r\ndel ambiente o genere residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos,\r\nrequiere una Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. Señala\r\nque el instrumento técnico legal que el desarrollador presentó a SETENA, para la evaluación del proyecto se llama\r\n\"Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA)\", para proyecto de\r\nmediano impacto ambiental. Manifiesta que SETENA emitió el oficio \r\nDEA-1384-2013 del 13 de \r\nmayo de 2013, dirigido \r\nal \n\r\n\r\n\ndesarrollador, en el que le ordenó que en treinta días\r\nhábiles debía presentar un anexo al P-PGA, ya que existían una serie de dudas. Alega\r\nque mientras tanto las personas\r\nque están dentro del área de influencia directa no saben nada con respecto a\r\neste proyecto. Reclama que SETENA no ha ordenado llevar a cabo ninguna actividad de participación ciudadana como\r\nuna audiencia pública, a pesar de la magnitud del proyecto, el cual se realiza\r\nen una zona residencial, donde solo en las colindancias del lote habitan más de 600 personas y transitan miles de vehículos, ya que\r\ncolinda con ruta nacional. Resalta que sin importar cuál sea el instrumento\r\ntécnico con el que SETENA avale el proyecto, esta debe enviar una copia a la Municipalidad competente (artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del \n\r\n\r\n\nAmbiente) para que pueda también cumplir\r\ncon el principio de participación \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nciudadana.\r\nExplica que en este caso el desarrollador \r\npresentó directamente los documentos para que SETENA aprobara el proyecto, concretamente\r\npresentó un Pronóstico de Plan Gestión Ambiental, dando a entender que el\r\nproyecto es de mediana significancia ambiental, lo cual no es cierto, ya que\r\nincluso SETENA solicitó un anexo a su P-PGA, por lo que lo procedente era\r\nrealizar un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Solicita que se ordene a SETENA pedir\r\nal desarrollador la presentación de un\r\nEstudio de Impacto Ambiental y que lleve a cabo una audiencia pública. \n\r\n\r\n\n2.- Informa bajo juramento Uriel Juárez Baltodano, en su condición\r\nde Secretario General de la Secretaría\r\nTécnica Nacional Ambiental, que el 26 ingresó el proyecto que se llama ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´(Plaza Viva),\r\ny se le asignó el número \r\nde expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012. El Proyecto consiste en un área de construcción\r\ndistribuida en 4 niveles y un sótano, con un área\r\nútil o vendible de 9.559.49 metros, el resto se reserva a áreas de circulación,\r\nservicios, plazas, andén de abastos, baterías de baños públicos y\r\nparqueos cubiertos. El proyecto se presenta\r\npara usos mixtos, entre los cuales se encuentran locales comerciales y\r\nde servicio, tales como farmacia, librería, tienda de hogar, bancos, panadería,\r\nsalón de belleza, veterinaria, entre otros. Además cuenta con varios espacios para restaurante y una plaza de\r\ncomidas, un complejo de 4 salas de cines,\r\nconsultorios médicos, gimnasio,\r\nespacio para universidad, espacios para oficinas o zona franca. Se\r\nlocaliza en un área comercial y tiene como fin suplir servicios comerciales de\r\nla zona urbana en la que se localizará. Cuenta con 321 \n\r\n\r\n\nespacios\r\nde estacionamiento, además integra\r\nmejoras en la infraestructura vial existente y el mismo hace un aporte a la\r\ncalidad urbanística de la zona. El 25 de enero de 2013, el consultor ambiental\r\nresponsable del proyecto, el señor Allan Astorga Gattgens, presentó oficio de\r\ncorrección sobre metros cuadrados de \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nconstrucción del proyecto, aclarando que es de 15.495 m2 en total y no\r\nde \n\r\n\r\n\n16.747.64 m2 \r\ncomo se había \r\nindicado al inicio. \r\nPor oficio DEA-1384-2013-SETENA\r\ndel 13 de mayo de 2013, se previno al representante legal de la sociedad\r\ndesarrolladora, que de previo a resolver lo pertinente debía presentar y\r\naclarar 12 puntos en un plazo de 30 días. El 24 de mayo de 2013, el recurrente\r\nsolicitó a SETENA que lo tuviera como apersonado en el expediente y manifestó su \r\noposición al proyecto \r\npor la falta \r\nde comunicación a la Municipalidad de \r\nDesamparados. El 31 de \r\nmayo de 2013, por \r\noficio \n\r\n\r\n\nSGDEA-1599-2013\r\nnotificado el 12 de junio de 2013, esta Secretaría tuvo por apersonado al recurrente al expediente\r\nadministrativo D1-9349-2012. El 7 de junio de 2013 mediante oficio\r\nSGDEA-1695-2013 notificado el 12 de junio de 2013, SETENA contestó al\r\nrecurrente sus inquietudes, indicándole que en este caso el proyecto tiene \r\ncomo instrumento de \r\nEvaluación de Impacto \r\nAmbiental un Pronóstico-Plan de\r\nGestión Ambiental, no un estudio de impacto ambiental, motivo por el cual no procede\r\nla aplicación de lo dispuesto en el Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC y\r\nNo. 32966-MINAE. Asimismo, se le indicó \r\nque en el \r\ninstrumento de evaluación \r\nambiental presentado por el\r\ndesarrollador, se aportó un Estudio de Percepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, en el que se realizaron\r\nencuestas de percepción social al área\r\nde influencia directa e indirecta y mostró un 90% de nivel de confianza de la población entrevistada y que constituye una\r\nmuestra representativa del sector. El 17 de junio de 2013, el\r\ndesarrollador dio respuesta al oficio DEA-1384-2013, el cual se encuentra en\r\neste momento en análisis del técnico\r\nencargado de este Proyecto en el Departamento de Evaluación\r\nAmbiental. Indica que es cierto que la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente en el\r\nartículo 22 señala que dentro de los 5 días hábiles\r\nsiguientes al recibo de una evaluación de impacto ambiental, la SETENA \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nremitirá un extracto de ellas a las Municipalidades en cuya jurisdicción\r\nse realizará la obra, la\r\nactividad o proyecto. Sin embargo, como lo ha establecido la Sala en la sentencia No. 2002-1220, ello no quiere decir que\r\nno pueda el Poder Ejecutivo vía reglamentaria determinar con fundamento\r\nen estudios técnicos precisos que una determinada\r\nactividad o proyecto no requiera los estudios de impacto ambiental, lo que supone en todo caso que tal definición esté\r\ndebidamente motivada y justificada. Es por ello que por reglamento se determinó\r\nque el artículo 22 citado aplicaría para todas aquellas actividades\r\nclasificadas como de alto impacto ambiental y cuyo instrumento de evaluación\r\nambiental sea un estudio de impacto ambiental,\r\nno así para los demás instrumentos de evaluación clasificados como de moderado\r\no bajo impacto ambiental. Señala que parte de los requisitos que SETENA pide al desarrollador es que presente un\r\ncertificado de uso conforme del suelo emitido por la Municipalidad de donde se\r\nvaya a realizar la actividad, obra o proyecto. De esta forma la\r\nMunicipalidad de previo conocerá el tipo de proyecto que se pretende construir en su jurisdicción cantonal, y que constituye\r\nun requisito previo para ser presentado a SETENA. Refiere que el\r\nproyecto en mención se encuentra aún en estudio, por lo que no se le ha otorgado\r\nla viabilidad ambiental. En el informe\r\ntécnico rendido por el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental en el oficio\r\nUE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de julio de 2013, se indicó que el Proyecto cumple con\r\nlo estipulado en el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, ya que es presentado por un desarrollador y un\r\nconsultor ambiental, inscrito y vigente en SETENA. Además, la\r\nSignificancia de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto es de 484 puntos, lo que implica la necesidad de\r\npresentar un Plan de Gestión Ambiental.\r\nTambién señaló que sí existía conocimiento de las personas del área de influencia del \r\nproyecto, toda vez \r\nque al rendir \r\nel sociólogo el \r\nestudio socioeconómico y de percepción social, es una información que\r\ntiene carácter de \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\ndeclaración\r\njurada, por lo que se considera actual y\r\nverdadera. En el informe aportado se tomó como unidad de observación a las\r\n725 viviendas ocupadas que existen en el área de influencia tanto\r\ndirecta como indirecta y en las que habitan aproximadamente\r\n2972 personas. Un 52.1% de los encuestados mencionaron estar a favor del\r\nproyecto, un 31.3% en contra y un 16.7% no supieron o no quisieron responder.\r\nEntre los principales aspectos que\r\ngeneraron preocupación en la población fueron: el aumento de tránsito\r\nvehicular, por lo cual se solicitó el estudio\r\nde vialidad de la Dirección General de Tránsito que ya fue aportado; y la prestación\r\nde los servicios públicos, sin embargo fueron aportadas las notas certificadas\r\nde disponibilidad de cada uno de los servicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones\r\ncorrespondientes. Indica que las\r\naudiencias públicas conforme al artículo\r\n56 del Decreto 31849 se dan cuando \r\nalguna persona física o jurídica solicite a SETENA que se lleve a cabo, lo cual\r\nautoriza o no la Comisión Plenaria dependiendo de la valoración que haga\r\nde la magnitud del potencial impacto ambiental. En caso de decidir no celebrar\r\nla audiencia pública solicitada, dicha comisión \r\ndebe determinar el \r\nmecanismo mediante el cual \r\nrecibirá las observaciones. Por otro lado, señala que los expedientes de\r\nSETENA son públicos, por lo que las personas interesadas se pueden apersonar y hacer las observaciones que estimen\r\npertinentes, como lo hizo el recurrente.\r\nIndica que según lo expuesto en el informe técnico UE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de\r\njulio de 2013, el desarrollador entrega a\r\nSETENA la declaratoria de impacto ambiental del Proyecto con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad del cantón donde\r\nse localiza la actividad, obra o\r\nproyecto; el uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad\r\nde Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia la plano donde se\r\nrealizará el proyecto, por lo que sí tienen conocimiento\r\ndel desarrollo del mismo. Aclara que SETENA no solicitó un anexo, \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\ntal como lo hace ver el recurrente, sino que realizó una prevención al\r\ndesarrollador conforme lo\r\nestablece el reglamento y que ello per se, no implica que deba modificarse el\r\ninstrumento de evaluación requerido. Considera que por todo lo señalado, no procede requerir un estudio de\r\nimpacto ambiental en el presente caso, ya que estamos frente a un\r\nproyecto de moderado impacto que contempló además un apartado de participación social. Solicita que se declare sin lugar\r\nel recurso. \n\r\n\r\n\n3.- Por escrito presentado\r\nel 19 de julio de 2013, el recurrente se manifiesta sobre el informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida. \n\r\n\r\n\n4.- En los procedimientos \r\nseguidos se ha observado las\r\nprescripciones legales. \n\r\n\r\n\nRedacta el\r\nMagistrado Rueda Leal; y, \n\r\n\r\n\nConsiderando: \n\r\n\r\n\nI.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este\r\nasunto, se estiman como debidamente\r\ndemostrados los siguientes hechos: \n\r\n\r\n\na) El 26 de noviembre de 2013, se presentó\r\nante SETENA el proyecto que se llama\r\n³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´(Plaza Viva), al cual se le asignó el número de expediente administrativo D1-9349-2012 y\r\nque consiste en un área de construcción distribuida en 4 niveles y un sótano,\r\ncon un área útil o vendible de \n\r\n\r\n\n9.559.49 metros, el resto se reserva a áreas de circulación, servicios,\r\nplazas, andén de\r\nabastos, baterías de baños públicos y\r\nparqueos cubiertos. El proyecto se presenta\r\npara usos mixtos, entre los cuales se encuentran locales comerciales y de servicio, tales como farmacia, librería, tienda de\r\nhogar, bancos, panadería, salón de belleza, veterinaria, \r\nentre otros. Además \r\ncuenta con varios \r\nespacios para restaurante y una plaza de comidas, un complejo de\r\n4 salas de cines, consultorios médicos,\r\ngimnasio, espacio para universidad, espacios para oficinas o zona franca. Se\r\nlocaliza en un área comercial y tiene como fin suplir servicios comerciales de\r\nla \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nzona urbana en la que se localizará. Cuenta con 321 espacios de estacionamiento, integra mejoras en la infraestructura vial\r\nexistente y hace un aporte a la calidad urbanística\r\nde la zona. (ver informe rendido por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\nb) El 25 de enero de 2013, el consultor\r\nambiental responsable del proyecto, el señor Allan Astorga Gattgens, \r\npresentó ante SETENA un oficio solicitando la corrección de los metros cuadrados de\r\nconstrucción del proyecto, aclarando que son 15.495 m2 en total y no 16.747.64\r\nm2 como se había indicado previamente. (informe\r\nrendido por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\nc) Por oficio DEA-1384-2013-SETENA del 13 de mayo de 2013, SETENA previno\r\nal representante legal de la sociedad desarrolladora, aclarar 12 puntos del Proyecto\r\nen un plazo de 30 días, lo cual fue cumplido por el Gestor Ambiental y aportado el 17 de junio de 2013. (ver prueba\r\naportada por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\nd) El 24 de mayo de 2013, el recurrente solicitó a SETENA que lo\r\ntuviera como apersonado en el expediente y manifestó su oposición al proyecto\r\npor la falta de comunicación \r\na la Municipalidad \r\nde Desamparados. (hecho no \n\r\n\r\n\ncontrovertido) \n\r\n\r\n\ne) El 31 de mayo de 2013, por oficio SGDEA-1599-2013 notificado el\r\n12 de junio de 2013, SETENA \r\ntuvo por apersonado \r\nal recurrente al \r\nexpediente administrativo\r\nD1-9349-2012. (hecho no controvertido) \n\r\n\r\n\nf) El 7 de junio de 2013, mediante oficio\r\nSGDEA-1695-2013 notificado el 12 de junio de 2013, SETENA contestó al\r\nrecurrente sus inquietudes, indicándole que en este caso el proyecto \r\ntiene como instrumento de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental un\r\nPronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental, no un estudio de impacto ambiental,\r\nmotivo por el cual no procede la\r\naplicación de lo dispuesto en el Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC y \r\nNo. 32966-MINAE. \n\r\n\r\n\nAsimismo, se le indicó que en el\r\ninstrumento de evaluación ambiental presentado \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\npor el desarrollador,\r\nse aportó un Estudio de Percepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, en el que se realizaron\r\nencuestas de percepción social al área de influencia directa e indirecta\r\ny mostró un 90% de nivel de confianza de la población\r\nentrevistada y que constituye una muestra representativa del sector. (ver prueba adjunta por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\ng) Según el informe técnico rendido por el Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental de SETENA, en el oficio UE-DEA-0007-2013 del 11 de julio de 2013,\r\nel Proyecto en cuestión cumple\r\ncon lo estipulado en el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, ya que es\r\npresentado por un desarrollador y un consultor ambiental, inscrito y vigente en\r\nSETENA; además, la Significancia de Impacto Ambiental\r\ndel Proyecto es de 484 puntos, lo que implica la necesidad de presentar un Plan\r\nde Gestión Ambiental y señala que sí existía conocimiento de las personas del área de influencia del proyecto, toda vez que\r\nel estudio socioeconómico y de percepción\r\nsocial tomó como unidad de observación a las 725 viviendas ocupadas que\r\nexisten en el área de influencia tanto directa como indirecta y en las que habitan \r\naproximadamente 2972 \r\npersonas, de las \r\ncuales un 52.1% de los\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nencuestados mencionaron estar a favor del\r\nproyecto, un 31.3% en contra y un \n\r\n\r\n\n16.7% no\r\nsupieron o no quisieron responder. (ver informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\nh) Los principales aspectos que generaron\r\npreocupación en la población en el estudio de percepción realizado por la empresa desarrolladora\r\nfueron: el aumento de tránsito vehicular, por lo cual SETENA solicitó el\r\nestudio de vialidad de la Dirección General\r\nde Tránsito que ya fue aportado; y la prestación de los servicios públicos, sin \r\nembargo, en el \r\nexpediente constan las \r\nnotas certificadas de disponibilidad de cada uno de los\r\nservicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\ncorrespondientes.\r\n(ver informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\ni) El desarrollador del Proyecto entregó a\r\nSETENA la declaratoria de impacto ambiental con el sello de recibido de la Municipalidad de\r\nDesamparados; el uso conforme del suelo y el permiso de desfogue de aguas\r\npluviales, emitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace\r\nreferencia al plano donde se realizará el proyecto, por lo que, dicho municipio\r\nsí tiene conocimiento del desarrollo del\r\nmismo. (ver pruebas aportadas por la autoridad recurrida) \n\r\n\r\n\nj) SETENA no ha otorgado la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto en\r\ncuestión, por encontrarse en estudio. (ver informe rendido bajo la fe de\r\njuramento por la \n\r\n\r\n\nautoridad recurrida. \n\r\n\r\n\nII.- Objeto del recurso. El recurrente señala que se violenta el\r\nprincipio de participación ciudadana, por\r\ncuanto SETENA no ha notificado a la Municipalidad de Desamparados la\r\nexistencia del proyecto ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´, evitando que la\r\npoblación pudiera manifestarse al respecto. Asimismo, considera que para la magnitud del proyecto se debió haber\r\nsolicitado un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental\r\ny no un Plan de Gestión Ambiental. \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- Sobre el fondo. Del expediente se tiene que, en efecto, ante\r\nla autoridad recurrida fue presentado para el estudio y otorgamiento de la\r\nviabilidad ambiental respectiva, el proyecto\r\ndenominado ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´(Plaza \n\r\n\r\n\nViva), al cual se le asignó el número de expediente administrativo\r\nD1-9349-2012. Dicho proyecto\r\nconsiste en un área de construcción distribuida en 4 niveles y un sótano, con\r\nun área útil o vendible de 9.559.49 metros cuadrados y el resto se reserva a\r\náreas de circulación, servicios, plazas,\r\nandén de abastos, baterías de baños\r\npúblicos y parqueos cubiertos. Fue diseñado para diversos usos, entre los cuales\r\nse encuentran locales comerciales y de servicio, tales como farmacia, \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nlibrería,\r\ntienda de hogar, bancos, panadería, salón de belleza, veterinaria, entre otros.\r\nAdemás, cuenta con varios espacios para restaurante y una plaza de comidas, un complejo de 4 salas de cines,\r\nconsultorios médicos, gimnasio, espacio para universidad, espacios para\r\noficinas o zona franca y cuenta con 321 espacios de estacionamiento. Se localiza en un área comercial y tiene\r\ncomo fin suplir servicios comerciales de\r\nla zona urbana en la que se localizará. Este proyecto fue evaluado por el consultor ambiental que lo\r\npresentó ante SETENA, que lo calificó de mediano impacto, producto de la Significancia de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto que es de 484 puntos.\r\nEsto implica la necesidad de presentar un Plan de Gestión Ambiental, no un\r\nEstudio de Impacto Ambiental, que solo se requiere para los proyectos de alto impacto. Lo anterior fue corroborado y\r\navalado también por los funcionarios especializados de SETENA. De manera\r\nque, no podría este Tribunal cuestionar los\r\ncriterios técnicos que justifican que el proyecto en cuestión requiere\r\nde un Plan de Gestión Ambiental como instrumento adecuado para evaluar el impacto ambiental, ya que, en\r\nreiteradas ocasiones, la Sala ha señalado que esta no es la jurisdicción\r\ncompetente para determinar cuál es el instrumento idóneo para definir el\r\nimpacto ambiental que pueda producir un\r\nproyecto, por tratarse de una discusión de\r\nmera legalidad. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- Por otro lado, este Tribunal ha potenciado el derecho \r\nque tiene la población de participar en aquellos asuntos que sean de su\r\ninterés y que involucren la afectación al ambiente. Sobre el particular se ha\r\nindicado, que la participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos\r\npuntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos\r\nambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión\r\na los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva\r\nparticipación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos. Por ello, el Estado costarricense\r\nno solo debe invitar a la participación ciudadana, sino que debe \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\npromoverla\r\ny respetarla cuando se produzca (ver sentencias número 2001-10466, 2003-6322 y\r\n2010-6922). Así, resulta de gran importancia que sea puesta a disposición de\r\nlos interesados la información que en la\r\nmateria tengan en las oficinas públicas, relativa a los estudios de impacto\r\nambiental a cargo de la Secretaría Técnica\r\nNacional Ambiental, pro ejemplo. Fue la Convención de Río la que en el\r\nprincipio 10 elevó esta participación a rango de principio en materia ambiental, al señalar: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la\r\nparticipación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda. En el plano nacional, toda persona debe tener\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nadecuada\r\nformación sobre el medio ambiente que dispongan las autoridades públicas, incluida\r\nla información sobre los materiales y las actividades que encierran peligro en\r\nsus comunidades, así \n\r\n\r\n\ncomo la\r\noportunidad de participar en los procesos de adopción de decisiones. Los \r\nEstados deberán facilitar \r\ny fomentar la sensibilización y la participación de la\r\npoblación poniendo la \n\r\n\r\n\ninformación a disposición de todos. Deberá proporcionarse acceso efectivo a los procedimientos\r\njudiciales y administrativos, entre éstos\r\nel resarcimiento de daños y los recursos pertinentes.\" \n\r\n\r\n\nDe este principio, se evidencia claramente la importancia que a\r\nnivel internacional se da a las cuestiones ambientales, y en general, sobre\r\ntodo, a la participación de la sociedad \r\ncivil en decisiones de gran\r\ntrascendencia para la comunidad. Precisamente, por Ley No. 7412 del 03\r\nde junio de 1994, la Asamblea Legislativa reformó el artículo 50 de la\r\nConstitución Política, garantizando a toda persona el derecho al ambiente sano\r\ny ecológicamente equilibrado. Lo anterior ha traído como consecuencia, además,\r\nque se admita una legitimación muy amplia \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\npara\r\ndenunciar actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño\r\ncausado, a través del acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos. Asimismo,\r\ncuando la Constitución Política hace mención en el artículo 9, que el \r\nGobierno de la \r\nRepública es popular, \r\nrepresentativo, participativo, alternativo y responsable, hemos de tener\r\nclaro que la participación ciudadana no se\r\nlimitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, o a la aspiración de alcanzar\r\nun cargo público de elección popular, \r\nsino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les\r\nofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas\r\ndel Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, \r\no eventualmente pudieren \r\nafectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos\r\nsectores de la población. De los\r\nartículos 1, 9 y 50 Constitucionales se rescata pues, la consideración que los\r\nciudadanos merecen en un Estado democrático, en el cual puedan al menos tener\r\nacceso a la información sobre el medio ambiente de que dispongan las\r\nautoridades públicas. El precepto comentado, \r\nentonces, recoge el \r\nprincipio citado a \r\ntravés del acceso \r\na la información de que se\r\ndispone y a la divulgación de ella, para que la toma de decisiones no se\r\ncircunscriba a un limitado grupo de intereses. En la materia que ahora\r\nanalizamos, nuestro ordenamiento \r\njurídico ya prevé que los particulares pueden solicitar incluso a SETENA\r\nllevar a cabo audiencias públicas, para efecto de que se tomen en cuenta las\r\nposiciones formuladas por las comunidades interesadas en la toma de\r\ndecisiones que afectan el ambiente, lo\r\nque ha sido recogido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y de su Reglamento, como\r\ninformó la autoridad recurrida. Lo\r\nanterior, claro está, en aquellos asuntos que su trascendencia lo amerite, lo\r\ncual puede ser solicitado por cualquier interesado y valorado así por la\r\nComisión Plenaria. También ha enfatizado la Sala, que esta participación se\r\npuede lograr en forma individual, a través de grupos asociativos \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nde orden particular, así como también a través de los gobiernos locales,\r\na quienes, por su competencia asignada en el artículo 169 de la Constitución,\r\nse les reconoce plena\r\ncompetencia para promoverla en los asuntos que de algún modo puedan afectar la\r\ncomunidad de su jurisdicción, y más bien, en caso de no hacerlo, estaría\r\nincumpliendo uno de sus cometidos que el constituyente le asignó, y que ha sido\r\ndesarrollada en la legislación ordinaria: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"Las municipalidades \r\nfomentarán la participación activa, consciente\r\ny democrática del pueblo en las tomas de decisiones del gobierno local.\r\nLas instituciones públicas estarán obligadas \r\na colaborar para que estas decisiones se cumplan debidamente\" (artículo 5 del Código Municipal). \n\r\n\r\n\nDe manera que, \r\nciertamente, la participación \r\nciudadana y de las\r\nmunicipalidades es de trascendental importancia a fin de promover la conciencia\r\nen los problemas ambientales y para coadyuvar en la toma de decisiones de las\r\ninstituciones encargadas de la\r\npreservación, vigilancia y protección del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. \n\r\n\r\n\nEn el caso concreto, el recurrente estima violentado tal derecho,\r\npor cuanto señala que la \r\nautoridad recurrida omitió \r\nnotificar a la \r\nMunicipalidad correspondiente de la existencia del proyecto en cuestión, lo que trae como consecuencia que el municipio no ponga en\r\nconocimiento de la comunidad la obra pretendida, para que puedan emitir\r\nsu opinión al respecto o intervenir como lo consideren pertinente. No obstante,\r\nde las pruebas aportadas a los autos, se tiene que el Proyecto aludido no está\r\ncalificado de alto impacto, motivo por el cual no requiere de un Estudio de\r\nImpacto Ambiental y como tal, cualquier solicitud de audiencia, requiere ser valorada de previo por la Comisión Plenaria. En\r\ncuanto a la falta de conocimiento del municipio que alega el recurrente, del\r\nexpediente se \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\ndesprende\r\nque desde el momento en que el gestionante presentó ante SETENA el proyecto a\r\nsu conocimiento, se adjuntó el certificado de uso conforme del suelo y el\r\npermiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales,\r\nemitidos por la Municipalidad de Desamparados, en los cuales se hace referencia\r\nal plano donde se realizará el proyecto\r\ny sus eventuales consecuencias. \r\nAsimismo, el Plan de Gestión de Ambiental aportado a SETENA tiene el sello de recibido en la Municipalidad señalada. De manera que,\r\nindependientemente de que SETENA notificara o no a dicho gobierno municipal, lo\r\ncierto es que ha tenido pleno conocimiento de la existencia de dicho proyecto.\r\nAunado a lo anterior, junto con el Plan de Gestión Ambiental se aportó un estudio de \r\nPercepción Social elaborado por un profesional en Sociología, con\r\ncarácter de declaración jurada, en el que se muestra el resultado que\r\ntuvieron las encuestas de percepción\r\nsocial en el área de influencia directa e indirecta y que mostró un 90% de\r\nnivel de confianza por parte de la población entrevistada.\r\nEste estudio permitió a SETENA verificar también, que han sido dos los\r\naspectos que más preocuparon al sector entrevistado. Uno es el aumento de tránsito\r\nvehicular que podría producirse; y el otro, la prestación de los servicios públicos.\r\nPrecisamente para atender dichas inquietudes, SETENA solicitó el estudio de\r\nvialidad de la Dirección General de Tránsito, el cual ya fue aportado por el desarrollador del Proyecto. \r\nEn cuanto a la prestación de los servicios públicos, la autoridad\r\nrecurrida señala que en el expediente constan \r\nlas notas certificadas de\r\ndisponibilidad de cada uno de los servicios básicos emitidas por las instituciones\r\ncorrespondientes. Así las cosas, a\r\ncriterio de este Tribunal, no se constata lesión alguna en el sentido acusado\r\npor el amparado, pues más que la determinación\r\ndel tipo de instrumento utilizado para evaluar el impacto ambiental del\r\nproyecto o de lo dispuesto en la normativa de índole infra legal, lo cierto es que en el presente caso, se ha dado a conocer a\r\nlos vecinos y a la Municipalidad de \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nDesamparados\r\nla existencia de este proyecto y han\r\ntenido la oportunidad de manifestarse.\r\nLa Sala constata que el propio recurrente se apersonó al expediente del proyecto en cuestión, donde ha tenido\r\noportunidad de plantear sus inquietudes, las cuales han sido contestadas oportunamente por la autoridad\r\nrecurrida; y será en la resolución\r\nfinal que emita SETENA donde se pronuncie sobre los aspectos de fondo\r\nque considere conveniente, toda vez que el proyecto de estudio no cuenta todavía con el otorgamiento de la viabilidad\r\nambiental por encontrarse en análisis. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- Por todo lo expuesto y en lo que respecta a esta jurisdicción\r\nel amparo debe declararse sin lugar, al no constatarse la violación a derecho\r\nfundamental alguno. \n\r\n\r\n\nPor tanto: \n\r\n\r\n\nSe declara SIN LUGAR\r\nel recurso. \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nFernando Cruz C. \n\r\n\r\n\nPresidente a.i \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nFernando\r\nCastillo V. Paul\r\nRueda L.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nAracelly\r\nPacheco S. Rosa\r\nMaría Abdelnour G.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nJorge\r\nAraya G. Jose\r\nPaulino Hernández G.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n-- Código verificador\r\n--\n\r\n\r\n\n& 0!,,+0'1# \n\r\n\r\n\nF9PALLKPGQC61",
  "body_en_text": "EXPEDIENTE N° 13-007375-0007-CO\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 13-007375-0007-CO\n\nExp: 13-007375-0007-CO Res. Nº 2013009795\n\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at ten hours zero minutes on the nineteenth of July, two thousand thirteen.\n\nAmparo action processed in expediente number 13-007375-0007-CO, filed by Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, of legal age, married, with identity card 1-830-927, resident of Desamparados, against the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- By writing received in the Secretariat of the Sala at 14:49 hours on July 1, 2013, the appellant files an amparo action against SETENA. He states that on November 26, 2012, the project \"Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados\" was submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, to which the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012-SETENA was assigned. He explains that the cited project occupies an area of 14,400 square meters, at a cost of 14 million dollars. He adds that on May 24, 2013, he filed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental -SETENA- a request to become a party to the administrative expediente, in which he noted that SETENA had not complied with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which states: \"Within the five business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental shall send an extract of it to the municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nproject will be carried out («)\". He adds that by official letter SGDEA-1599-2013 of May 31, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA admitted his request to become a party and indicated that his observations would be taken into account. He explains that by official letter SG-1695-2013 of June 7, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA indicated to him that, in accordance with Executive Decrees 31849 and 32966 (Reglamento de Procedimientos de la SETENA and its reform), the project developer is the one who must deliver to SETENA the environmental impact declaration with the received stamp of the Municipality of the Canton. He emphasizes that Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente orders that any human activity that alters or destroys elements of the environment or generates waste, toxic or hazardous materials requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. He points out that the technical-legal instrument that the developer submitted to SETENA for the project evaluation is called \"Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental (P-PGA)\", for a project of medium environmental impact. He states that SETENA issued official letter DEA-1384-2013 of May 13, 2013, addressed to the\n\ndeveloper, in which it ordered that within thirty business days an annex to the P-PGA must be submitted, since there were a series of doubts. He alleges that meanwhile the people who are within the area of direct influence know nothing regarding this project. He claims that SETENA has not ordered any citizen participation activity such as a public hearing to be carried out, despite the magnitude of the project, which is being carried out in a residential zone, where on the lot boundaries alone more than 600 people reside and thousands of vehicles transit, since it borders a national route. He highlights that regardless of the technical instrument with which SETENA endorses the project, it must send a copy to the competent Municipality (Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del\n\nAmbiente) so that it can also comply with the principle of citizen\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nparticipation. He explains that in this case the developer directly submitted the documents for SETENA to approve the project, specifically submitted a Pronóstico de Plan Gestión Ambiental, implying that the project is of medium environmental significance, which is not true, since even SETENA requested an annex to its P-PGA, so the appropriate course was to carry out an Environmental Impact Study. He requests that SETENA be ordered to require the developer to submit an Environmental Impact Study and to hold a public hearing.\n\n2.- Uriel Juárez Baltodano, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, reports under oath that on the 26th, the project called ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´ (Plaza Viva) was filed, and it was assigned the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012. The Project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a useful or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the rest is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom sets, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as pharmacy, bookstore, home store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for restaurants and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone where it will be located. It has 321\n\nparking spaces, also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure and contributes to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted an official letter correcting the square meters of\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nconstruction of the project, clarifying that it is 15,495 m2 in total and not\n\n16,747.64 m2 as initially indicated. By official letter DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developing company was cautioned that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, they must present and clarify 12 points within a period of 30 days. On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested SETENA to have him as a party to the expediente and stated his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, by official letter\n\nSGDEA-1599-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat accepted the appellant as a party to the administrative expediente D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case, the project has as its Environmental Impact Assessment instrument a Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental, not an environmental impact study, which is why the application of the provisions of Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not applicable. Likewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment instrument submitted by the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population and which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to official letter DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Environmental Assessment Department. It indicates that it is true that the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente in Article 22 states that within 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, SETENA\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nshall send an extract thereof to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as this Sala established in judgment No. 2002-1220, that does not mean that the Executive Branch cannot, through regulatory means and based on precise technical studies, determine that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case assumes that such a definition is duly reasoned and justified. That is why by regulation it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all activities classified as high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an environmental impact study, but not for other assessment instruments classified as moderate or low environmental impact. It points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of compliant land use issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will know in advance the type of project intended to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and which constitutes a prerequisite for being submitted to SETENA. It states that the project in question is still under study, and therefore environmental viability has not been granted. In the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department in official letter UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental. It also noted that there was indeed awareness among the people in the project's area of influence, since when the sociologist prepared the socioeconomic and social perception study, it is information that has the character of a\n\nsworn statement, and is therefore considered current and true. In the report provided, the occupied dwellings existing in both the direct and indirect area of influence were taken as the unit of observation, numbering 725 dwellings in which approximately 2,972 people reside. 52.1% of those surveyed stated they were in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito was requested and has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions were provided. It indicates that public hearings, in accordance with Article 56 of Decree 31849, occur when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Comisión Plenaria authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. In the event of deciding not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, it points out that SETENA expedientes are public, so interested persons can become parties and make observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. It indicates that according to what is stated in technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration of the Project with the received stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the compliant land use and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge\n\nof the development thereof. It clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant suggests, but rather issued a caution to the developer in accordance with the regulations, and that this per se does not imply that the required assessment instrument must be modified. It considers that, for all the reasons stated, it is not appropriate to require an environmental impact study in the present case, since we are dealing with a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. It requests that the appeal be declared without merit.\n\n3.- By a writing filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report issued by the respondent authority.\n\n4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:\n\na) On November 26, 2013, the project called ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´ (Plaza Viva) was submitted to SETENA, to which the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012 was assigned, and which consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a useful or sellable area of\n\n9,559.49 meters, the rest is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom sets, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as pharmacy, bookstore, home store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for restaurants and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the\n\nurban zone where it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure, and contributes to the urban quality of the area. (see report issued by the respondent authority)\n\nb) On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted to SETENA an official letter requesting the correction of the square meters of construction of the project, clarifying that they are 15,495 m2 in total and not 16,747.64 m2 as previously indicated. (report issued by the respondent authority)\n\nc) By official letter DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, SETENA cautioned the legal representative of the developing company to clarify 12 points of the Project within a period of 30 days, which was completed by the Environmental Manager and provided on June 17, 2013. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nd) On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested SETENA to have him as a party to the expediente and stated his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. (fact not\n\ncontroverted)\n\ne) On May 31, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1599-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA accepted the appellant as a party to the administrative expediente D1-9349-2012. (fact not controverted)\n\nf) On June 7, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case, the project has as its Environmental Impact Assessment instrument a Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental, not an environmental impact study, which is why the application of the provisions of Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not applicable.\n\nLikewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment instrument submitted\n\nby the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population and which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. (see evidence attached by the respondent authority)\n\ng) According to the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department of SETENA, in official letter UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the Project in question complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA; furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental and it points out that there was indeed awareness among the people in the project's area of influence, since the socioeconomic and social perception study took as its unit of observation the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, in which approximately 2,972 people reside, of whom 52.1% of\n\nthose surveyed stated they were in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. (see report issued under oath by the respondent authority)\n\nh) The main aspects that generated concern in the population in the perception study conducted by the developing company were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which SETENA requested the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito which has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding\n\ninstitutions are on record in the expediente. (see report issued under oath by the respondent authority)\n\ni) The Project developer delivered to SETENA the environmental impact declaration with the received stamp of the Municipality of Desamparados; the compliant land use and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so that said municipality does have knowledge of the development thereof. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nj) SETENA has not granted environmental viability to the project in question, as it is under study. (see report issued under oath by the\n\nrespondent authority)\n\nII.- Object of the appeal. The appellant states that the principle of citizen participation is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the project ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´, preventing the population from being able to express themselves on the matter. He also considers that, given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study should have been requested and not a Plan de Gestión Ambiental.\n\nIII.- On the merits. From the expediente it is evident that, in effect, the project called ³Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.´ (Plaza Viva) was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental viability, to which the administrative expediente number D1-9349-2012 was assigned. Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a useful or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters, and the rest is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom sets, and covered parking. It was designed for diverse uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as pharmacy,\n\nbookstore, home store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for restaurants and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone, and it has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone where it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, who classified it as medium impact, based on the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project, which is 484 points. This implies the need to present a Plan de Gestión Ambiental, not an Environmental Impact Study, which is only required for high-impact projects. This was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Tribunal could not question the technical criteria that justify that the project in question requires a Plan de Gestión Ambiental as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, this Sala has stated that it is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as this is a discussion of mere legality.\n\nIV.- On the other hand, this Tribunal has strengthened the right of the population to participate in matters that are of interest to them and that involve affecting the environment. On this point, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information concerning environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation but must also\n\npromote it and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held on the matter in public offices, relating to environmental impact studies under the responsibility of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, for example, be made available to interested parties. It was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:\n\n\"The best way to deal with environmental issues is through the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every person should have\n\nadequate training on the environment available from public authorities, including information on materials and activities that pose danger in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making\n\ninformation available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.\"\n\nFrom this principle, the importance given internationally to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, is clearly evident. Precisely, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought about the consequence that a very broad standing is admitted\n\nto denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternated, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of attaining a public office by popular election, but also, in this new vision, to providing people with the real opportunity to contribute to the making of political decisions of the State, especially when these have national significance, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, then, is rescued the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, therefore, incorporates the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter now under analysis, our legal system already provides that private individuals can even request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been included in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and its Regulation, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance merits it, which can be requested by any interested party and assessed as such by the Comisión Plenaria. This Sala has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups\n\nof a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, due to their competence assigned in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that may in some way affect the community of their jurisdiction, and rather, if they fail to do so, they would be failing to fulfill one of their duties assigned by the constituent power, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:\n\n\"Municipalities shall promote the active, conscientious, and democratic participation of the people in the decision-making of local government. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly complied with\" (Article 5 of the Código Municipal).\n\nThus, citizen and municipal participation is certainly of transcendent importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions charged with the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.\n\nIn the specific case, the petitioner considers this right violated, since he indicates that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not making the intended work known to the community, so that they can issue their opinion on the matter or intervene as they deem pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the record, it is clear that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high-impact, for which reason it does not require an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and, as such, any request for a hearing must be evaluated beforehand by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the petitioner, it can be deduced from the file that from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its consideration, the certificate of compliant land use and the stormwater drainage permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, in which reference is made to the site plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan submitted to SETENA bears the received stamp of the indicated Municipality. Thus, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the truth is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of said project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception study prepared by a professional in Sociology, with the character of a sworn statement, was provided, showing the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% level of confidence on the part of the interviewed population. This study also allowed SETENA to verify that two aspects were of most concern to the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address these concerns, SETENA requested the traffic study from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the respondent authority indicates that the certified letters of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions are in the file. This being the case, in the opinion of this Court, no injury is verified in the sense alleged by the protected party, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact of the project or what is provided in the infra-legal regulations, the fact is that in the present case, the residents and the Municipality of Desamparados have been made aware of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express their views. This Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file of the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been answered in a timely manner by the respondent authority; and it will be in the final resolution issued by SETENA where it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, given that the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.\n\nV.- For all of the foregoing and with respect to this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is verified.\n\nTherefore:\n\nThe appeal is declared WITHOUT MERIT.\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nPresidente a.i\n\nFernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.\n\nAracelly Pacheco S. Rosa María Abdelnour G.\n\nJorge Araya G. Jose Paulino Hernández G.\n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\n& 0!,,+0'1#\n\nF9PALLKPGQC61\n\nThe project is presented for mixed uses, which include commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, a space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone (zona franca). It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban area where it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, and it also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure and makes a contribution to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant (consultor ambiental) responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a correcting communication regarding the square meters of project construction, clarifying that it totals 15,495 m2 and not 16,747.64 m2 as had been indicated at the outset. By communication DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developer company was warned that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, they had to submit and clarify 12 points within a period of 30 days. On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested that SETENA recognize him as a party to the proceeding in the case file (expediente) and expressed his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality (Municipalidad) of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, through communication SGDEA-1599-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat recognized the appellant as a party to the administrative case file D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, through communication SGDEA-1695-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case the project's instrument of Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) is an Environmental Management Forecast-Plan (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), which is why the application of the provisions of Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not applicable. Likewise, it was indicated to him that in the environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) instrument presented by the developer, a Social Perception Study prepared by a professional in Sociology was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the direct and indirect area of influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to communication DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental). It indicates that it is true that the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), in Article 22, states that within the 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, SETENA shall forward an extract of it to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as the Chamber (Sala) has established in judgment No. 2002-1220, this does not mean that the Executive Branch cannot, via regulation and based on precise technical studies, determine that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case assumes that such a definition is duly reasoned and justified. It is for this reason that, by regulation, it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all those activities classified as having high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an environmental impact study, but not to other assessment instruments classified as having moderate or low environmental impact. It points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of conforming land use (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will previously know the type of project that is intended to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and this constitutes a prerequisite for presentation to SETENA. It states that the project in question is still under study, so environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) has not been granted to it. In the technical report rendered by the Department of Environmental Assessment in communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with the stipulations of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, since it is presented by a developer and an environmental consultant, both registered and active with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental). It also noted that there was indeed knowledge of the project among the people in the area of influence, since when the sociologist rendered the socioeconomic and social perception study, that information has the character of a sworn statement (declaración jurada), and is therefore considered current and truthful. In the report provided, the observation unit consisted of the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, in which approximately 2,972 people reside. 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to respond. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which the traffic study (estudio de vialidad) from the General Directorate of Traffic (Dirección General de Tránsito) was requested and has already been submitted; and the provision of public services, however the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions were submitted. It indicates that public hearings, according to Article 56 of Decreto 31849, take place when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. In the event it decides not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, it points out that SETENA's case files are public, so interested persons can appear and make the observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. It indicates that according to what is set forth in technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) of the Project with the receipt stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the conforming land use certificate and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge of its development. It clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant makes it seem, but rather issued a warning (prevención) to the developer as established by the regulation, and that this does not in itself imply that the required assessment instrument must be changed. It considers that, for all the reasons stated, it is not appropriate to require an environmental impact study in the present case, as we are facing a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. It requests that the appeal be declared unfounded.\n\n3.- By a brief filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report rendered by the appealed authority.\n\n4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Proven facts.\n\nOf importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:\n\na) On November 26, 2013, the project called \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" (Plaza Viva) was submitted to SETENA, to which administrative file number D1-9349-2012 was assigned and which consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the rest being reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom batteries, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, among which are commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, and spaces for offices or a free zone. It is located in a commercial area and aims to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be sited. It has 321 parking spaces, integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure, and makes a contribution to the urban quality of the area. (see report rendered by the respondent authority)\n\nb) On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a letter to SETENA requesting the correction of the project's construction square meters, clarifying that it is 15,495 m2 in total and not 16,747.64 m2 as had been previously indicated. (report rendered by the respondent authority)\n\nc) By official letter DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, SETENA required the legal representative of the developing company to clarify 12 points of the Project within a period of 30 days, which was fulfilled by the Environmental Manager and provided on June 17, 2013. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nd) On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested that SETENA recognize him as a party to the file and expressed his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. (undisputed fact)\n\ne) On May 31, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1599-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA recognized the appellant as a party to administrative file D1-9349-2012. (undisputed fact)\n\nf) On June 7, 2013, by official letter SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case the project's environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) instrument is a Forecast-Environmental Management Plan (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), which is why the application of the provisions in Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not appropriate.\nFurthermore, it was indicated that the environmental assessment instrument submitted by the developer included a Study of Social Perception prepared by a professional in Sociology, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the direct and indirect area of influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. (see evidence attached by the respondent authority)\n\ng) According to the technical report rendered by the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental) of SETENA, in official letter UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the Project in question complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA; furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) and indicates that there was indeed awareness among the people in the project's area of influence, since the socioeconomic and social perception study took as its unit of observation the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, inhabited by approximately 2,972 people, of whom 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority)\n\nh) The main aspects that generated concern among the population in the perception study conducted by the developing company were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which SETENA requested the road study from the Dirección General de Tránsito which has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the certified letters of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions are on file. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority)\n\ni) The Project developer delivered to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) with the received stamp of the Municipality of Desamparados; the conformity of land use (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater discharge permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, which reference the plan where the project will be implemented, thus, said municipality is indeed aware of its development. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nj) SETENA has not granted environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the project in question, as it is under study. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority.\n\nII.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant states that the principle of citizen participation is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" project, preventing the population from expressing their views on the matter. Likewise, he considers that given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) should have been required and not an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental).\n\nIII.- On the merits. From the file, it is established that, indeed, the project called \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" (Plaza Viva), to which administrative file number D1-9349-2012 was assigned, was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental). Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters, with the rest reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, loading dock, public restroom batteries, and covered parking.\n\nIt was designed for various uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. In addition, it has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free zone, and has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban area where it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, which classified it as medium impact, as a result of the Project's Environmental Impact Significance being 484 points. This implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), which is only required for high-impact projects. The foregoing was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Court could not question the technical criteria justifying that the project in question requires an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact a project may produce, as it is a discussion of mere legality.\n\nIV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right of the population to participate in matters of their interest that involve environmental impact. In this regard, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information regarding environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must also\n\npromote and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held by public offices on the matter be made available to interested parties, relative to the environmental impact assessments in charge of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), for example. It was the Rio Convention which, in principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:\n\n\"The best way to handle environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the appropriate level. At the national level, every person must have\n\nadequate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information\n\navailable to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.\"\n\nFrom this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues is clearly evident, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great importance for the community. Precisely, through Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that a very broad standing be admitted\n\nto denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of achieving a popularly elected public office, but also, and in this new vision, to giving people the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these are of national importance, or could eventually affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is thus recovered, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, then, incorporates the cited principle through access to available information and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter we are now analyzing, our legal system already provides that individuals may request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been included in the Organic Law of the Environment and its Regulation, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose importance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and evaluated as such by the Plenary Commission. The Chamber has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups\n\nof a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, for their assigned competence in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that in some way may affect the community of their jurisdiction, and indeed, in case of not doing so, they would be failing to fulfill one of their duties that the constituent assigned them, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:\n\n\"The municipalities shall encourage the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in the decision-making of local government. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled\" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).\n\nThus, certainly, citizen and municipal participation is of transcendental importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.\n\nIn the specific case, the appellant deems such right violated, as he indicates that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not informing the community of the intended project, so they can issue their opinion on the matter or intervene as they deem pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the case file, it is evident that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high impact, which is why it does not require an environmental impact assessment and as such, any request for a public hearing requires prior evaluation by the Plenary Commission.\n\nRegarding the municipality's lack of knowledge alleged by the petitioner, it is clear from the case file that from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its consideration, the certificate of compliant land use (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage (desfogue de aguas pluviales) permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, which reference the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) submitted to SETENA bears the received stamp of the aforementioned Municipality. Therefore, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the truth is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of that project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception (Percepción Social) study was provided, prepared by a professional in Sociology, under oath, which shows the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% confidence level on the part of the interviewed population. This study also allowed SETENA to verify that two aspects have been of greatest concern to the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address these concerns, SETENA requested the road-impact study (estudio de vialidad) from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the appealed authority indicates that the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions. This being the case, in the opinion of this Court, no injury is substantiated in the sense alleged by the petitioner, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact (impacto ambiental) of the project or what is provided in the sub-legal regulations, the truth is that in the present case, the neighbors and the Municipality of\n\nDesamparados have been made aware of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express themselves. The Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file for the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been promptly answered by the appealed authority; and it will be in the final resolution issued by SETENA that it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, since the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.\n\nV.- For all the foregoing and as concerns this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is substantiated.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nSe declara SIN LUGAR el recurso.\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nActing President\n\nFernando Castillo V.                                                                                        Paul Rueda L.\n\nAracelly Pacheco S.                                                                                   Rosa María Abdelnour G.\n\nJorge Araya G.                                                                                       Jose Paulino Hernández G.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verifier code --\n\n& 0!,,+0'1#\n\nF9PALLKPGQC61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 13-007375-0007-CO \n\nExp: 13-007375-0007-CO Res.\n\nNº 2013009795\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours zero minutes on the nineteenth of July of two thousand thirteen.\n\nAmparo action being processed in case file number 13-007375-0007-CO, filed by Rafael Ángel Rojas Jiménez, of legal age, married, with identity card 1-830-927, resident of Desamparados, against the National Environmental Technical Secretariat.\n\nFindings of Fact:\n\n1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:49 hours on July 1, 2013, the petitioner filed an amparo action against SETENA. He states that on November 26, 2012, the project \"Centro Comercial San Rafael Abajo de Desamparados\" was submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, and was assigned administrative case file number D1-9349-2012-SETENA. He explains that the cited project occupies an area of 14,400 square meters, with a cost of 14 million dollars. He adds that on May 24, 2013, he submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat -SETENA- a request to appear as a party in the administrative case file, in which he noted that SETENA had not complied with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment, which states: \"Within five business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat shall forward an extract of it to the municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity or project will be carried out («)\". He adds that by official communication SGDEA-1599-2013 of May 31, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA admitted his request to appear as a party and indicated to him that his observations would be taken into account. He explains that by official communication SG-1695-2013 of June 7, 2013, the Secretary General of SETENA indicated to him that in accordance with executive decrees 31849 and 32966 (Regulation of Procedures of SETENA and its amendment), the project developer is the one who must submit to SETENA the environmental impact statement with the received stamp of the Municipality of the Canton. He stresses that Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment orders that any human activity that alters or destroys elements of the environment or generates waste, toxic or hazardous materials, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental). He points out that the technical legal instrument that the developer submitted to SETENA for the evaluation of the project is called \"Environmental Management Plan Forecast (Pronóstico de Plan de Gestión Ambiental, P-PGA)\", for a project of medium environmental impact. He states that SETENA issued official communication DEA-1384-2013 of May 13, 2013, addressed to the developer, in which it ordered him to submit, within thirty business days, an annex to the P-PGA, since a series of questions existed. He alleges that in the meantime the people who are within the area of direct influence know nothing about this project. He complains that SETENA has not ordered any citizen participation activity such as a public hearing to be carried out, despite the magnitude of the project, which is being carried out in a residential zone, where only on the adjacent boundaries of the lot more than 600 people live and thousands of vehicles transit, since it borders a national route. He emphasizes that regardless of the technical instrument with which SETENA endorses the project, it must send a copy to the competent Municipality (Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment) so that it can also comply with the principle of participation by citizens. He explains that in this case the developer directly presented the documents for SETENA to approve the project, specifically presenting an Environmental Management Plan Forecast, implying that the project is of medium environmental significance, which is not true, since SETENA even requested an annex to its P-PGA, so the appropriate course of action was to carry out an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). He requests that SETENA be ordered to require the developer to submit an Environmental Impact Study and to hold a public hearing.\n\n2.- Uriel Juárez Baltodano, in his capacity as Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, reports under oath that on the 26th, the project called \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" (Plaza Viva) was submitted, and was assigned administrative case file number D1-9349-2012. The Project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the remainder is reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, supply platform, public restroom facilities, and covered parking. The project is presented for mixed uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. It also has various spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, a space for a university, spaces for offices or a free trade zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, and also integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure, making a contribution to the urban quality of the area. On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a correction communication regarding square meters of construction of the project, clarifying that it is 15,495 m2 in total and not 16,747.64 m2 as had been initially indicated. By official communication DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, the legal representative of the developing company was given notice that, prior to resolving the pertinent matter, he had to present and clarify 12 points within a 30-day period. On May 24, 2013, the petitioner requested SETENA to recognize him as a party appearing in the case file and expressed his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. On May 31, 2013, by official communication SGDEA-1599-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, this Secretariat recognized the petitioner as a party appearing in administrative case file D1-9349-2012. On June 7, 2013, by official communication SGDEA-1695-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA answered the petitioner's concerns, indicating that in this case the project has as its Environmental Impact Assessment instrument an Environmental Management Plan Forecast (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study, which is why the application of the provisions of Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE does not apply. Likewise, he was told that in the environmental assessment instrument presented by the developer, a Social Perception Study (Estudio de Percepción Social) prepared by a sociology professional was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the area of direct and indirect influence and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, constituting a representative sample of the sector. On June 17, 2013, the developer responded to official communication DEA-1384-2013, which is currently under analysis by the technician in charge of this Project in the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental).\n\nIndicates that it is true that the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) in Article 22 states that within 5 business days following receipt of an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), SETENA shall forward an extract of them to the Municipalities in whose jurisdiction the work, activity, or project will be carried out. However, as the Chamber established in judgment No. 2002-1220, this does not mean that the Executive Branch may not, by regulation, determine based on precise technical studies that a specific activity or project does not require environmental impact studies, which in any case presupposes that such a definition is duly motivated and justified. That is why by regulation it was determined that the cited Article 22 would apply to all activities classified as having high environmental impact and whose environmental assessment instrument is an EIA, but not to other assessment instruments classified as having moderate or low environmental impact. He points out that part of the requirements that SETENA asks of the developer is to present a certificate of compliant land use (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) issued by the Municipality where the activity, work, or project is to be carried out. In this way, the Municipality will know beforehand the type of project to be built in its cantonal jurisdiction, and it constitutes a prerequisite to be submitted to SETENA. He states that the project in question is still under study, so environmental viability has not been granted. In the technical report issued by the Environmental Assessment Department (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental) in official communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, it was indicated that the Project complies with Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and active with SETENA. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to submit an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental). It also noted that the people in the area of influence of the project were indeed aware, since when the sociologist rendered the socioeconomic and social perception study, it is information that has the character of a sworn statement, and is therefore considered current and true. In the report provided, the observation unit was the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence, inhabited by approximately 2972 people. 52.1% of those surveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and 16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. Among the main aspects that generated concern in the population were: the increase in vehicular traffic, which led to the request for the road study from the General Traffic Directorate (Dirección General de Tránsito) that was already provided; and the provision of public services; however, the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services, issued by the corresponding institutions, were provided. He indicates that public hearings, pursuant to Article 56 of Decree 31849, occur when any natural or legal person requests SETENA to hold one, which the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) authorizes or not depending on its assessment of the magnitude of the potential environmental impact. If it decides not to hold the requested public hearing, said commission must determine the mechanism through which it will receive observations. On the other hand, he points out that SETENA's case files are public, so interested parties can appear and make the observations they deem pertinent, as the appellant did. He indicates that according to what was stated in the technical report UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the developer delivers to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) of the Project with the received stamp of the Municipality of the canton where the activity, work, or project is located; the compliant land use (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit, issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, so they do have knowledge of its development. He clarifies that SETENA did not request an annex, as the appellant suggests, but rather issued a prevention notice (prevención) to the developer as established by the regulation, and that this per se does not imply that the required assessment instrument must be modified. He considers that, based on all of the foregoing, requesting an EIA in the present case is not appropriate, since we are dealing with a project of moderate impact that also included a section on social participation. He requests that the appeal be dismissed.\n\n3.- By brief filed on July 19, 2013, the appellant comments on the report rendered by the respondent authority.\n\n4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:\n\na) On November 26, 2013, the project called \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" (Plaza Viva) was submitted to SETENA, to which administrative file number D1-9349-2012 was assigned, and which consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 meters, the remainder being reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, supply platforms, public bathroom batteries, and covered parking. The project is submitted for mixed uses, including commercial and service premises such as a pharmacy, bookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinarian, among others. It also has several spaces for a restaurant and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free zone. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be located. It has 321 parking spaces, integrates improvements to the existing road infrastructure, and contributes to the urban quality of the zone. (see report rendered by the respondent authority)\n\nb) On January 25, 2013, the environmental consultant responsible for the project, Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens, submitted a letter to SETENA requesting the correction of the project's square meters of construction, clarifying that they are a total of 15,495 m2 and not 16,747.64 m2 as previously indicated. (report rendered by the respondent authority)\n\nc) By official communication DEA-1384-2013-SETENA of May 13, 2013, SETENA issued a prevention notice (prevención) to the legal representative of the developer company to clarify 12 points of the Project within a period of 30 days, which was fulfilled by the Environmental Manager and submitted on June 17, 2013. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nd) On May 24, 2013, the appellant requested SETENA to consider him as having appeared in the case file and stated his opposition to the project due to the lack of communication to the Municipality of Desamparados. (uncontested fact)\n\ne) On May 31, 2013, by official communication SGDEA-1599-2013, notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA considered the appellant as having appeared in administrative file D1-9349-2012.\n\n(undisputed fact)\n\nf) On June 7, 2013, through official communication SGDEA-1695-2013 notified on June 12, 2013, SETENA responded to the appellant's concerns, indicating that in this case the project's environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) instrument is an Environmental Management Forecast-Plan (Pronóstico-Plan de Gestión Ambiental), not an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), and therefore the application of the provisions of Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC and No. 32966-MINAE is not appropriate.\n\nLikewise, it was indicated that in the environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental) instrument submitted\n\nby the developer, a Social Perception Study (Estudio de Percepción Social) prepared by a Sociology professional was provided, in which social perception surveys were conducted in the direct and indirect area of influence (área de influencia directa e indirecta) and showed a 90% confidence level among the interviewed population, which constitutes a representative sample of the sector. (see evidence attached by the respondent authority)\n\ng) According to the technical report rendered by the Department of Environmental Assessment (Departamento de Evaluación Ambiental) of SETENA, in official communication UE-DEA-0007-2013 of July 11, 2013, the Project in question complies with the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), since it is submitted by a developer and an environmental consultant, registered and current with SETENA; in addition, the Environmental Impact Significance (Significancia de Impacto Ambiental) of the Project is 484 points, which implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) and indicates that there was indeed knowledge of the persons in the project's area of influence, since the socioeconomic and social perception study took as its observation unit the 725 occupied dwellings that exist in both the direct and indirect area of influence and in which approximately 2972 people reside, of which 52.1% of those\n\nsurveyed mentioned being in favor of the project, 31.3% against, and\n\n16.7% did not know or did not wish to answer. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority)\n\nh) The main aspects that generated concern among the population in the perception study carried out by the developer company were: the increase in vehicular traffic, for which SETENA requested the road study from the General Directorate of Traffic (Dirección General de Tránsito) which has already been provided; and the provision of public services, however, the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the\n\ncorresponding institutions. (see report rendered under oath by the respondent authority)\n\ni) The Project developer delivered to SETENA the environmental impact declaration (declaratoria de impacto ambiental) with the received stamp of the Municipality of Desamparados (Municipalidad de Desamparados); the land-use conformity (uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out, therefore, said municipality is indeed aware of its development. (see evidence provided by the respondent authority)\n\nj) SETENA has not granted environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the project in question, as it is under study. (see report rendered under oath by the\n\nrespondent authority.\n\nII.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant indicates that the principle of citizen participation (participación ciudadana) is violated, because SETENA has not notified the Municipality of Desamparados of the existence of the project \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\", preventing the population from being able to express their views on the matter. Likewise, he considers that given the magnitude of the project, an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) should have been requested and not an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental).\n\nIII.- On the merits. From the file it is evident that, indeed, the project called \"Centro Comercial San Rafael S.A.\" (\"Plaza\n\nViva\") was submitted to the respondent authority for the study and granting of the respective environmental feasibility, which was assigned administrative file number D1-9349-2012. Said project consists of a construction area distributed over 4 levels and a basement, with a usable or sellable area of 9,559.49 square meters and the remainder reserved for circulation areas, services, plazas, a supply platform, public restroom blocks, and covered parking. It was designed for various uses, including commercial and service premises, such as a pharmacy,\n\nbookstore, home goods store, banks, bakery, beauty salon, veterinary clinic, among others. Furthermore, it has several restaurant spaces and a food court, a complex of 4 movie theaters, medical offices, a gym, space for a university, spaces for offices or a free zone, and has 321 parking spaces. It is located in a commercial area and its purpose is to supply commercial services to the urban zone in which it will be located. This project was evaluated by the environmental consultant who submitted it to SETENA, who classified it as medium impact, resulting from the Environmental Impact Significance of the Project, which is 484 points. This implies the need to present an Environmental Management Plan, not an Environmental Impact Study, which is only required for high-impact projects. The foregoing was also corroborated and endorsed by the specialized officials of SETENA. Therefore, this Court could not question the technical criteria that justify the project in question requiring an Environmental Management Plan as the appropriate instrument to evaluate the environmental impact, since, on repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that this is not the competent jurisdiction to determine which is the ideal instrument to define the environmental impact that a project may produce, as it is a discussion of mere legality.\n\nIV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right of the population to participate in those matters that are of their interest and that involve an impact on the environment. In this regard, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information regarding environmental projects, or those that may cause harm to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must also\n\npromote and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322 and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held by public offices on the matter, relating to environmental impact studies under the charge of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), for example, be made available to interested parties.\n\nIt was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the status of a principle in environmental matters, stating:\n\n\"The best way to address environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the appropriate level. At the national level, every person shall have adequate training on the environment held by public authorities, including information on materials and activities that pose a danger in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress of damages and relevant remedies, shall be provided.\"\n\nFrom this principle, the importance given internationally to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community, is clearly evident. Precisely, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that a very broad standing is admitted to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of achieving a popularly elected public office, but also, and in this new vision, to offering people the real opportunity to contribute to the State's political decision-making, especially when these decisions have national significance, or could eventually affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, then, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is rescued, in which they can at least have access to environmental information held by public authorities. The commented precept, therefore, incorporates the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not confined to a limited group of interests. In the matter we are now analyzing, our legal system already provides that individuals may request even SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by the interested communities are taken into account in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been incorporated into the Organic Law of the Environment and its Regulations, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and assessed as such by the Plenary Commission. The Chamber has also emphasized that this participation can be achieved individually, through associative groups\n\nof a private nature, as well as through local governments, to whom, by their assigned competence in Article 169 of the Constitution, full competence is recognized to promote it in matters that in some way may affect the community of their jurisdiction, and rather, in case of not doing so, they would be failing to fulfill one of the duties assigned to them by the constitutional framer, and which has been developed in ordinary legislation:\n\n\"Municipalities shall encourage the active, conscious, and democratic participation of the people in local government decision-making. Public institutions shall be obligated to collaborate so that these decisions are duly fulfilled\" (Article 5 of the Municipal Code).\n\nThus, certainly, citizen and municipal participation is of transcendent importance in order to promote awareness of environmental problems and to assist in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for the preservation, monitoring, and protection of the environment and natural resources.\n\nIn the specific case, the petitioner considers such a right violated, as he points out that the respondent authority omitted to notify the corresponding Municipality of the existence of the project in question, which results in the municipality not informing the community of the proposed work, so that they may express their opinion regarding it or intervene as they consider pertinent. However, from the evidence provided to the record, it is established that the aforementioned Project is not classified as high impact, for which reason it does not require an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and as such, any request for a hearing requires prior assessment by the Plenary Commission. Regarding the lack of knowledge of the municipality alleged by the petitioner, it follows from the file\n\nthat from the moment the applicant submitted the project to SETENA for its cognizance, the certificate of land use conformity (certificado de uso conforme del suelo) and the stormwater drainage permit (permiso de desfogue de aguas pluviales), issued by the Municipality of Desamparados, were attached, in which reference is made to the plan where the project will be carried out and its eventual consequences. Likewise, the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión de Ambiental) provided to SETENA bears the received stamp of the indicated Municipality. So that, regardless of whether SETENA notified said municipal government or not, the fact is that it has had full knowledge of the existence of said project. In addition to the foregoing, together with the Environmental Management Plan, a Social Perception study prepared by a professional in Sociology, under oath, was provided, which shows the result of the social perception surveys in the area of direct and indirect influence and which showed a 90% level of confidence on the part of the interviewed population. This study allowed SETENA also to verify that two were the aspects that most worried the interviewed sector. One is the increase in vehicular traffic that could occur; and the other, the provision of public services. Precisely to address those concerns, SETENA requested the road traffic study (estudio de vialidad) from the Dirección General de Tránsito, which has already been provided by the Project developer. Regarding the provision of public services, the respondent authority points out that the file contains the certified notes of availability for each of the basic services issued by the corresponding institutions. As things stand, in the opinion of this Tribunal, no harm is verified in the sense accused by the amparo petitioner, since more than the determination of the type of instrument used to evaluate the environmental impact of the project or of what is provided in the infra-legal regulations, the fact is that in the present case, the residents and the Municipality of\n\nDesamparados have been informed of the existence of this project and have had the opportunity to express themselves. The Chamber verifies that the petitioner himself appeared in the file of the project in question, where he has had the opportunity to raise his concerns, which have been timely answered by the respondent authority; and it will be in the final resolution that SETENA issues that it rules on the substantive aspects it deems appropriate, since the project under study does not yet have the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it is under analysis.\n\nV.- For all the foregoing and with respect to this jurisdiction, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of any fundamental right is verified.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe recourse is declared SIN LUGAR.\n\nThe paragraph contains only non-breaking spaces and an empty span. The translation is provided faithfully:\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:\n-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:\n-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:\n-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:\n-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:\n-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:263.15pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='font-size:14.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.2pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:12.2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:\n0cm;margin-left:263.15pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:13.8pt;mso-line-height-rule:\nexactly;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span\nstyle='color:black;letter-spacing:-.15pt'>Fernando Cruz C.\n\nActing President\n\nFernando Castillo V.                                                                                                                                               Paul Rueda L.\n\nAracelly Pacheco S.                                                                                                                                              Rosa María Abdelnour G.\n\nJorge Araya G.                                                                                                                                                Jose Paulino Hernández G.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verification code --\n\n& 0!,,+0'1#\n\nF9PALLKPGQC61\n\none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;color:black;letter-spacing:-.05pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none'><span style='color:black;letter-spacing:-.05pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\n\n</div>\n\n</body>\n\n</html>"
}